Talk:and-
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.
Apparently survives only in dread (and-read), answer (and-swear), along (and-long). I don't think this can be considered a prefix in Modern English. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete (really an RFD matter imo - how exactly does one "attest" a prefix?) This, that and the other (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- We have a similar RFV up above for #-all and #-it-all where we explain how the criteria for attestation apply. However, even having read that, I would also rather see questions like this brought up at RFD. —Soap— 05:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Whether to RFV or RFD affixes has been debated in the past, but for the most part it only gets tricky if there are occurrences of the string of letters and we're debating whether they constitute uses of the affix in English or are wholesale borrowings/inheritances from another language. The question of "are there words that contain and- at all?" is appropriately handled at RFV, IMO — after all, if we move this to RFD, people would appropriately say "whether dialectal words using and- exist or not is an RFV question". It seems like the answer is "no", this will fail RFV, since we spell that word answer and not andswer. - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Entry should probably be moved to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
RFV-failed, this prefix clearly became fossilised before 1500. Moved to Middle English. This, that and the other (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)