Talk:inocubate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

inocubate

I believe this is just a rare mis-spelling of incubate. A month ago, someone added it to Webster's list of protologisms, but I cannot find any real usages. The only three usages in Google Books are clearly just errors. Dbfirs 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see GB results for inocubate, inocubating, inocubated, inocubation... I just friggin hate doing book citations, ugh.... — [Ric Laurent] — 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me where I can find them. All of the results that I came up with were either scannos or spelling mistakes. There are many hits in Google Books for "inocubated" but, as far as I can ascertain, they are all scannos for "inoculated". Please add inocubates, inocubated and inocubating to my suggestions for deletion. Fortunately we don't have inocubation yet. Dbfirs 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't look that closely, I have a tiny laptop that's slow as hell. Is what you're saying that when you go to the actual viewer to look at the pages that the words that the search reports as inocubat* actually appear as inoculat*? — [Ric Laurent] — 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have a similar problem with an inadequate internet connection, so cannot do extensive research, and I don't have access to the original books, but all of the hits that I found clearly meant either "incubat*" or "inoculat*". Looking at a few "pictures", they seem to be typos rather than scannos. If anyone can find a genuine usage, I would be happy to revise my view. Dbfirs 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked Usenet. A couple hits were using the string of letters in the wrong temporal tense and with a different meaning, suggesting that they were misspelling some other word, but I have found one hit that seems to use the term to mean "incubate". - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that could have meaning if the surrounding text explained the method, but I believe that it is just an error and should have read "incubate" and that the "o" slipped in by accident. Dbfirs 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally put it there, then decided that there wasn't much point in trying to verify a spelling mistake or typo. If anyone can find even one actual clear usage that is not an error, I'm happy to restore the word to rfv. Dbfirs 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that various forms of this are being copied to the German Wiktionary as if they are genuine English words. I still insist that all the claimed "usages" are spelling mistakes, scannos or typos, and that the so-called "definition" is an imaginative invention. I can find no evidence that the users intend a "portmanteau" word. Dbfirs 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well only Dick seems to think that this is a real word .... I could make up a fanciful definition for lots of other typos (but I won't). Dbfirs 20:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)