Talk:aptly yclept

At the risk of stating the obvious, this page is a bit off a mess. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just got launched; Hopefully it looks a little better now that it's cleaned up a bit. Berr 03:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

aptly yclept
The point seems (the entry is unclear) to be that yclept is rare outside this phrase. All right, so let's have a usage note at [[yclept]]. This is SOP. (Note that WT:SURVIVOR seems inapplicable: this is a standard adverb preceding a standard (if archaic or obsolete) adjective/participle, not odd syntax.) (If I misunderstood the point, someone please set me right.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, SoP and bad content. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree delete. I was going to nominate it myself, but forgot to. SemperBlotto 17:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking through Google Books for yclept, and then that restricted to the 20th and 21st centuries, I see no evidence that yclept is relatively rare outside "aptly yclept"; the first few pages show not a single "aptly yclept". To back me up, neither Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage, The superior person's book of words, The Columbia guide to standard American English, nor The careful writer: a modern guide to English usage mention "aptly yclept" in their short sections on yclept, even in their quotations.--Prosfilaes 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per . —Ruakh TALK 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasoning. And for the record "Aptly yclept is a set phrase where the meaning of both words is retained through context." doesn't make sense. ---&gt; Tooironic 23:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)