Talk:glossology

RFV discussion: April 2016–March 2017
In the entry there was this rfc tag:. By the comment it's not a matter of rfc but of rfv.

For me the senses seem to be be valid, though some senses might be dated nowaydays like linguistics should be the usual term and glossology or glottology should be rare and dated nowadays.

Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 897 (books.google) still mentions some of the senses, but uses the words "old-fashioned" and "rarely". -Ikiaika (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RFV is for disputing existence not whether 'glottology' is more common nowadays or not. The glossary sense seems to be easily attestable on Google Books,, the medical one seems harder to cite but real and I think the linguistics sense is real as well. Let's put it this way, it definitely means something as there are thousands of Google Book hits for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found two for the tongue one though they both refers to the same person, Benjamin Ridge, one by him and one by another author (and I don't know who specifically) commenting on his work. Both from 1844 so far so not spanning a year yet either. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you misunderstood me. This wasn't really my rfv request, and I know that rfv is unrelated to the commonness of a word.
 * Thanks. Maybe here is a third cite:
 * MacBryde's Signs and symptoms, 1983, p. 118: "Indeed, by 1844, glossology had become so important a part of the medical art that a physician named Dr. Benjamin Ridge proposed the fantastic theory that the viscera were represented by definite areas on the tongue and that an abnormality in a viscus was reflected in this predetermined area." — It refers to Benjamin Ridge too, but should be a usage and not a mention.
 * The essence and scientific background of tongue diagnosis, 1989, p. 4: "Moreover, the Classic of Internal Medicine recorded that tongue diagnosis, or glossology, can be used to predict the prognosis of a disease."
 * Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter whether you tagged it with rfv or it was someone else; it still needs citing (this is true of anything apart from an obvious bad nomination, like where thousands of citations are easily available). It looks like the medical definition needs a usage note or context label to say that all the usage refers to one person. Which by the way, doesn't mean it's not valid usage for CFI purposes. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have cited for every definition with at least three quotations. Kiwima (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Passed. Thanks very much! — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)