Talk:inlapidate

RFV discussion: April–June 2024
I'm only seeing Bacon. Any alternative (vegetarian???) options? P. Sovjunk (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Originally maybe only, then borrowed into educated speech from glossaries a century and half later, or reinvented in the 1770s. Given the repetitive phrasing “whose hearts are inlapidated by cruelty” in the two quotes I provided from women’s literature, we may presume that it was fashionable in literati circles. OED has not known about it, nor has EEBO other quotes, so the guess is that it was dead language in Bacon’s time. Fay Freak (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The formation is curious; why is it not ? This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Was in- → il- productive in English in the sense of "in" rather than "not"? (According to Talk:il-, "not" was marginally productive.) If not, could it have been formed in English rather than Latin? The hits I could find for Latin illapido, illapidatus were scannos, although my search was not exhaustive. I can find one occurrence of illapidation in a relevant sense, and one of illapidate in some gibberish. - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The way I create foreignisms, I employ elements perhaps productive only one in or more foreign languages, and their grammar rules, in a private sandbox, then let the new words out in the target language, applying its rules. Reoccurring affixes may have never been productive this way because I had foreign-language education. Understanding Latin was oftener them times there, where wifey was well-appointed and laundresses wielded the batlet, so one was uppity enough to pay so little attention to the household that the names of its items become hapaxes and instead from retained writings we but cite words that nobody ever used with a straight face. You push a false dichotomy. It could have been formed in Latin without having been used in Latin. Fay Freak (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that being formed in English would explain why it's inl- rather than ill-, as TTO asked: in+l-→ill- was productive only in Latin, so someone adding in to l- in english would just come up with inl-, like they did here. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)