Talk:Oxbrigia

RFV discussion: October–November 2015
I looked for blends in Latin, and the only one that we have appears to be a protologism. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. I can't think of any attested blends, come to think of it. This one certainly isn't. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Latin tends to be considered an archaic language, and blends are largely a modern phenomenon, probably normalized by the 20th century. If Latin required a new word, it was usually dealt with more traditionally: using affixes. It used to be that blends were rare, but since Latin and Ancient Greek have declined, blends have become a much more common alternative as a quick and easy method to invent a new word. Classical authors would probably consider them ridiculous and pathetic. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Oxbridge didn't exist as a concept until the modern era, and it would be a Latinization of the English (which is itself a very Oxbridge thing to do). There a couple of unusable web hits ("et in Oxbrigia") but I can't find any CFI-compliant cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)