Talk:nieselest

RFV

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

I don't think this, or any other non-third-person form in the conjugation table at nieseln, exists. I was tempted to just speedily delete it and remove the table. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

de:nieseln leaves those rows blank. That seems to be what we should do as well. That said, I did find one use of "du nieselst" (although the quotes, and the gloss after it, suggests even the writer thought it was an odd use).

Dann ist das mit dem Aufschlag aber wohl auch nicht mehr so wichtig, da du sanft zu Boden "nieselst" (in Tröpfchenform), so sah´s zumindest das letzte Mal aus, als ich mit Quad einen Rocketjump probiert habe *g*

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I should add to my original comment: not every verb which dictionaries or logic claim(s) can only be used in the third person is in fact so restricted; regnen, for example, is well attested in all persons (google books:"ich regne", "ich regnete", "du regnest", "wir regnen", etc) despite the protestations of prescriptivists. It simply happens that this verb is indeed not attested in the first- or second-person. - -sche (discuss) 10:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss this more generally? Should we link to (and have entries for) unattested inflected forms? I remember that CodeCat thinks we should, and I tend to agree with her. Though in some cases those forms are really weird and it's hard to imagine that anyone will ever use them (such as subjunctive forms of very colloquial words, since subjunctive forms aren't really used in colloquial speech). Longtrend (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, we've always made a distinction when it comes to highly inflected languages between individual slots in inflection tables that happen not to meet CFI, and entire sections of tables that are unattested. My understanding is that a few people oppose (especially for dead languages) but most people support including e.g. the dative masculine singular of the superlative of an adjective, even if gets insufficient BGC hits, when the other forms (nominative masculine singular of the superlative, etc) get enough hits to prove that the superlative exists. In contrast, when we've found that no superlative forms meet CFI, we've correctly listed various adjectives as non-gradable, and when we've found that no plural forms meet CFI, we've correctly labelled various nouns as uncountable. I've only known one user to favour adding their own made-up plural forms to such entries, and when the RFV has determined that such forms specifically do not exist, I've removed them. Likewise with verbs: if all the other forms of akkumulieren are attested, but the second-person plural past tense happens not to be, I think it's OK to include it: but if no non-third person form of nieseln is attested, and other dictionaries agree that no such forms exist, I would oppose any effort to include them. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

RFV-failed, deleted and stricken from the conjugation table. - -sche (discuss) 08:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)