Talk:kratocratic

Noun vs. Adjective
Hi, can you provide a citation that supports your belief that it is an adjective? Kratocratic is a form of government to me, not a description of a system of government. Thanks. WritersCramp (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * -atic forms are adjectives. -acy forms are nouns. Compare meritocratic, aristocratic (adjectives), meritocracy, aristocracy (nouns). A noun is generally a countable thing: you can't say "England is a kratocratic", or "it is one of many kratocratics". You would have to say e.g. "kratocratic government" or "kratocratic system". Hence adjective. Okay? Equinox ◑ 16:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree WritersCramp (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

RFV
— Ungoliant (falai) 19:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I could find two hits for, 0 for this. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I recently heard a pundit on a news talk show use it to describe Putins regime. I notice some webpages are using the word kratocratic.  Perhaps, someone with better search skills can take a shot at it! WritersCramp (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Zero hits on Google Scholar. I see no actual usage in the returns on Google Books. Two hits from Google News, one from Vibe and the other from TheOnion. bd2412 T 21:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you hear whether they used the "k" or the "c" spelling? ;) Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We might also want to consider kratocracy for RFV. Equinox ◑ 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I added three links as References that show multiple uses of 'kratocratic' and 'kratocracy'. Perhaps the two spelling variations should be connected, one of them redirecting to the other?
 * What two spelling variations are you aware of? I only see .  If you are referring to, that is a wholly separate word, the noun counterpart to the adjective , and not a spelling variation.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize that websites don't count for purposes of verification, unless they're simply displaying text that is durably archived elsewhere (for instance, an electronic copy of the printed version of a book or newspaper). You need to provide sufficient references to durably-archived examples of usage, or the entry is going to be deleted- whether you provide three or three hundred links to blogs and other websites. See WT:CFI for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)