Talk:megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért

RFV discussion
I can see plenty of mentions, but usage is difficult to find. Definition does not seem to match part of speech. SemperBlotto 13:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And definition in English uses the non-word "undesecratableness". Equinox ◑ 14:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is more of an abusal of suffixes than an actual word, but it's a well known example of one and widely regarded as the longest word that can be formed in Hungarian. I'll try to improve the definition somewhat. Xcvii 17:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be good, but the only thing that will stop it being deleted is verified examples of it being used (not just talked about). SemperBlotto 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) - to be fair, we need the same for antidisestablishmentarianism


 * I can't help with the Hungarian word, but I put a couple of citations at antidisestablishmentarianism... one of which, though a parody, may illustrate the usage of the word quite well, whereas the other (from 1998) seems to misuse the word. — Beobach972 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering why this specific article on "megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért" was deleted. This is basically the causal-final second-person plural form of "megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedés." But why this one? I've been trying to cram the Hungarian word on Wiktionary, which https://dailynewshungary.com/the-longest-hungarian-word/ claims to be the longest word in Hungarian. And yes, the ending part is just a different form of the word, but other sources have made links showing one of the forms in Hungarian words, saying the case name like "kertjeitek," the second-person plural form of "kert," meaning garden, so this should be no exception.

Dragonman9001 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Dragonman9001

Just for my two cents' worth: what I don't like about this form is that the meaning of the suffix -eskedik is rather debatable, hard if not impossible to interpret or construe. To me, it sounds like some kind of insistence but I'm not sure. I'm afraid that other native speakers are not and cannot really be sure about it, either. Language use is based on mutual (tacit) agreement on the meaning of words and phrases but the consensus seems to be lacking here. Adam78 (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)