Talk:bruikte

bruikte
A verb "bruiken" certainly does not exist today in Dutch and I cannot even find any early modern Dutch quotes. E.g. a google search for "hij bruikte" gave this: no hits at all. Google for just "bruikte" gives hits, but they are all hyphen products like ge- bruikte
 * Please delete: bruik, bruikt, bruiken, bruikten, bruikend.


 * Well, actually I did find this. An example of poetic license from 1781 I think. And a mention in an etymological work that "bruiken" got replaced by "gebruiken" as of the 17th cent. I do think a good quote from those days would be called for.

Jcwf 23:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure, but you seem to be requesting the entry "bruiken" (archaic, to make use of, to use, to have use for) and all its inflected forms for verification: you request that three quotations are provided that attest the forms per WT:CFI. If this is right, the first thing to be established is whether the lemma is attestable: bruiken. This should be done in the WT:RFV process rather than in WT:RFD. But you have striked the request, so I am not sure whether you want to withdraw it, or what it is that you would like to do with the request. The lemma "bruiken" was created by on 11 April 2010 CodeCat, whereas the inflected form "bruikte" has been created by CodeCat's bot. You may want to drop CodeCat a line asking about the source or quotationss of the term. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do a search for phrases together with a pronoun you get a few more hits. Interestingly, "ik bruik" gives many contemporary results as well. So I think there is enough evidence that this verb isn't just made up, and has been in active use during the modern Dutch period. —CodeCat 20:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept, inappropriate nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)