Appendix talk:English dictionary-only terms

Tables? Languages?

Do we really need tables for letters that don't have any entries yet?

What about other languages? abiétin in French only just passed rfd with 4 cites (many more in dictionaries than 4!). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1. No, but it makes it much less of a pain to add them; you can just click "edit" and go. Apart from the sadly neglected letters X and Y -- I had some hope for xenodochy and xystarch, but both proved to be real words -- there should be no lack of dictionary words for each letter.

2. I think it would be great to have such lists for other languages, if someone is interested in creating them. Those could be linked from the top of this page, maybe, much as we do for categories. But methinks abiétin wouldn't qualify; a word would actually have to fail CFI to get on the list (although the broader category of "words that appear more often in dictionaries than in use" is interesting as well). -- Visviva 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to 1, I've added a sample item for each letter where this is possible, and merged W-Z, so hopefully this is all right now. -- Visviva 14:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, if anyone wants to take a section from User:Visviva/Candidates, please go ahead. -- Visviva 14:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

English

This category has been renamed, since it only contains "English" words. Unless we have enough of them, Maybe the complimentary appendix should be Appendix:Non-English dictionary-only terms. We do have one in French now, (deprecated template usage) parisome which failed RFV despite being listed in encyclopedias. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary categorization – what's causing it?

@I'm so meta even this acronym: mmm, but "Category:English terms derived from Latin" has appeared again, so what is causing it? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw: Fixed. I readded it to the category by accident when I undid your edit (see line 1,521); sorry about that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK! Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

General dictionary?

What counts as a general dictionary? I see that there's A Dictionary of Medical Science, CRC Dictionary of Agricultural Sciences, Pocket Dictionary of Dry-goods, etc. Does "general" just mean not national? Numbix (talk)

Genesis of these words

I know it's not an encyclopædia, but ...maybe this is relevant to the introductory paragraph.

I take it that the common assumption is that these words arise originally as a 'mistake' by the original lexicographers? (Then perpetuated by other lexicographers who rely on the earlier dictionary.) Although possibly in some older cases the evidence for usage of rare words existed at the time, but has since been lost.

I am curious to know is whether any lexicographer has deliberately included any non-words as traps to catch out copyright infringers.

—DIV (1.129.106.197 13:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC))

Dictionary list

I found it a bit quirky that the dictionary list omits several of the dictionaries cited. Perhaps it'd be more helpful to just include all cited dictionaries in that list? —DIV 1.129.106.197 14:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)