Talk:congratudolences

Request for verification

This article underwent RFV for neologism with limited uptake, in November 2007. 3 citations were provided showing it is not a neologism. However, it may be a nonce word; it does not appear in DARE. As over 3 months have passed, the article would appear to have passed RFV. --Una Smith 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

congratudolences

Not sure about that one books.google.com hit. (Lots of non-durably archived cruft, to sift out, though.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a real word (I doubt that it is) it should go straight to the LOP. That's a real beauty right there. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought there might be more of a word one syllable shorter, but found just one, on "Group:soc.sexuality.spanking" (not during my regular visits):

• Hugs, Rosy... not sure whether to offer Don sympathies or congratulations.;-/ PS Lizzie says I should offer you congradolences....;-)" DCDuring 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also searched for congratudolence and found nothing; I guess others have checked that too, as the page now specifies plural only. --Una Smith 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Books.google.com has 1 hit, to Come Seven by Octavus Roy Cohen (the Wikipedia page gives the publication date as 1920 but the hit is to a PDF'd book indexed as published 1918 and obtained from Harvard University. For verification, would it suffice to ask a Harvard librarian to check the book? --Una Smith 15:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not all that important. The book itself shows a 1920 publication date and claims in 1933 to have a 1919 copyright. I didn't see the PDF but due to the uncertainty I have changed the year to 1918-1920. DAVilla 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the page, my first creation here. I read through all the 109 Google hits and the handful of Google-archived Usenet hits, and they are all North American (US and Canada); many users are academic and most of the rest are technogeek (bloggers etc). Many usages are followed by the user's remark that it is a nifty new word they like to use whenever they can, or that someone else has just given to them. I saw it first in an e-mail this week from a technomaven who is always on top of whatever is new and cool. --Una Smith 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But we're not cool - we're a dictionary. There might be consensus to allow cool new neologisms outside of WT:LOP, but then again, maybe not. Probably not...there was only moderate support the last time it came up. It is very draining to bring that conversation (modifying WT:CFI) back up again - I'm not ready to do so. --Connel MacKenzie 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to wave that flag. I mentioned cool only re the question about who uses the word, not as an argument in favor of keeping the word. If the word is in Come Seven, then it is not a neologism, only obscure and perhaps also old US southern negro slang. --Una Smith 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't widespread then we wouldn't list it in the main dictionary space. However, it seems like verification is giving a few results. I'd like to see another hit for the noun sense since the interjection probably wouldn't be able to survive a future RFV-sense, although the quotation listed can stay on the page. DAVilla 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone here have a copy of Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE)? --Una Smith 05:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone checked DARE and some other dictionaries for me (thanks!); "congratudolences" is in none of them.
--Una Smith 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged "rfv" because neologism with little uptake. The citations demonstrate the word is not a neologism. Three months have passed with no further input, so I am removing the rfv and neologism tags. --Una Smith 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

With three citations over two senses, why not merge them into a single noun definition. Unless we can get six citations (three each). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)