Talk:verbly

verbly
Not a common spelling SFAICT. —Ruakh TALK 01:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent change by LW, to rare alt-form. It's hard to demonstrate, but I see no reason why it is not true. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is in pretty common use, although somewhat rare compared to verbally so we should keep it.Lucifer (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Filtering out Dutch and Afrikaans brings it down to about 50, with less in Google Books filtered the same. definitely uncommon, if not rare. Many of the book examples (the ones that aren't scannos or foreign-language books that slipped through the filters) are in quoted text that's left unedited to show how quaintly-out-of-date and/or misspelled it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping this would be as silly as having an entry docter as a misspelling of doctor. I vote delete, but if it is kept it should be changed to misspelling rather than alternative spelling. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We actually do keep common misspellings and they are not silly, they are part of the lexicon. Furthermore it is cited in three or more (four) durably archived citations and therefore meets the CFI.Lucifer (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How common is it, absolutely and relatively? I don't think it is common either way. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Books reports verbly with 8,370 raw hits and verbally with 2,860,000 (0.3%).
 * Google Web reports verbly with 106,000 raw hits and verbally with 21,100,000 (0.5%).
 * From these simple searches I conclude that verbly is relatively uncommon and that it is likely to be a misspelling rather than an alternative as its frequency is higher at the less edited Web. From Chuck's analysis one could conclude that it is absolutely uncommon. Ergo, delete DCDuring TALK 21:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per DCDuring. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, rare misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not an accepted "alternative form" (as the current entry claims). Since we don't have a "rare mis-spelling" template, I suggest we change the entry to "eye dialect" which seems to be the intention of some usages   ... or delete it if that's the majority view.    D b f  i  r  s   18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We could combine rare and misspelling templates side by side, but I like your idea of an eye dialect spelling.Lucifer (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: it seems a misanalysis of verbally as verb + -ly rather than a misspelling. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have definitely used it to mean "verb"+"-ly" when I needed an adjective for verb as wellLucifer (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The adjective would be "verb-like", and how could you possibly use "verbly" adverbly?   D b f  i  r  s   16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We call basicly: a "common misspelling of basically". It is even more justifiable as a misconstruction, as basical: is nonexistent in COCA and quite infrequent (0.004%) relative to basic:. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ... so do we delete, or tag it "common misspelling of" or "misconstruction of" or "eye dialect for", or all three?   D b f  i  r  s   08:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 08:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sparse English hits on Google books, which I would prefer to any Usenet citations. DAVilla 14:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted. —Ruakh TALK 00:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)