Talk:specificness

Request for verification
While this form is normally considered a misconstruction, it is not labeled as such. --Connel MacKenzie 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because it's in the OED with cites from 1682 to 1966. I agree, however, that we might add a note that most people use the much more common "specificity".  Is it my imagination, or can I detect a very subtle distinction in meaning?    D b f  i  r  s   08:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ... (later) Yes, probably my imagination! It's just that specificity has additional scientific and statistical senses.    D b f  i  r  s   08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more than 600 cites available from bgc. Why are we wasting time on this? Is there any evidence that this is an error, let alone specifically a misconstruction. My favorite citation:
 * This seems like a cleanup issue, not an RFV one. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * passed, thanks DCDuring. All senses of all words should be cited, WT:RFV just allows some words to skip to the front of the (unmanagably large) queue. Conrad.Irwin 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * passed, thanks DCDuring. All senses of all words should be cited, WT:RFV just allows some words to skip to the front of the (unmanagably large) queue. Conrad.Irwin 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)