Talk:aliquot

RFV

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.

---

Almost certainly attributive use of the noun, though the noun sense we have is purportedly limited to chemistry. Other dictionaries have a noun. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a 1794 citation. I put it in the adjective section (where it might belong if that section should exist), but it is doubtless also an attributive use. It is in the sense of the physics of music. — Pingku^dimmi 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think my thinking on this kind of thing has been to rigidly synchronic. It would appear that the adjective came first and the noun followed. Thus, for some portion of the time this word was used in English, the adjective existed without the noun. That it does not appear in predicate position (often, ever?) or as a comparative or modified by "too" or "very" doesn't change that. Also, the noun and the adjective seem to differ a bit semantically. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Striking, tag removed: nominator seems to have changed his mind? —Ruakh_TALK 22:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion

Regarding whether something being an adjective in e.g. Old or Middle English would suggest that "ambiguous" cases in modern English (where it could be either an adjective or an attributive noun) should be regarded as continuing to be adjectival, see Talk:silk, although silk#Adjective was deleted in part because the "adjectivalness" of the Middle English word was itself suspect. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)