Talk:suglamuman
Add topic
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
We discussed this before, the word "suglamuman" itself is not used anywhere, not found in publications, misspelling of "suglaguman" only online, the wrong spelling only found in online wordlists. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't occur in anything durably archived, though it can be found online. The online occurrences are not particularly numerous.
I'm inclined to call this RFV-failed under the rare misspellings clause. 70.172.194.25 07:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC) - I just checked the "correct" spelling and it doesn't have any Google-indexed hits in durably archived sources either. There is a reference, " Maugnaying Talasalitaang Pang-agham Ingles-Pilipino", but it looks like it would be a dictionary and therefore a mention not a use. In fact, this misspelling has more Google hits! How sure are we that this is a misspelling? Should either form be kept? @Mar vin kaiser. 70.172.194.25 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: It's a popular misspelling. Maybe it can be tracked because of its greater usage. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser: I can't find either form attested in durably archived sources to which I have access (Google Books/Scholar/Groups, Internet Archive, Issuu). Do you even know of any books that use the proper form suglaguman? Maybe school textbooks that aren't indexed by Google? Regardless, based on what's easily available to me (Google), I would say that as long as suglaguman is kept, suglamuman should be too; the erroneous form has more hits than the normative spelling. So basically there are two options:
- Call this RfV-failed, send suglaguman to RfV too, and that will probably also end up as RfV-failed (unless real textbooks, etc. turn up).
- Cite both using Twitter/Reddit and hold a two-week discussion (per WT:CFI) to see if people think the online sourcing is sufficient.
- How should we proceed? 70.172.194.25 06:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: By the way, are you using a registered account? Or is your account name really just numbers? Anyway, the thing is, this falls under a special category in Tagalog lemmas that is currently has hundreds of entries called the "Maugnayin" words. These are neologisms, coinages, done in the 1960's, but not in use today, but many people, though not mainstream, still use them from time to time, especially in saying that this particular coinage is the Tagalog word for this scientific term. Also, if you're referring to attestations in online forums, there was a vote for that some time back, result as far as I understand it is to allow social media attestations for now. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser: I can't find either form attested in durably archived sources to which I have access (Google Books/Scholar/Groups, Internet Archive, Issuu). Do you even know of any books that use the proper form suglaguman? Maybe school textbooks that aren't indexed by Google? Regardless, based on what's easily available to me (Google), I would say that as long as suglaguman is kept, suglamuman should be too; the erroneous form has more hits than the normative spelling. So basically there are two options:
- @70.172.194.25: It's a popular misspelling. Maybe it can be tracked because of its greater usage. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)