Talk:librarial

Is it really rare?

What makes this word "rare"? One cannot use "library" as a predicate adjective "the question was librarial" versus "the question was library". A Google Book search pulled 95 hits, which is more common than "computorial" and not far below "intravenal". What makes this word "rare"? --EncycloPetey 23:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rare enough not to be in the OED. Pull the tag if you like. Kwamikagami 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are additional reasons a word might not appear in the OED besides rarity. I've started this discussion because sometimes other people find things I haven't. So, while I might pull the tag, I'll wait first to what others may come up with. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this word is so rare (just over 1000 hits on Google). However, it's the best that I can find for my current need - I am (briefly) discussing 'skills of a librarian' in my PhD thesis, and I am using "librarial skills", since "library skills" seems to refer to skills relating to library users. So, the more people use the word, the rarer it will become. :-) Cormaggio 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this rare, with more than 100 raw hits at Google Books in the last 50 years. We have words that are barely attestable (3 cites, some with one from a "well-known work"). I'm not sure that it really even warrants a "library science" context tag, because it is used outside of that context without risk of misunderstanding. To me it just looks like a low- but not a very-low-frequency word. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifications

Does unlibrarial work? Engibineer 13:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't even exist, let alone work (zero Google hits). SemperBlotto 13:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)