Talk:analysises

RFD discussion: February–May 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (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.

---

analysises

A very rare error, about twenty thousand times less common than analyses per Ngrams, hence/but in the same boat as WT:RFD#implicitedly. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. No reason to keep that I can think of. DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep - seems to have a long history in Google books - back to 19thC. Enough worthy cites there to satisfy CFI. It's comparative rareness is not really a factor, not if we want to include every word in every language. A usage note would be useful.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

However, CFI explicitly (or explicitedly;) says "Rare misspellings should be excluded". - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Keeping my vote with "keep" for this one - seems to have been once used as a legitimate plural. In any case, not a misspelling. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as a rare misspelling. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, it seems to have been a genuine rare alternative plural used by native speakers in the 19th century, especially in the US. [1] [2] [3] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  On one hand, that's a fair point. OTOH, paging through Google Books, the number of hits for "analysises" "analyses" seems to closely match the number of hits for "analysises", which is suggestive evidence that "analysises" is mostly something like a typo (an occasional unintentional error by people who also use the expected spelling) rather than an intentional (mis- or alternative-) spelling; most of the hits I get for "analysises" -"analyses" are by Chinese authors (not native English speakers?); and as I noted about #implicitedly, we delete even intentional (i.e. non-typo) misspellings when they're rare. Still, I'm almost persuaded to change my position to abstain. I wonder if we could find spoken examples of this form. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that most of hits from the 20th and 21st century are errors by non-native speakers. For me the question is about when sg. -is, pl. -es became a common type in English. "Analysises" doesn't seem to appear before the 19th century but I get the impression that plurals of "analysis" weren't very common before that either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Meh. (Although I am the nominator,) I'm changing my position to abstain. (But, to be clear, the RFD discussion should proceed; I don't think it's proper to "withdraw" an RFD that other people have !voted on.) - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No clear consensus to delete, after extended opportunity for discussion. bd2412 T 22:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)