Talk:Sanskript

RFV discussion: February–March 2018

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

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.

---

Sanskript

Sanscript

Proof these aren't typos? This book uses it once, but it also uses "Sanskrit" seven times. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've heard it in speech, so there are likely non-typo examples out there. I'll look later if nobody beats me to it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

it must be one of those new crypto-currencies... </jocular> - Amgine/ ^t·e 00:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amgine: You must be thinking of the plain-text version, SansCrypt. (slinks away before audience reacts...) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh… A related typo/scanno I did find on GB is Sanskirt. Which I am resisting punning about. - Amgine/ ^t·e 05:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The language of feminist sans-culottes, presumably. (There, I did it for you.) Equinox ◑ 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have cited both of these. I ruled out any text that used the correct Sanskrit as well. That ruled out most of the texts that included Sanskript, and the ones that remain all had only one instance of the word, lending some weight to the idea that Sanskript is a simple error (although I wouldn't call it a typo, because the p is not next to either the i or the t.) Sanscript was a little tricker, as it often appears as a deliberate pun or as the name of a product that is making a deliberate pun. It is much rarer to find the correct Sanskrit in the same text as Sanscript; authors who wrote Sanscript were more consistent, using it multiple times throughout the document. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved: I consider Sanscript as passed but have deleted Sanskript as an error. Kiwima (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)