Talk:-aaS
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: November–December 2017
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Is it used this way? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- It seems so: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, I admit that it looks to be legit. But is it really a suffix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- No. Prepositional phrase that happens to be abbreviated, like "...OTW" for "of the week". Equinox ◑ 17:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you look at the derived terms, it looks like a suffix. Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Equinox ◑ 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- I want it deleted because it isn't a suffix. Had I taken it to RFD, I might been told to bring it here for evidence of suffixhood (not IMO provided). Equinox ◑ 03:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't much care one way or the other whether we keep it, but what would evidence of suffix-hood look like? Is your objection because D, P, and S in DaaS, PaaS, and SaaS are not words? I have seen dataaaS and platformaaS, but not in durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Basically yes. Creating initialisms isn't morphology as such, is it? We wouldn't create a suffix "-A" meaning "association" based on the existence of RSPCA and WBA. Equinox ◑ 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)