English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The usage of Dieter Wisclieceny’s statements and testifications from the Nuremberg Trials as the basis for the interrogation and trial of Eichmann is also accurate.

In Microsoft word, the "testifications" is being underlined in red. The spell check language I have is US English. A google of the term reveals that there is indeed a term called testifications. It probably is a British English term.

Should I just ignore the red line or is there a replacement word for 'testfications'.

As a side question, is there a better way to formulate the sentence above?

share|improve this question
The correct word is testimony. "Testifications" sounds more like George W Bush than Winston Churchill. – St John of the Cross Mar 17 '13 at 19:00
@StJohnoftheCross Thats the word I was looking for. Thanks. – Joe Slater Mar 17 '13 at 19:04
@StJohnoftheCross: Bush :) LOL. That was funny. – Noah Mar 17 '13 at 19:27
Another acceptable alternative would be attestations (the action of bearing witness). Not that testifications is incorrect "by the book", but it's pretty unusual phrasing for this day & age. – FumbleFingers Mar 17 '13 at 23:51
up vote 2 down vote accepted

First rule of thumb: Microsoft is usually wrong. You should seriously consider disabling its nannying.

Certainly testification is a word, but per the OED it is now “rare”. You just want testimony.

testification [ˌtɛstɪfɪˈkeɪʃən].

Now rare.

Etymology: a. obs. Fr. testificacion (1400 in Godef.), or ad. L. testificātiōn-em, n. of action f. testificārī to testify.

The action or an act of testifying; the testimony borne; a fact or object (as a document, etc.) serving as evidence or proof.

  • C. 1450 Cov. Myst. vii. (1841) 69 — Wyttnessynge here, be trew testyficacion, That maydenys childe xal be prince of pes.
  • 1593 Abp. Bancroft Daung. Posit. i. iii. 10 — A testification was made of their intentes.
  • 1633 Sanderson Serm. (1681) II. 30 — Honour..is an acknowledgment or a testification of some excellency or other in the person honoured, by some reverence or observance answerable thereunto.
  • 1640-1 Kirkcudbr. War-Comm. Min. Bk. (1855) 42 — That he shall bring..Margaret Sampell’s testification that he is her hired servant.
  • 1671 Flavel Fount. Life xi, — Thankofferings, in Testification of Homage, Duty and Service.
  • 1718 Hickes & Nelson J. Kettlewell ii. xxxii. 139 — For the perpetual Testification whereof there was an Instrument drawn up.
  • 1865 G. Meredith Rhoda Fleming ix, — The thin blue-and-pink paper, and the foreign postmarks-testifications to Dahlia’s journey.
share|improve this answer
Although a spell checker with too many obscure words isn't necessarily good. One that allowed 'wether' as a castrated goat is accurate but probably unhelpful – mgb Mar 18 '13 at 4:17

I hadn't heard this word before. Google Books doesn't seem to confirm it either. So if it even existed, it would be very colloquial. I would go with Testimony, which according to the OED means:

a formal written or spoken statement, esp. one given in a court of law.

share|improve this answer
No, it is not colloquial: it’s old, and now rare. That verging on the opposite of colloquial. – tchrist Mar 17 '13 at 19:59

As for recasting the sentence, I think the following would be better, although the use of the word accurate in the original version is a little puzzling to me:

It is true, the statements and testimony of Dieter Wisclieceny were the basis for interrogating Eichmann at his trial.

share|improve this answer
By accurate I mean that it is historically accurate and not a fictional representation. (I am analysing a movie for historical accuracy) That is actually the main point of my sentence so I can't remove that part. – Joe Slater Mar 17 '13 at 20:09
How about: To say Dieter Wisclieceny's statements and testimony were the basis for interrogating Eichmann at his trial is accurate historically. – rhetorician Mar 17 '13 at 20:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.