Talk:sauren

RFV discussion: December 2017
Needs quotations. IMO, "sauren" is simply an inflected form of "sauer" and all the inflected forms of "sauren" are nonsense. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, you could verify the inflection table at sauer. The inflected forms are "saure", "saurer", ... But "sauere", "sauerer", ..., are probably simply wrong, maybe non-standard. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * sauren now has an inflected form entry. The RFVed sauren indeed seems to be an error.
 * Both forms, saur- and sauer-, do exist and are easily attested. As for the positive and the comparative the contacted forms might be more common nowadays, and as for the superlative there should only be the uncontracted form (sauerst-, not saurst-). -Wilhelm-231 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, shouldn't the inflection table at "sauer" use the forms that are more common nowadays? --Bruno413 (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the inflected form of sauren and removed the erroneous definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)