- Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.
I've added fortyish here - dictionary.com said it was an adjective, but I am not sure. I'd put it as a simple cardinal number and possible even a noun. Also the word fortysomething could also be used as the same part of speech --Jackofclubs 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, clearly, there's scope for twentyish, thirtyish, fiftyish, sixtyish, seventyish, eightyish, ninetyish etc. ... in theory oneish, twoish, threeish....two-hundredish etc. --Jackofclubs 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Above "(i.e. there are fortysomething people in the room)": I'm unfamiliar with the likes of "fortysomething" as an adjective preceeding its object like this, 'though as a noun (see entry fortysomething) it rings true. "Fortysome" as an adjective and its ilk are more common in my hometown speech (Appalachian SW Virginia Blue Ridge Mts.). Twentyish, thirtyish, etc. sound familiar to me. As an aside: An art professor at Virginia Tech (ca. 1963) decried words like "yellowish" or "redish brown", the "ish" being imprecise. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (9-16-08, 8:11pm CDT)
- Can't we just make do with the various suffixes that go with numbers, like -ish, -odd, -some, and -something? I'm not sure that they are worthwhile as headwords, though it would be nice if a seach for the terms found a relevant related entry thirtysomething et al. as "Derived terms" of thirty. DCDuring TALK 02:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how. It simply tends to be used that way most often, but the same goes for dozen and eggs. Equinox ◑ 12:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- In fact it could be interpreted as a cardinal number anyway; like 'he is three'. Do we have separate senses for one, two, three (etc.) specifically to deal with age? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- Speedy delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cited, I think. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nicely. Thanks much. (Sorry: I hate when people RFV things without first Googling around a bit. In my defense, it looked like this would have been removed without the benefit of an RFV (see —msh210℠ (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC) and Mg's comment above), so posting here without Googling was IMO preferable to doing nothing, and I hadn't the time to search thoroughly.) RFV passed.