Talk:cyun

RFV discussion: February–May 2017
Obsolete form of scion. Curiously, the plural cyuns failed RFV, while the singular was never challenged. In my experience (though I don't necessarily agree with it), we don't normally do this, and allow unattested hypothetical inflections to stand as long as the lemma is legitimate. Equinox ◑ 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In case of Latin there are already RFVs for inflected forms above. But well, it might be different for Latin:
 * In Latin one sometimes has to know inflected forms to know the declension.
 * In case of Latin words, especially words with Greek origin, the inflection can be disputed, i.e. it might be unclear how a hypothetical inflection would look like.
 * There can be doubts whether or not a plural existed or exists. Even if English has water and waters, who know whether or not Latin has aqua and aquae or just a singular aqua? But one could most likely ask this for some English words as well.
 * Similary in case of German the inflection can sometimes be disputed.
 * So, to sum it up: RFVs for inflected forms can be justified and can make sense. -84.161.44.63 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)