Talk:fannulla

RFV discussion: July 2021–January 2022
Created by User:Angelucci in 2019. Supposedly means "loafer, idler, good-for-nothing". Not in any dicionaries and has very few hits; the first few are to Wiktionary itself and mirrors, and others are based off of fannullone, which appears to be the actual word for this concept. Benwing2 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Treccani says "fannullone [accr. di un disus. fannulla]" so maybe it's just obsolete. There are some 19th century hits on GB. –Jberkel 12:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books has several hits for "un fannulla" and a couple for "i fannulla", all from old books. I think it passes a basic check. My favorite is the one from the book "Sopra la questione italiana" by Catinelli (not listed in the previous searches because it uses fannulla as a descriptive noun rather than with an article), where he talks about how under democracy the princes would be reduced to "principi fannulla". 70.175.192.217 19:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good word, why did it fall out of use? So much better (and a syllable shorter) than . – Jberkel 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the cycle of weakening by overuse diminished it so much that the augmentative suffix was required to restore its former glory. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I may be too eager to say 'fannulla' is not archaic or obsolete. On the contrary it is quite common. I think the question is not the frequency.
 * The answer to the question, have I or any native speaker ever used the term is most likely a yes.
 * Try to say fa + nulla, literally “does nothing”
 * (more frequent form to say the same the same thing) it'd come out as fannulla.
 * Most unlikely the words “does and nothing” will be obsolete anytime soon.
 * Please don't delete it.
 * Flāvidus (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Cited, with one fanulla that I believe is still the same word. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)