Talk:aptotic

Tea room discussion
Widsith and I seem to have a disagreement over this word. I am of the opinion that willful selection of an obsolete word (the 150 eyars figure I noted in my edit summary is probably a bit exaggerated, but it does indeed appear unused since the end of the 19th century) does not "actualise" it until it actually sticks (some archaic words have been brought back this way, but it seems clearly not the case of aptotic:). Widsith keeps it to "2006 cannot be obsolete". Any opinions? Circeus 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you want to call it obsolete. Given the 2006 quote, I thought "now rare" was safer, that's all. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 09:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With more quotes I wouldn't mind demoting to "rare". The difference between rare and obsolete/archaic is "currentness": those with current relevant knowledge use and understand the word, if not too commonly (i.e. because a more common synonym is in use). "Aptotic" is IMHO unlikely to be understood, much less used by a random modern linguist, unless they have a grounding in 18th-19th century works. Circeus 02:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)