Talk:futures

RFV discussion: August–September 2018
Rfv-sense for as a shortening of. This looks to me to be the plural of (noun sense 5). -Stelio (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * According to GoogleNGrams, roughly from 1910 to 1930 future contract was more common than futures contract. From the late 1970s futures contract became much more common (about 25x in 2008). In both cases the plural was formed by adding an s to contract. NGrams shows that cotton futures is much more common than cotton future. (cotton future contract cannot be found, whereas cotton futures contract can, albeit at less than 5% of the frequency of cotton futures.
 * So, from a synchronic PoV, the no-s forms are merely alternative forms and, therefore, IMO should not be lemmas in that sense. DCDuring (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

cited. The issue of what should be a lemma an what an alternative form is beyond the scope of the Request for Verification process, and should probably be moved to the tea room. Kiwima (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we should play the ball where it lies. DCDuring (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed (Sorry,, no one seems to have picked up your ball. You might try adding an rfc. ) Kiwima (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh DCDuring (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think a change of venue would stimulate interest. Instead I was "BOLD" and did it my way. DCDuring (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)