Talk:scelestious

RFV

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

I see mentions but no uses.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I only found one mention in the dictionary Word Nerd and one other in a German paper, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen: Volume 76. Could not actually view either instance. One or both could be typos for scelestus. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Word Nerd page is visible via Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Word-Nerd-Barbara-Ann-Kipfer/dp/1402208510; use the "Search Inside" feature). The complete paragraph is:

other terms for wicked are scelestious or scelestic

So, not helpful.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I can find two mentions, not uses, one on Usenet, one in a book titled Word Nerd.

Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly is just indulging in the hallowed practice of coining/reviving words by anglicizing Latin (and Greek) words. Though this is not so fashionable for the past century, it had a long history before then, especially among those with a training in classical Greek and Latin. Perhaps his acolytes and fans will start using the word enough so we can include it. Perhaps promoting a rare word is a way of showing or testing the impact he has on "the conversation". DCDuring TALK 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)