Timeline for What is the agent noun of the verb mirror?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 22, 2020 at 11:54 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | @A.McBroom That is certainly true, but ELU deals with words that have achieved that status, not with neologisms that are still in the candidate stage. – Hellion | |
| Feb 22, 2020 at 11:54 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | 'have went': 2017-1990 in COCA alone:117 hits. That's becoming statistically significant. // From previous thread: No; as it is not accepted by a sufficient user base, as shown by its non-inclusion in dictionaries, it's not a word. Merely a candidate. Recommending that others use it is at this moment contrary to the descriptivist leanings of ELU. – Edwin Ashworth / Actually, new words are constantly being added to dictionaries as their use, in effect, makes them real. – A. McBroom ... | |
| Feb 22, 2020 at 6:32 | comment | added | Tenders McChiken | @herisson Thank you for taking the time to search for prior examples and to write out such a thorough response. I want to let you know that your arguments make the most sense to me, but as a layman I prefer not to place too much stock in my intuition and instead will wait for this community to reach a consensus before accepting an answer. | |
| Feb 21, 2020 at 20:15 | comment | added | Jay | [...] Another example of a non-standard question on EL&U: english.stackexchange.com/questions/247865/… | |
| Feb 21, 2020 at 20:09 | comment | added | herisson | @EdwinAshworth: It's an odd definition of "wordness" that doesn't acknowledge the evidence of an author using a word-form multiple times as proof that the form exists as a word for that author. There is a difference between well-established words and new words formed by productive morphological processes; that doesn't mean that the second kind are merely "candidate words" until they become widespread or until lexicographers make note of them. (Consider that processes of word formation are something linguists study and are clearly within the scope of this site.) | |
| Feb 21, 2020 at 20:07 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | A few references on the internet has never been considered proof of wordness on ELU, and candidate words are considered outside the allowable scope. | |
| Feb 21, 2020 at 20:04 | comment | added | herisson | @EdwinAshworth: What do you mean by that? I can't figure out how it would be possible to reach an objective determination of whether "rare" = "non-standard" for a word like this. Dictionaries are not capable of giving an exhaustive list of "standard" English; modern lexicographers do not even attempt such a task. I think it's better to report objective data like citations or information about the frequency of a form (very low, in this case) than to give opinion-based judgments about whether a word not found in dictionaries is "standard" or "non-standard". | |
| Feb 21, 2020 at 20:01 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | Non-standard usages are not recommended by / on ELU. | |
| Feb 21, 2020 at 19:42 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2020 at 19:26 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 711 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2020 at 19:13 | history | answered | herisson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |