Talk:specificness

Request for verification

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

While this form is normally considered a misconstruction, it is not labeled as such. --Connel MacKenzie 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's in the OED with cites from 1682 to 1966. I agree, however, that we might add a note that most people use the much more common "specificity". Is it my imagination, or can I detect a very subtle distinction in meaning? Dbfirs 08:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

... (later) Yes, probably my imagination! It's just that specificity has additional scientific and statistical senses. Dbfirs 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are more than 600 cites available from bgc. Why are we wasting time on this? Is there any evidence that this is an error, let alone specifically a misconstruction. My favorite citation:

This seems like a cleanup issue, not an RFV one. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

passed, thanks DCDuring. All senses of all words should be cited, WT:RFV just allows some words to skip to the front of the (unmanagably large) queue. Conrad.Irwin 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)