Talk:ngeli

There is no actual definition given here, either in English or Swahili. A quick Google search shows that it might actually be a form of conditional tense. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is -ngeli-, which should exist, but I'm RFVing this. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, this was my mistake. It ought to have existed as a Swahili L2, which I will recreate shortly. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ngeli
Inaccurate meaning for one thing, but this word doesn't exist at all AFAICT. It seems to be a confusion with a tense marked by the infix -ngeli-. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you make of these: ? There are quite a few cites with this as a standalone word. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ngeli (English)
Whoa, I didn't realise that there was an English L2 on this page as well. See above. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the pdf on the page does use it. Is that really a published work? I can't vouch for it. Also if it's just an error surely a published error isn't protected by "all words in all languages" because it is nevertheless not a word in any language. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cited. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. The capitalization of those citations is all over the place, and some are italicized (which we have traditionally seen as suggesting that the writer considered the word to be foreign, non-English)... - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a certain difficulty posed by the fact that in the citations currently placed under the English sense, the word is generally italicized or set off in quotation marks as if it were Swahili. It makes it hard to consider that "ngeli" has been shown to be either a Swahili or an English word. If no-one has any additional comments or—preferably, citations—to add, I will "clock out" this entry (as DCDuring has been known to say) and delete both language sections as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 09:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've said elsewhere, I think the deletion of an attestable spelling because we don't have a good L2 to put it under does a disservice to our users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which language section would you keep? - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As no-one has offered an argument that the citations support one language section or the other, I have deleted the entry as RFV-failed per my 09:55, 16 January 2014 assessment. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)