Talk:istuic

RFD discussion: July 2017–March 2019
Long enough unattested and properly would have failed WT:RFVN already. The forms very likely were might up by wiktionary. -84.161.16.32 17:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Entered as Latin inflected forms of istic. Some people said inflected forms should not be subject to attestation requirements, and I disagreed, but I do not know what the consensus is, if any. The Latin istic entry now contains some references that seem to have been inserted in support of the claim that these forms do not exist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Some people said inflected forms should not be subject to attestation requirements, and I disagreed". I tend to agree with you: I'd prefer to have attestation requirements for all inflected forms, especially in ancient languages. At the same time, I'm not bothered with having entries for all inflected forms of the perfectly regular French verb, for example: if certain forms aren't attestable, it's only by accident (corpus limitations). --Barytonesis (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD failed, as they failed RFV — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)