Talk:araphorostic

RFV discussion: February–December 2018

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

araphorostic

Nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I DID find another citation besides those araphorostic shoes. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Another word to consider at the same time is araphostic: also with two cites. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

One dictionary that came up when I GB'd "araphostic" said that the preferred spelling was arrhaphostic. Googling that, I found this cite here. Khemehekis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear! Not yet ANOTHER spelling. Between the three spellings, we have enough to convince me that it is (was?) a real word, but not enough to meet RFV criteria. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Has Wiktionary specifically settled on a policy for when two homophonous spellings/capitalizations have the requisite three durably archived cites between them, but neither spelling alone meets COI? If we add the two araphostics and the one arrhaphostic together, we have just enough for the pronunciation without the -or- in the middle. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If no one spelling is attested, sadly they should be {{no entry}}ed, but (like Talk:gaplapper) one spelling will usually become citable as more books are digitized, etc. (With capitalization, things are more flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

araphorostic and araphostic have two citations each, and arrhaphostic and arhaphostic have one citation each. I didn't find any citations of ar(r)haphorostic. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

araphostic

arrhaphostic, arhaphostic

I'm adding araphostic to the RFV (or it could be moved to the bottom of the page as a new RFV) as it has only two citations. See araphorostic. Eventually one of these spellings will become citable, but eventually may be a while. (Also adding the -rh- spellings so they'll all be linked to this discussion when it's archived.) - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Century gives the pronunciation of the -phostic form as \ar-a̤-fos'tik\, which is in IPA /æɹ.əˈfɑs.tɪk/; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary confirms this and adds more detail on the stress, arʺa-phosʹtic \arʹɑ-fꝋs'tic\, in IPA /ˌæɹ.əˈfɑs.tɪk/; both label it rare (Century also calls it "badly formed"). A modern version/reprint of Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary gives the hyphenation and stress of the -phorostic form as ar-af-or-os'tik; Funk & Wagnalls gives it as arʺa-pho-rosʹtic and marks it as obsolete; neither gives the quality of the vowels AFAICS. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone (I forget who now) told me in another thread that alternate forms can count for RFV. If so, this is cited. Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late response, but I don't think that's so... being based on written forms, we've in the past deleted entries that weren't attested in any one particular spelling, until they became attested, e.g. Talk:gaplapper and Talk:gynæconome. If the word actually exists, one spelling will become thrice-attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)