Talk:adiaphora

RFV discussion: June–September 2015
An English adjective, an alternative spelling of — really‽ — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , e.g. ; seems to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * DCDuring and I have each added an additional sense to the entry, so I've converted this to an rfv-sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those hits make it look like a plural noun, as is confirmed by [[adiaphoron]],, and . DCDuring TALK 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with DCDuring that all the English hits you linked to are examples of the plural noun; on my interpretation, "the adiaphora concept" also exemplifies the plural noun, meaning "the concept of adiaphora".
 * Shall we mark the singular sense, like singular uses of and ?
 * — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't contest the details of the definition, but it still exists; it needed correcting, not deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen no unambiguous attestation for the sense given and under challenge. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would be appropriate to mark the singular sense as nonstandard. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were to pass RfV that might well prove the right way to handle it, but is it even worth the citation effort? DCDuring TALK 00:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we must be talking about two different senses. If I understand correctly, I.S.M.E.T.A. wants to mark the singular noun sense, which currently has three citations, as nonstandard. The challenged sense is an adjective sense, which I agree is not yet cited and does not seem to be citeable. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. My mistake. DCDuring TALK 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)