Talk:queerious

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ruakh in topic Request for verification
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for verification

[edit]

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.


Rfv-sense on etymology 2: *queer + curious being curious about homosexuality. I found that in a coinage source, not a real dictionary. Goldenrowley 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The first sense appears to be wrong, too: everything on Google Books seems to be using it for the "queer" kind of "curious" (i.e. strange, weird) and not for "curious" (inquiring, interested). Equinox 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well there's a dictionary that declares it coming fromthe word "query" and "curious" so I don't know how you think that could be wrong - I did add the first definition based on Google books and this dictionary but I think I'll add a word to qualify it as a query-full type of curiosity. Goldenrowley 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was looking at actual books. Dictionaries can be wrong. Books are genuine usage. Can you find the three RFV citations for this "full of queries" sense? I can certainly find three for the "weird, bizarre" sense. Equinox 21:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think you have hit the nail on the head on what it may really mean to the people using it. i am not sure how to go about it if it differs a bit from the dictionary thoughGoldenrowley 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
That suggests the dictionary is wrong. We should create our definitions based on actual attestable usage and not what a fallible secondary source says. I'm planning to come back to this one and cite "my" sense, but I don't know when. Equinox 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed, senses removed. —RuakhTALK 07:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply