Talk:yunino

RFV discussion
I cannot find any attestation for this word in Ido. I therefore request verification for this word. Thanks, Razorflame 19:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it has three interwikis, all saying this word is Ido for woman. But don't know if Ido is used enough for the words to pass an RFV. It would be interesting to know how many Esperanto/Ido words haven't been used enough to pass RFV, but in practice I wouldn't want to lose those words. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this, but I just can't see why we should keep words that cannot be verified. I've also listed two Esperanto words further down on this page that you might want to check out.  Cheers, Razorfl<b style="color:#003">am</b><b style="color:#000">e</b> 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt it has been used enough to pass RFV. The problem is finding the citations, since Google Books doesn't show much on a language post-1923. It's used several times in the Ido Wikipedia, it's used repeatedly in websources, including primers, so I suspect even the most basic physical primer would give us a cite. I can't find scans of any Ido books on the web, though.
 * Esperanto is not on the same foot. While it's not as trivial as English or some of the other major language to find cites, there are tens of thousands of books out there, including transcriptions of a growing corpus, that makes all the basic vocabulary easily citable. I suspect in practice finding all the conjugations for some words may be hard, but that can be true in English, too.--Prosfilaes 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)