Talk:succamb

RFV discussion: September–October 2016
Alternative simple past of succumb.
 * You can find hits on Google books for this, but I have yet to find one that isn't a scanno for succumb. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even succame, which often appears in discussions of English strong/weak verb inflection, cannot readily be found as a use in Google Books. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the two cites (under References) support the entry. The first shows a character that looks more like a backwards "c" than an "a". The second shows a smudged character that could more readily be read as "u" than as "a". Neither offers unambiguous support. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This entry is clearly "succamb" indicating a simple past form of the verb: https://books.google.ca/books?id=qN4RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA689&dq=succamb&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=succamb&f=false --Tataryn (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that? Present tense makes sense in context, and I agree with DCDuring that the letter looks more like a "u" than an "a" (though it's hard to be sure because of the smudge). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me, but others may have sharper eyesight or access to a different scan or a good copy in print. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That very clearly looks like a "u" to me. DTLHS (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely looks like a "u" to me as well. Note the squared-off upper-right corner and compare to the rounded shape of the "a". Benwing2 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On zooming in (ctrl-+ under Windows using either Firefox or Chrome) the letter is consistent with the first "u" in the word. In particular, the LHS is consistent with being a straight line. IMO, "succumb" should be given the benefit of any doubt.— Pingkudimmi 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On downloading the .pdf and examining the image more closely (page 710 of the pdf, page 689 of the volume) in Mac Preview it is not consistent with the first 'u' in the word, having a nearly closed top. However, neither is it conclusively an 'a'. - Amgine/t&middot;e 05:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only does it look more like succumb than like *succamb, the grammar of the sentence is consistent with a present-tense verb, not a past tense verb, since it is parallel to become (not became) in the next clause. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote from the Cape of Good Hope Government Entomologist doesn't support this either. It looks much more like a misspelling succomb, and again, the grammar of the sentence calls for a present-tense verb (parallel to may be, not may have been in the next clause). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)