Talk:attested language

attested language
Any language that's attested. Good encyclopedic stuff, bad dictionary stuff. Unattested language should get the same treatment, if it existed. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nominated as sum-of-parts I guess. Where is the proof? A first sketchy proof would consist in listing the definition of "attested language", and the definitions of "attested" and "language" with respect to which this is sum of parts. I suspect that the term is not wholly sum-of-partish, but I am not sure. The only thing I know is that would like to see a specific definition of "attested language" rather than having to guess from the part terms. Like, would the language's being spoken but not recorded count toward attestation? The definition answers in the affirmative.
 * Unspecific hand waving like "Good encyclopedic stuff, bad dictionary stuff" is better avoided; if the reason for nomination is "sum of parts", this should be stated, I think. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes sum of parts? Dunno what you mean by proof. What would constitute proof, a scientific experiment? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of any evidence (rather than mere assertion) that this is a set phrase. Coordination tests and modifier tests would suffice. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted. -- Prince Kassad 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)