Talk:ingo

in-go

I believe this is to be in- + go (back formation of ingoing). Anglish4699 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2018

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

ingo

To go in. DTLHS (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Created by an anon, and fixed up a bit by @Equinox. I'm having trouble searching for it, but I see nothing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It is cited, but I added a "rare" tag, because it is definitely not common. I also changed it to rfv-sense, because "ingo" is easily attested as a noun (missing senses which I added). I do question the etymology. Kiwima (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I would consider this not cited. 1842 appears to be a noun, and also might be Scots. 1884 isn't actually from 1884, it's Middle English. I cannot find 1972 by Googling, and 2006 does not appear to be durably archived (besides being riddled with errors, scannos I presume). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How about now? Kiwima (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can't see 1998 when I search on Google Groups, but 2002 is clearly a typo — there are other typos in the paragraph, and if ingo were actually meant, one would expect a different word order. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)