Talk:bonusses

RFV discussion: September–October 2021
Bonusses is listed as a plural of 'bonus' in english. However, the listed sources are not linguistics papers or dictionaries, but rather unrelated papers that seem to have had a typo. The correct plural form of 'bonus' is 'bonuses'.


 * You have added the rfv template to the singular verb form, not to the plural noun. Wiktionary goes by actual use, not by prescriptions of what is correct. We even list the plurals and, although marking the former as “nonstandard” rather than “incorrect” and the latter as “hypercorrect”. We do note at  and  that the singular use of these plurals is “usually still considered incorrect”. The plural bonusses may be considered British spelling; compare the plural .  --Lambiam 07:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen "bonusses", BTW, whether in British or US text. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some occurrences:, , . --Lambiam 12:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Roger the Rodger (Wonderfool) added the label “nonstandard”; what is the correct label?: “uncommon, British”; “dated”; or is it nonstandard? Compare (us → usses),,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. J3133 (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they are indeed nonstandard as we define it (“not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers”), but common enough in regions where the verb forms and  are standard. I think it best not to apply the label dated to a spelling that once was not-nonstandard (possibly by lack of a standard), but use dated spelling of, superseded spelling of, or even archaic spelling of if applicable, in the definition proper after any labels. I suppose in these cases we can combine the label en with the form-of template nonstandard spelling of.  --Lambiam 07:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)