Talk:nows

Plural of now. It's given as uncountable, but if anything it's a singulare tantum, I think. I just have a bit of a doubt if now is always uncountable or always a singulare tantum. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The entry was created by an IP, I didn't know if it was ok or not. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: no reason given for deletion, SFAICT. (Did you maybe mean this for RFV? If so, I can say that I'm quite confident it would pass. See e.g. .) —Ruakh TALK 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created by an IP. When I saw that now was uncountable in the article, I nearly speedy deleted it. It should be an RFV but whatever. We'll need a new sense at now in order to make this findable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs a philosophy sense. We need someone versed in Hegel, Heidegger, and/or Husserl (and Aristotle and Derrida, if possible). Maybe we can recruit someone from WP for this and similar terms. Beyond my pay grade. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, bad nomination (by me). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)