Talk:&c

RFV discussion: September 2019–April 2020
The missing dot looks like a New English mistake. --Tybete (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There are two pointless occurrences in the caption of this portrait of, c.1761–1766; the third “&c” is followed by a dot, but this is more likely the full stop at the end of a complete phrase. Two more in the title of this book from 1814, and three more in the title of this book from 1863. --Lambiam 11:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Picture: It looks like "&c,&c, &c ." and could also be explained by "&c.," becoming "&c,". Anyway, all three examples are New English which isn't RFVed and not Middle English. --Tybete (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess I do not get what you mean by “a New English mistake”. --Lambiam 11:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The link in the header of this thread points to the Middle English section, so I assume that it's the dotless Middle English form, not the modern English (= "New English") form that's being questioned. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Should RFV's for Middle English be in RFV:Non-English? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Lambian: It looks like someone missed the dot in Middle English &c. like some people do in New English ( sometimes becoming ). Similar how some people miss spaces in abbreviations ( vs. vs. ).
 * Of course the Middle English entry is questioned, else it would be with discussion at WT:RFVE.
 * @Andrew Sheedy: Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification/English, WT:English entry guidelines (it's basically saying WT's "English" is New English).
 * --Tybete (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RFV-deleted &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 13:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)