Talk:purportion

RFV discussion: August 2022–February 2023

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

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

---

purportion

"Something purported; a claim. I deny this slanderous purportion." Zero Ghits outside Wiktionary for "slanderous purportion". GBooks is full of errors for proportion, i.e. totally different meaning and erroneous. And this entry here is marked as uncountable, which seems wrong given the usage example, which looks singular. Equinox ◑ 12:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, it's marked as uncountable because you changed it, though it doesn't make sense that it was marked as countable/uncountable either. Theknightwho (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Cited using Usenet. I found some potential hits elsewhere ([1], [2]), but the Usenet quotations more clearly match the meaning and usage example. Maybe it can be uncountable too: [3] (Google Groups but not Usenet and therefore not durably archived). 98.170.164.88 23:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't even understand two of the citations. The middle one seems okay. Equinox ◑ 07:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of the last two make sense but the first one is surely just a typo for ‘purporting’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to explain the three Usenet quotations:

• The alt.native quotation is referring to statements (about the Leonard Peltier case) made in a magazine advertisement. The Usenet poster disagrees with those purportions, and suggests contacting the editor of the magazine. The word is used twice within the same post so I don't see how it would be a typo, especially since "ing" and "ion" are pretty dissimilar.
• The rec.music.classical.recordings quotation is commenting on the purportion that Parisians are concerned with water conservation or fragrances, or something. Honestly, this is the one I understand the least, which is funny since it's the only one Equinox understands.
• The soc.culture.jewish one is talking about how conspiracy theories (regarding the USS Liberty incident) rely on unverifiable purportions.

Overlordnat1, Theknightwho, Equinox: satisfactory? 98.170.164.88 08:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Our wires have got crossed, I was referring to the potential hit published in the Elba Clipper (‘purportion (purporting) to be the last will and testament’). The three citations at the entry itself and the other two potential hits are fine. The USS Liberty quote claims that it’s the Israelis, rather than their critics, who make unverifiable purportions - in any case this can surely be considered to have passed RFV. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you (and probably Equinox) meant. I agree that 'purporting' makes much more sense there.

Anyway, 'purportion' is much more commonly used (perhaps as a pronunciation spelling) to mean 'proportion' than to mean 'that which is purported'. So maybe the former definition should be added too. 98.170.164.88 09:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to whoever has found citations. I do feel this is one of those lovely "edge cases" where it's really a lazy mistake or confusion (it's not, for instance, an everyday word in Indian English). But 3 cites and ya win, because it's American baseball. Cheers. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Three people made a mistake, obviously we should put it in the dictionary. - TheDaveRoss 12:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, languages never develop at all. Ever. Theknightwho (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It sure does, and this ain't it. The Google results for purportion show us as the first result (very bad sign), with the next bunch of links being spell checking links, SEO garbage, and people who clearly mean proportion. I am not saying this is conclusive evidence that the term is not used, but it sure doesn't show strong evidence that the term is actually in any sort of common usage. It was used three times on UseNet though, so we will pretend that it is an actual English word. - TheDaveRoss 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still three other citations but the first and second citations appear to be typos for "purporting", they don't seem to be nouns in the context of their sentences. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

RFV Passed Ioaxxere (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)