Talk:occulent

RFV discussion: October 2022–January 2023
Possible typo. The term in Webster is apparently. Worth noting that the Latin verb does exist, but has a different meaning than. For the spelling occulent, I only found this, with unclear meaning, and several scannos for. 98.170.164.88 06:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe I dismissed this too quickly, e.g. uses it as an adjective (but is this an error for opulent?),  as an adjective with unclear technical meaning,  as a noun related to agriculture. This paper explicitly uses occulent as a noun related to the verb occlude, which  supports the current definition, even if etymologically "wrong" from a prescriptivist standpoint and even if the paper uses broken English (just look at the first sentence). I even wonder if the authors of the last article took the term from Wiktionary, since it was published after the entry; I guess we'll never know for sure. Anyway, further research is needed to tell whether this term really exists and what it means if so. 98.170.164.88 06:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two-letter typos are rare, but the phrase flocculent precipitate seems to exist, so I'm going to guess it's most likely that occulent precipitate in the nutrition study should also read flocculent. — Soap — 23:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted as a rare mitsake from User:Equinox. Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)