The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Keep per my arguments from Talk:free variable. An aside: has 17 hits, as is apparent when I press "next" to get to the page 2. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep : SIL lists it as a linguistic term . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- But msh210 is not challenging its existence, he's challenging it's includability. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The required sense of free is now present. Its really nice that folks use concepts to generate possible lexical entries, but it seems amateurish or lazy lexicography to simply assume that the multiple words for a concept constitute an entry. This is an illustration of why inclusion in glossaries may not be a reliable basis for inclusion here. We are a still a dictionary, aren't we? If we need to simply accommodate the overwhelming tide of sloppy lexicography, we will be a lesser dictionary for it, sliding down the spectrum toward Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can say this morpheme is free, but isn’t it because of the existence of the term free morpheme? If you just say nouns are free, that would be incomprehensible. Compounds allow splitting, such as The demon I am talking about is Maxwell’s, not Laplace’s, which doesn’t mean the existence of the adjectives Maxwell’s or Laplace’s. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)