Talk:flabaghast
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sgconlaw in topic RFV discussion: April 2019
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
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.
"Past participle of flabagast." Seems doubtful. Why wouldn’t it simply be flabagast? Also, why wouldn't flabagasted be both the simple past and past participle form (as with flabbergasted)? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is an alt form of an alt form, surely that shouldn't be a thing. - TheDaveRoss 12:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- One would expect flabagast and flabaghast to inflect preserving the -g- and -gh-, yet the pp of flabagast is unexpectedly listed as flabaghast. I think that's the issue. Could it be that a typo in the inflection template at flabagast has then propagated to an entry at flabaghast? Mihia (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. If indeed flabagast has an unusual past participle form, I don’t see why it should be flabaghast (with the extra h) and not just flabagast. Should I be bold and change it? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would say so, yes. The way it is right now seems very implausible. Mihia (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. If indeed flabagast has an unusual past participle form, I don’t see why it should be flabaghast (with the extra h) and not just flabagast. Should I be bold and change it? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- One would expect flabagast and flabaghast to inflect preserving the -g- and -gh-, yet the pp of flabagast is unexpectedly listed as flabaghast. I think that's the issue. Could it be that a typo in the inflection template at flabagast has then propagated to an entry at flabaghast? Mihia (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can either form (flabagast or flabaghast) be attested as a past participle? I see some occurrences of flabagasted ([1], [2], [3]) in that role, but none of flabag(h)ast. --Lambiam 16:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Google Book Search for "was flabaghast" gives me one relevant hit: "At this I was rendered completely flabaghast". I get a lot more hits for "was flabbergast", and I suppose that what's good for one spelling variant is good for another. Incidentally, we don't list "flabbergast" as an alternative pp for flabbergast. Perhaps all the spelling variants should list both the irregular and the regular "-ed" form? Mihia (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Google Book Search for "was flabaghast" gives me one relevant hit: "At this I was rendered completely flabaghast". I get a lot more hits for "was flabbergast", and I suppose that what's good for one spelling variant is good for another. Incidentally, we don't list "flabbergast" as an alternative pp for flabbergast. Perhaps all the spelling variants should list both the irregular and the regular "-ed" form? Mihia (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't help thinking that aghast may be involved in this somehow- sort of a half-eggcorn? Chuck Entz (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, possibly – see the etymology of flabbergast. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Resolved: I've updated the main lemma and all variant forms. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)