Talk:spierversterken
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
This word is not a single word unlike spierversterking which is. Where is the source? --DrJos (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- google books:"spierversterken". Yup. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Move to rfv though as both the noun and the verb need attesting. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Moved to RFV, per the suggestion above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- While this seems attested, it has the properties of a defective verb. Some verbs in Dutch only appear as non-finite forms, perhaps even just the infinitive. Are there any cases of this being used as a "real" verb, or is it only the gerund? —CodeCat 22:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- @CodeCat the citations in the entry seem to me like they could just as well be the noun as the verb, but what do you make of them? If there are no verbal citations, let's delete that POS and close this old RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- All three are gerunds, so there's not much to say there. There seem to be plenty of Google hits for the present participle spierversterkend as well. So this seems like a "non-finite-only" verb. —CodeCat 20:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @CodeCat the citations in the entry seem to me like they could just as well be the noun as the verb, but what do you make of them? If there are no verbal citations, let's delete that POS and close this old RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per the above, this is attested. So, passed. (Some citations in the entry may not be durable but more Google books hits, including for e.g. the form spierversterkend which CodeCat mentions, exist.) - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)