Talk:nows
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mglovesfun
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
Plural of now#Noun. It's given as uncountable, but if anything it's a singulare tantum, I think. I just have a bit of a doubt if now is always uncountable or always a singulare tantum. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The entry was created by an IP, I didn't know if it was ok or not. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: no reason given for deletion, SFAICT. (Did you maybe mean this for RFV? If so, I can say that I'm quite confident it would pass. See e.g. google books:"those nows".) —RuakhTALK 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was created by an IP. When I saw that now was uncountable in the article, I nearly speedy deleted it. It should be an RFV but whatever. We'll need a new sense at now in order to make this findable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It needs a philosophy sense. We need someone versed in Hegel, Heidegger, and/or Husserl (and Aristotle and Derrida, if possible). Maybe we can recruit someone from WP for this and similar terms. Beyond my pay grade. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, bad nomination (by me). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It needs a philosophy sense. We need someone versed in Hegel, Heidegger, and/or Husserl (and Aristotle and Derrida, if possible). Maybe we can recruit someone from WP for this and similar terms. Beyond my pay grade. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)