Talk:neverthriving

RFV discussion: January–March 2013
Another supposed collective noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added two cites. I think there are more on Usenet, but I haven't time to look now. It seems to not be a collective noun: see the cites. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The second cite looks like a collective noun to me. In effect, it's making the point that 5 people would make up a whole group. As for the term itself, the Middle English spelling of it can be found in the Boke of Seynt Albans, and all the other collections of collective nouns, such as An Exaltation of Larks, have copied it from there. Sort of like a dictionary-only term, but limited to lists of collective nouns, instead. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we possibly cite this without using only the rec.juggling Usenet group? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. But I've dug up enough additional Usenet cites from rec.juggling for this to pass muster. Astral (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "First attested in use in a Usenet discussion in 1993." That's a much stronger claim than I think its penner realized. DAVilla 05:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RFV passes, clearing. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)