Talk:oorgeul

RFV discussion: March 2020
Listed on, Victar insisted on going through the whole process. —Rua (mew) 09:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is clearly unattested and a RFV really wasn't necessary (a quick Google Books search would have confirmed that), GTB even notes explicitly that the (unattested) Old Dutch term which is assumed to exist based on the Old French has no attested later descendants. It does provide a modern Dutch spelling 'oorgeul', but that doesn't mean it's attested: GTB provides 'modernized' spellings of all older words, regardless of attestation or existence in modern Dutch. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of GTB's practice of reconstructing modern forms. Regardless, if two people are at odds to the attestation of a word, it warrants an RFV, and to claim otherwise is hubristic. Google Books is not the end-all-be-all and a word could very well be archaic and poorly attested, or even mislabeled as modern. -- 18:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, GTB is weird that way, really not sure why they do that. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedily closed. This was a waste of time and should have been handled as a discussion instead of being brought here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I rather a RFV than an edit war any day, and I find your comment needlessly cantankerous. -- 21:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)