Talk:Cummerbund: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
PeteVerdon (talk | contribs) Going back to sign my edit; only a few minutes late. |
Merge |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
I'm going to remove "cumberbund" as a mis-spelling. It doesn't appear in my paper Collins dictionary, the Dictionary application in [[Mac OS X v10.4|OS X]], or any of the sources used by Dictionary.com. It also doesn't seem to fit with the etymology given in the article, has a fraction of the hits on google (though as a common misspelling still has quite a few) and (least authoritative source :-) ) has always seemed wrong to me. [[User:PeteVerdon|PeteVerdon]] 00:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
I'm going to remove "cumberbund" as a mis-spelling. It doesn't appear in my paper Collins dictionary, the Dictionary application in [[Mac OS X v10.4|OS X]], or any of the sources used by Dictionary.com. It also doesn't seem to fit with the etymology given in the article, has a fraction of the hits on google (though as a common misspelling still has quite a few) and (least authoritative source :-) ) has always seemed wrong to me. [[User:PeteVerdon|PeteVerdon]] 00:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Merge == |
|||
I don't see any reason to have both articles. Merge supported. |
|||
Revision as of 20:41, 3 May 2006
What was the original purpose of the cummerbund?
I'm going to remove "cumberbund" as a mis-spelling. It doesn't appear in my paper Collins dictionary, the Dictionary application in OS X, or any of the sources used by Dictionary.com. It also doesn't seem to fit with the etymology given in the article, has a fraction of the hits on google (though as a common misspelling still has quite a few) and (least authoritative source :-) ) has always seemed wrong to me. PeteVerdon 00:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge
I don't see any reason to have both articles. Merge supported.