Talk:ingo

in-go
I believe this is to be +  (back formation of ). Anglish4699 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2018
To go in. DTLHS (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Created by an anon, and fixed up a bit by . I'm having trouble searching for it, but I see nothing. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It is cited, but I added a "rare" tag, because it is definitely not common. I also changed it to rfv-sense, because "ingo" is easily attested as a noun (missing senses which I added). I do question the etymology. Kiwima (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would consider this not cited. 1842 appears to be a noun, and also might be Scots. 1884 isn't actually from 1884, it's Middle English. I cannot find 1972 by Googling, and 2006 does not appear to be durably archived (besides being riddled with errors, scannos I presume). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about now? Kiwima (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I can't see 1998 when I search on Google Groups, but 2002 is clearly a typo — there are other typos in the paragraph, and if ingo were actually meant, one would expect a different word order. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)