Talk:ᴀᴄᴄ

RFV discussion: March–April 2019
DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Easily cited in glosses in the linguistic literature. I think this is a better candidate for RFD; I would delete it as a wholly unnecessary version of ACC. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This reminds me of majᵗʸ et al and ǃKung et al: do we need citations of these unicode characters? Eh... delete per Meta. - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ᴆᴇᴌᴇᴛᴇ but add sense to ACC.   is not meaningful here.  --Lambiam 18:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as RFD. - TheDaveRoss  23:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. Sense exists at [[ACC]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)