Talk:deignously
Latest comment: 2 years ago by This, that and the other in topic RFV discussion: January–February 2022
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.
Not in EEBO or OED. Hazarasp Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- To be pedantic for a moment, it is in OED, but the latest cite is from 1499 so it makes no difference. At deignous we have a Middle English entry only. Conversion of this entry to ME is unnecessary, since this form is unattested and we have deynously already. This, that and the other (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You know what I meant. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)