Talk:hagborn

RFD discussion: November 2018
The quote is for hag-born, which would be SOP. Meh....--XY3999 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It came from Webster 1913, and we tend to leave those entries alone. In any case, if a writer prefers to insert a hyphen it doesn't suddenly make it SoP, it was a sum of parts as a compound word. A lot of users don't seem to work that one out. DonnanZ (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because it came from Webster 1913 does not make it valid. In any case, I added three cites with no hyphen, so it should be a pretty solid compound now. Kiwima (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1879 cite looks to be a noun. Do we need to create a Noun section for it ? Leasnam (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as it looks sufficiently cited. As for whether to create a noun section, I think we need further quotations to see if it is used as a noun. The 1879 citation could be using it in an adjectival sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an RfV question, not one for RfD. It is obvious that if the word can be cited, it should be kept. bd2412 T 03:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this seems like an RFV question (and the "thou hagborn" citation is indeed a bit noun-y although I guess it could be argued that it's using the adjective substantivally like "the poor", etc). - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD closed as out of scope; if in doubt, RFV can be created. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)