Talk:Christofascist
RFV discussion
[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Needs attestation of use as true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Moved to RFD: no such attestation has been provided, but I'm not convinced. —RuakhTALK 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Was listed at RFV with the comment, “Needs attestation of use as true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives.” However, AFAIK there's no policy requiring such attestation. In general it's good to apply this sort of test, but I think this might be an exception.
The issue is simply that Christofascist is rare — b.g.c. gives less than twenty hits — and the majority of the b.g.c. hits are formally ambiguous between noun and adjective readings. (In some cases the noun readings are a bit, um, implausible — "christofascist people" clearly doesn't mean "people of christofascists", and a "philosopher kings"–type reading seems far-fetched — but Wiktionary:English adjectives makes no concessions on that point.) A few hits are predicative and therefore clearly adjectival, but these are secondhand — things like “those right-wing Christologies to which Dorothee Soelle has referred as ‘Christofascist’” (mention) and “Some of the pluralists speak derisively of the high Christology of trinitarian dogma as christofascist and […] ” (arguably use, but basically mention IMHO), “It would be unfair to apply the term “Christofascist” to this approach, […] ” (mention, and also hard to definitively prove as adjectival, though IMHO an attributive noun couldn't be mentioned this way).
I say keep: there are plenty of reasons to think this is an adjective, and no reasons SFAICT to think that it isn't.
—RuakhTALK 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable, the question becomes whether we want to keep forms which are correct constructions but not attested. I don't have an opinion on that. - [The]DaveRoss 19:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Ruakh.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)