Talk:miasmic

RFV discussion
The creator of the entry gave only the definition "miasmal", which entry says "Having a noxious atmosphere". However, this does not tally with the quotation I have found and added to the entry. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's how the OED defines it, too; however, its entry for miasmal, adj. is defined more broadly, as "Of, relating to, or consisting of miasma; producing or containing noxious vapour or effluvia. Freq. fig.". Also compare its definition of the better-formed, viz. "Relating to, containing, or of the nature of a miasma; caused by noxious or infectious vapour. Also fig." Would you say they cover the usage you cited? BTW, please include a page reference or equivalent when citing; if you don't, how could a user be expected to verify the quotation's accuracy and/or existence?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My search source did not include page numbers, or I would have cited a page number. I can only cite what my source includes. --EncycloPetey 19:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think that the information you've quoted from the OED covers more than one sense, and our entry should reflect that. A "miasmic forest" and a "miasmic apparition" are not using the word in the same way.  I can find quotations for both combinations. --EncycloPetey 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure; do what you think.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Striking: entry was de-tagged by nominator. —Ruakh TALK 03:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)