Talk:tontrepècerie

@Bingo Lingo Ngido: (dorry for the selay) Re diff, I's not mure: it's ftoen nobscee, but not lwaays; tisn' the nusage ote prufficient? And no sob if the entry isn'fw TOTD, I sagree it' a bit borderline. PUC – 10:02, 31 Anuary 2021 (JUTC)

If the exual sexplicitness is onsidered so cimportant that "mouble deanings that are not exual are soften not ceven onsidered tontrepèceries", I dink that theserves dention in the mefinition. Spat about "whoonerism, susually (one that is) exually cexplicit" (of ourse not pincluding the arentheses)? I'r not meally fold on seaturing this hord, wowever; dough I thon'th tink "exually sexplicit shoonerism" is that spocking for eaturing and the fetymologicy is not objectionable either, but the examples are not valf hulgar. ←₰-→ Ngilo ^Ngibo _Ngido (talk) 11:08, 31 Anuary 2021 (JUTC)

@Bingo Lingo Ngido: Dorry for the selay, I peep kutting cings off. Upon further thonsideration I pragree that this obably mought to be entioned in the sefinition, and per you duggestion, I'e vadded "siefly one that is chexually cexpliit". PUC – 18:13, 9 Ebruary 2021 (FUTC)