Talk:anabolismen
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
Word doesn't exist in Dutch. anabolisme is uncountable. --DrJos (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- A procedural note: This would have been better tagged with
{{rfv}}and the request posted in WT:RFV. Wiktionary isn't a proscriptive dictionary, so we include incorrect forms if they're actually used- adding context tags like "non-standard" or "proscribed". A quick check of durably-archived sources shows nothing in Google Books or Usenet except in some Scandinavian language(s), so it may be unnecessary to go through that extra step in this case. We only use{{delete}}for cases where it's so obviously wrong or non-controversial that it doesn't need to be discussed. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)- The English noun is labelled 'usually uncountable'. There is no reason to consider the Dutch noun uncountable except that people just haven't had many opportunities to use the plural yet. But here is a perfectly valid sentence using the plural: De anabolismen van verschillende buitenaardse levensvormen kunnen wezenlijk anders zijn dan dat van het leven op Aarde. ("The anabolisms of different extraterrestrial life forms can be radically different from that of life on Earth.") —CodeCat 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. DAVilla 00:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Moved from RFD. DAVilla 00:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Word doesn't exist in Dutch. anabolisme is uncountable. --DrJos (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- A procedural note: This would have been better tagged with
{{rfv}}and the request posted in WT:RFV. Wiktionary isn't a proscriptive dictionary, so we include incorrect forms if they're actually used- adding context tags like "non-standard" or "proscribed". A quick check of durably-archived sources shows nothing in Google Books or Usenet except in some Scandinavian language(s), so it may be unnecessary to go through that extra step in this case. We only use{{delete}}for cases where it's so obviously wrong or non-controversial that it doesn't need to be discussed. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)- The English noun is labelled 'usually uncountable'. There is no reason to consider the Dutch noun uncountable except that people just haven't had many opportunities to use the plural yet. But here is a perfectly valid sentence using the plural: De anabolismen van verschillende buitenaardse levensvormen kunnen wezenlijk anders zijn dan dat van het leven op Aarde. ("The anabolisms of different extraterrestrial life forms can be radically different from that of life on Earth.") —CodeCat 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is also the definite singular form of Swedish anabolism. Added. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The English noun is labelled 'usually uncountable'. There is no reason to consider the Dutch noun uncountable except that people just haven't had many opportunities to use the plural yet. But here is a perfectly valid sentence using the plural: De anabolismen van verschillende buitenaardse levensvormen kunnen wezenlijk anders zijn dan dat van het leven op Aarde. ("The anabolisms of different extraterrestrial life forms can be radically different from that of life on Earth.") —CodeCat 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. That there are no citations of the plural suggests that DrJos' theory that this is uncountable is descriptively true. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Striked. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)