Talk:grawlices

RFV discussion: February–December 2021
I have sought but I cannot find. This, that and the other (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not accept arbitrary websites for the purposes of verification, as they are not considered "permanently recorded media". Please see WT:CFI. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry I got distracted while editing. I thought that I had a durable attestation in a comic but I can't seem to find it. Evidently, the Honeycutt article is reproduced in ISBN 0578560038 and there is another mention in ISBN 0385546785 (but it's a mention, not a proper use). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the plural of grawlix. Generally, we do not require three examples of an inflected form, especially when it is a standard inflection, which this is. Kiwima (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a direct Latin borrowing, the standard plural grawlixes would be expected (see for instance, →, not *crucifices). The word grawlix, itself a fanciful coinage, lends itself well to whimsical wordplay - it's completely understandable that someone should have invented an equally fanciful pseudo-Latin plural grawlices. But it seems to me that this form has not caught on and only survives in mentions. This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Honeycutt citation is also printed in 2020 December 15, Curtis Honeycutt, "Cursing the year of the grawlix", in The Current, page 28, and I would argue it could count as a use, but it's all I can find. The regular / expected plural, and the only one to get any Books, Scholar or Issuu hits AFAICT aside from that one article and on mention in a book, is grawlixes. RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)