Talk:ysterbossie

RFV 1
See Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IDK why this passed RfV (for English at least). There are no quotations and I'm struggling to find anything convincing. So far the only occurrences in English-languages works I've been able to find are within tables of common names, and it's not even clear that those are intended as specifically English names. 70.172.194.25 23:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The 2011 RFV has now been moved out of the archive to the subsection below: - -sche (discuss) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012

 * Previous discussion: Talk:ysterbos.

In Afrikaans the plural of Ysterbos will be Ysterbosse and Ysterbossie will be the diminutive. So I have strong doubts whether that is right. Online searches are proving to be useless, because many sites just copied what wiktionary had on it, so when I get a chance to check some books, I'll do that. CeNobiteElf 15:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The searches should be in Google Books, Google News, or any open-access Afrikaans corpus. I had a lot of trouble finding attestation for the singular, so your prior knowledge of Afrikaans inflection might be both the best we can do and good enough to justify the change. If you are not confident, we can wait for others. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, isn't it simple? The word is presumed to inherit the inflection of 🇨🇬 (which does not have an Afrikaans section). DCDuring TALK 16:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found one use of "ysterbossie" in an Afrikaans book, but Afrikaans verbs lack distinct singular and plural forms, so it is inconclusive. FF Odental's Kernwoordeboek has bos s.nw. (bosse; bossie), and also dag s.nw. (dae; daggie), corresponding to our dag (plural dae, diminutive daggie), so that's a reference supporting "bossie" as a diminutive and "bosse" as the plural. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the plural for bos and anything ending on bos will be (-)bosse and for diminutive (-)bossie thanks to regular rules. So unless we can find citations confirming that ysterbossie is the attested English plural form, shall we assume that the English plural is the same as the Afrikaans one? CeNobiteElf 22:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We should consider ysterbossie an rather than the , because neither of the two citations of it shows it to be plural, and the grammar of Afrikaans also argues it is not the plural form. However, I can't find any durably-archived uses of ysterbosse in any language. There are also no Google Books or Usenet hits for "ysterboses" or "ysterboss", other possible plural forms that English grammar would predict, and there is only one distinct raw Google hit for "ysterboss", which also uses "ysterbossies", but there are also no Books or Usenet hits for "ysterbossies" or "ysterbosies". Therefore, I wouldn't say the English plural of "ysterbos" is "ysterbosse", I would say no plural is attested (  ). - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed such fastidiousness in the treatment of most non-English languages. Generally folks seem to simply assume that a term inflects as it would if it were a regular member of the class that it appears to be in. This one has a stronger case that most as it is an apparently normal compound of a common word. DCDuring TALK 00:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, to be clear, I would list ysterbosse as the plural of the Afrikaans word in the ==Afrikaans== section, I'm only saying I wouldn't list it as the plural of the English word in the ==English== section. We can only just barely say the singular (of the English word) exists, with only four citations total of the two forms of it; we have no citations or references (pertaining to the English word) to guide us in determining if it inflects, and if so, whether it inflects in an English style (eg ysterbosses, ysterbosss) or an Afrikaans-style (eg ysterbosse, ysterbossies). The Afrikaans word, I agree, we should assume inflects normally. - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2012–April 2023
Comments on the talk page reproduced below:
 * See Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IDK why this passed RfV (for English at least). There are no quotations and I'm struggling to find anything convincing. So far the only occurrences in English-languages works I've been able to find are within tables of common names, and it's not even clear that those are intended as specifically English names. 70.172.194.25 23:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * (I've updated the link; in between the time of my comment in 2012 and now, Requests for verification_archive/2011 got so large some terms were split off to Requests for verification archive/2011/more. Later, many were archived to talk pages, so those archives are now small again. At this point, they could probably all just be archived to talk pages with the gadget, though.) - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I think it 'passed' because the RFV was about whether it was the plural, and once it was changed to be a diminutive/alt form I must've felt the various occurrences in tables etc were sufficient. Glad someone thought to reevaluate more closely at whether those occurrences were really sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)