Talk:ahaesito

RFV discussion: October 2022–January 2023
Latin. Apparent hapax from one 15th-century letter in the form ahesitas (not ae), the filled-out conjugation table is fictional at any rate. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could ahesitas be a letter transposition for haesitas? Unlikely in a handwritten letter, but the Neo-Latin glossary already doubts the edition. I opt for speedy. For including a word, the reading of it must be reasonably certain, and as this entry was created against or without considering this principle of editing such a dictionary it should be deleted for manifest error of assessment. Fay Freak (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right that it's an error (in the edition?). The edition is here, "Quid ahesitas et ora convertis?", but on the page just before that there's "Quid cogitas, quid haesitas?", the expected form. Scanning over the letter I can't see other cases of substitution of e for ae, which makes it even more likely to be a transposition error. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed, appears to be an error. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)