Thread:User talk:CodeCat/balneam/reply

The entry still needs a definition, though. Your edit left it with no definition, that's why I reverted it.

What you wrote didn't make sense, though. If it's not used, why is there an entry for it? We only allow entries for words that are used. So if there is some doubt about that, you should probably submit it to WT:RFV, not remove the definition.

Looking at the declension of balneum, I wouldn't be surprised at all if "balneam" were used at some point. After all, it would be a regular back-formation from the 1st declension plural form. Things like that happen all the time in languages.