| Wiktionary:Requests for verification Aug 1st 2011, 02:45 smail: The trick is to try other likely phrases. | ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:45, 1 August 2011 | | Line 5,185: | Line 5,185: | | | :::: I tried to find use outside of that phrase and came up empty-handed. [[User talk:DAVilla|DAVilla]] 06:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | | :::: I tried to find use outside of that phrase and came up empty-handed. [[User talk:DAVilla|DAVilla]] 06:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | | | Should we add the definition of the unix program? [[User talk:DAVilla|DAVilla]] 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | | Should we add the definition of the unix program? [[User talk:DAVilla|DAVilla]] 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | | | + | ::::: The trick is to try other likely phrases that filter out enough bad hits while leaving in enough good ones. (Oh, and the other trick is to quickly skim a page of ten hits to quickly rule out the eight or nine bad ones. Even the best/luckiest searches are likely to require a lot of that.) After a few false starts (such as "my smail" — too many bad hits — and "email or smail" — no good ones), I hit upon three good ones in a row: "smail address", "junk smail", and "smail order". I've added one cite from each. "Smail box" also has good hits, but I think we have enough variety even without it. :-) Interestingly, "in the smail" (cf. "the check is in the mail") does ''not'' get any relevant hits, whereas I did find some hits where "smail" meant "snail-mail address" (cf. "I don't have his e-mail", *"I don't have his mail"), which I think means that "smail" takes its range of senses/grammatical frames from "e-mail" rather than directly from "mail". But of course, "e-mail" obviously managed to develop its range of senses/grammatical frames without a previous non-"mail" analogue, so who knows? —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | | | : IMO no because that's not a "word" with a definition, but the arbitrary name of a product — commercial or not. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | | : IMO no because that's not a "word" with a definition, but the arbitrary name of a product — commercial or not. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | | | | | | | |
