Talk:gloss

Placed under incorrect etymology

I believe that the second variant verb meaning under etymology 2 actually belongs within the confines of etymology 1 and that a verb section needs to be created there for it. __meco 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2014–July 2015

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.

---

gloss

RFV of the noun sense "A deliberately misleading explanation." and the verb sense "To give a deliberately false interpretation of." It's not in the OED, but it is in M-W. Anyway, it would be nice to have quotations. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The OED has "to veil in specious language". This is the same sense, isn't it? This sense seems to be derived via both etymological routes. Dbfirs 16:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a verb, so it's not exactly the same sense, no. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)