RFV — failed
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Aren't these both nonce words invented for the sake of having long palindromes? The definitions are written as though they would really be used in English sentences. Equinox 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although virtually all Google books hits for these words are simply references to their status as long palindromes (in English at least, it seems releveler is actually used in sentences in French), they are not nonce words in the sense of slithy, which is coined to sound like a real word. In each case, the word is the only reasonable name to create an agent noun for the verb from which it derives, and in each case the verb (unlike something more abstract like rain) is one for which an agent noun would be appropriate. In other words, as long as releveling and redividing are activities in which humans can actually participate, one searching for the word to identify the person engaging in those activities would be searching for releveler and redivider. bd2412 T 08:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Redivider is real, though rare, and will be no problem to cite. On the other hand, based on an initial survey, I have serious doubts about releveler (and its purported alternative spelling releveller). I wouldn't presume to say that it is entirely bogus -- it is morphologically plausible, and only a fraction of all published works are indexed by Google -- but if it can't be verified, it needs to go. -- Visviva 09:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know: a lot of the hits at RuakhTALK 12:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) claim that it's a common word, but I couldn't find a single one that's actually using it, except as a proper noun. —
- Well, I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, but I have added three durably-archived citations (AFAICT the only three in existence) for the primary sense. I believe there are also three durable cites for the puzzle sense, although I can only verify two (Shortz and Searls). The puzzle sense could perhaps be moved to the Citations page. -- Visviva 11:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)