Talk:kio
I think, Swahili word is kioo meaning glass or mirror according to a couple of dictionaries I consulted (for example: Baba Malaika, Modern Swahili Modern English , Publisher:Kase Stores, Arusha, Tanzania, 2nd Ed. Printing 2008. →ISBN. I didn't find any word kio (in the few dictionaries I looked at). --C.R.Selvakumar 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
The Esperanto plural form of kio (kioj) and plural accusative (kiojn) do not exist. Zamenhof clearly stated en La unua libro that kio can only take the n-finaĵo and not the plural -j. Confer https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Esperanto/Appendix/Table_of_correlatives. In my opinion the pages kioj and kiojn should be deleted or at least updated to specify that this form does not exist. Furthermore the kio page should be updates to specify that the word does not have a plural form despite ending in -o, just as the plural forms should be removed from the conjugation. Any objections or comments to this? --Miestasmia (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Miestasmia I've moved your request to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's not very hard to attest that "kioj" exists as a relative pronoun and even as an interrogative pronoun, so it should be included, but a label like
{{lb|eo|nonstandard}}would be necessary. "kiojn" is a different story, I've only come across one valid hit, hidden in snippet view but also present in an errata list. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)- I agree that kioj is attestable, though rare [1] [2] [3]. As for kiojn, if a word is listed in the errata list along with obvious errors like "koscienca" and "intetnacia", I would not call that a valid citation. But I do see enough citations to attest it at Google Groups: [4] [5] [6] —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I meant "valid hit" as in "not a scanning error". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that kioj is attestable, though rare [1] [2] [3]. As for kiojn, if a word is listed in the errata list along with obvious errors like "koscienca" and "intetnacia", I would not call that a valid citation. But I do see enough citations to attest it at Google Groups: [4] [5] [6] —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- RFV passed, with the entries tagged as nonstandard. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)