Talk:fetii

RFV discussion
Common misspelling of fetuses. Is it really all that common? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure looks like it: . Might even be a correct alternate plural. --Yair rand 03:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, come the f**k on! No one is going to take this resource seriously if we start calling an incorrect formation of an incorrect plural “a correct alternative”! †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a hypercorrect plural, it's not really a misspelling either, it's just wrong, and seemingly unused or used very little. I'm dreading trying to find a third cite, as I imagine there is one. But it is as pointed out below, extremely rare. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s exactly that. (I didn’t actually say or think that it was a misspelling, in case that’s what you thought.) There’s no harm in having the entry, as long as in keeping it, we also proscribe it. My only criticism was of the suggestion that we should in any way call it “correct”. The undefined: → undefined: brain-o is totally understandable; why it becomes so frequently *undefined: is a little less transparent. It’s probably because of words like and, where the first undefined: (which is part of the stem, not the case ending) is misinterpreted as part of the plural-marking. Clearly, it’s not just a spelling-based error — *undefined: shows that a second undefined: can be added where there wasn’t one before, and * shows that *undefined: is the spelt plural of an  ending. I’ll go add a usage note. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The majority of those hits seem to be scannos (scannioi?). —Ruakh TALK 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I never know whether to RFV or RFD misspellings. I count two usable Google Book hits that use it in English. So It'd have to be " " which is just silly. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Google Groups Search. This term would pass with no problem. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * RFV failed, entry deleted: No one has presented any cites whatsoever. —Ruakh TALK 15:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * *Sigh* I've readded it with the requisite three citations.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Ruakh TALK 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

fetii
A rare misconstruction. —Ruakh TALK 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of these abominations. Erroneous pseudo-Latinate plurals are remarkably common. People who use these should be dissuaded somehow. For those reasons, I think this should be kept and proscribed. Also, FWIW, I don't reckon this is particularly rare. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you tagged it . I didn't check, myself; I just took your word for it. —Ruakh TALK 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was probably going on b.g.c. You virtually never find them in properly edited, published works. They're quite common on UseNet, however.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking thereof, the outcome of this discussion will have an impact on, , &c. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On Google Web 160K vs 24,200K or <1%. This is below my personal threshold for relative frequency for a "common" misspelling. The absolute frequency is fairly high though. "Misconstruction" is a useful descriptive label that conveys the undesirability of the form without requiring us to have any explicit criteria for "common misspelling", "alternative spelling", or "nonstandard". DCDuring TALK 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is: Misconstruction of what? It's better to define it as a "Misconstructed plural form of X.", I reckon. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As is, the entry fails to direct users to the normal English plural fetuses. 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How's this? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It sticks in my descriptivist craw, but the rest of me likes it. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Ruakh's revision soothe your descriptivist craw? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That goes down better, thanks. DCDuring TALK 11:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we conclude to keep this entry in its present form? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

kept DAVilla 05:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)