Talk:inclues

RFD discussion: August–December 2020
This doesn't represent any valid inflection of. The proper 2nd person singular inflection is. The form "inclues" may have been valid in an old orthography, but it certainly isn't correct by current standards. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is an obsolete spelling, just like ? Thadh (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I see you have already proposed this, perhaps it is then more fitting to RFV it? Thadh (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't delete obsolete or nonstandard spellings if they are or were in use- we just label them as such and refer the reader to the main entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On top of that, according to this (although perhaps not the most valid source), the second-person singular is indeed inclues. Any thoughts on that? Thadh (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's definitely incorrect, at least for current Portuguese orthography. See for example this conjugation table from Infopédia, an online dictionary from a reputable Portuguese educational publisher (Porto Editora).
 * That said, looking at the talk page of inclue (thanks for the pointer, Thadh!), I agree to resolve this in the same manner, as an obsolete spelling of (though I wish Ungoliant had indicated some source for the attestation). Thanks all for the comments! --Waldyrious (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not usually add citations when the word can be found easily on Google Books, as is the case. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now edited inclue and inclues to include (heh) the French meanings, and created inclúe and inclúes for the Galician ones. --Waldyrious (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by the RFD submitter. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)