Talk:Dord

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 28, 2024.

untitled[edit]

Wikiquestor's note: This needs to be made a bit less POV. Other than that, I am linking it into the main body of articles. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 07:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should we mention the Stone Roses song, I Wanna Be a Dord? —Ashley Y 01:27, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't mean this entry will be deleted from Wikipedia. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Accident?[edit]

Are we sure that it was accidentally inserted in the dictionary? There is wide speculation that some publishers actually include "nihilartikel" in their dictionaries to see if the word catches on. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no source that suggests otherwise.--Prosfilaes 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of the dictionary published an account in a linguistic journal detailing how it was inadvertantly printed in the dictionary. This is cited in the article's page. PedanticallySpeaking 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long was it printed?[edit]

I ask because all references imply it was only there for about five years...yet, my 1943 printing still contains the word - that's nine years minimum... I'm thinking this page should mention that more specifically. Crizzly (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of W2 dated 1947 in which the dord entry is still present 91.105.46.183 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you think until this word will get into actual usage?[edit]

I give it 50 years. SmroWofnaC (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is shorter than "density", just one syllable as opposed to three. We're all linguistically lazy, always shortening and abbreviating words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.67.197 (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this citation?[edit]

"Boole's Rule - from Wolfram MathWorld". Mathworld.wolfram.com. 2009-10-27. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BoolesRule.html. Retrieved 2009-11-13.

Doesn't really seem relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiam1185 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is for the benefit of people who don't bother to read the other article and need to have it explained to them how a See also entry is relevant before deleting it due to their own ignorance. 9³ (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]