Talk:Diprodontia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by BD2412 in topic RFD discussion: January–April 2015
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Correct spelling is already at Diprotodontia. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, this is citable: 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure if this should be classified as a misspelling or a haplologised alternative form. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Glad I didn't speedy it. Are haplologize/haplologise citable. Even if they aren't, it would be a fine addition to Wiktionary:Glossary. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- At Google Scholar it's 1400:60 (raw count, apparently actually more like 1000:60) favoring Diprotodontia, which is in line with it not appearing on the databases that I've looked at. The shorter spelling is certainly less accepted, not following standard name-construction practice from
the stem (όντ-) of Ancient Greek ὀδούς (odoús, “tooth”) thatthe genus Diprotodon, instead reconstructing the word from πρό (pró, “in front”) instead of πρῶτος (prôtos, “first”)is derived from. See aso Diprotodontidae. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)- Google Scholar would provide enough attestation to support haplologize, but not haplologise AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think I've managed to cite both spellings. Most of the citations of haplologise are of the past tense form, but their grammatical environments make clear that they are verb forms rather than adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- But are the haplologized forms haplogize/haplogise attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sadly not, but that's what we have
{{examples-right}}for. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sadly not, but that's what we have
- But are the haplologized forms haplogize/haplogise attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think I've managed to cite both spellings. Most of the citations of haplologise are of the past tense form, but their grammatical environments make clear that they are verb forms rather than adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Google Scholar would provide enough attestation to support haplologize, but not haplologise AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- At Google Scholar it's 1400:60 (raw count, apparently actually more like 1000:60) favoring Diprotodontia, which is in line with it not appearing on the databases that I've looked at. The shorter spelling is certainly less accepted, not following standard name-construction practice from
- Keep as a common mispelling. google books:"Diprodontia": 47 hits (after clicking next); google books:"Diprotodontia": 4,810 hits. Frequency ratio is approximately 100. Compare (concieve*1000), conceive at Google Ngram Viewer or (aquire*1000),acquire at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the above discussion. I've relabelled it a nonstandard form of Diprotodontia; if someone would rather relabel it a misspelling, go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept. bd2412 T 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)