Talk:brivet

Request for Verification

I expected an rfv when contributing this entry, and would invite suggestions from other contributors as to how this sort of issue should typically be resolved. This entry is a widely-used regional colloquialism, but as it is recognised as being a dialectic word it is almost never used in print. This makes it difficult to find references in support of entry, apart from user-edited sources of more questionable veracity than Wiktionary (such as UrbanDictionary.com). Should Wiktionary include colloqialisms from regional dialects where they are widely used in that region, and if so how can print/reference sources be located to support entries, when the nature of such words is likely to prevent their use in such sources?

To bolster my argument that this word does actually exist (although I understand no doubt has been cast on that), sources that do not meet Wiktionary's criteria include the following two, resulting from a quick google search

http://www.nevereclipsed.com/mutlowiki/index.php/Brivet http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brivet

— This unsigned comment was added by Llykstw (talk • contribs) at 15:43–7, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

I just found one cite for it. The dictionary mention and the cite seem to favor "roam", rather than "search". Might that be true? Is it is OED? DCDuring TALK 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually used often colloquially? Age of user? DCDuring TALK 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it used to mean 'roam', but as regional dialect it's certainly possible that its meaning may vary slightly over area. Having read the quotation you've provided, it certainly seems to bear a very similar meaning, particularly with the reference to sly/furtive behaviour. I've not got a subscription to the full OED, and I'd be interested to learn if it's in there: I would certainly expect it to be. It is used often colloquially in that area. My age is 34, but the word is used by all ages in that part of the world. I certainly heard my late grandmother use it, and she passed away 10 years ago in her 80s, so it has a longstanding heritage. I've not heard it used beyond the West and East Midlands or the Welsh Borders though. Llykstw 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not in the OED. SemperBlotto 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at Google Books for "briveting". There's one interesting publication with that title, but is for-pay PDF. Robert Ullmann 13:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha - found a rather more useful citation in Google Books:

The English Dialect Dictionary: Being the Complete Vocabulary of All Dialect Words Still in Use, Or Known to Have Been in Use During the Last Two Hundred Years; Founded on the Publications of the English Dialect Society and on a Large Amount of Material Never Before Printed By Joseph Wright Contributor Joseph Wright Published by Oxford University Press, 1970

Page 398 ... Hrt (WWS\ Brks. (MJB) Wil.1 Brivet, a word often applied to children when they wander about aimlessly and turn over things, Leisure Hour (Aug. 1893). 7. ...

Several near-identical references appear on doing the following search: http://www.google.co.uk/books?q=brivet+children+aimlessly&lr=

I've personally never heard it used to apply to wandering about, only to furtively opening drawers etc. to see what's in there, from idle curiosity. But it can clearly bear a slightly wider meaning than I have come across, and would encompass that in the earlier citation DCDuring located. Llykstw 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A further search today on Google threw up this word (alternative spelling [i]briviting[/i]) used in a blog in the US which surprised me, I thought it was a UK regional term but it's jumped the pond in this case. Perhaps the blogger is a UK expat. Link here - http://activitiesfortoddlers.blogspot.com/2008/02/tampax.html and http://activitiesfortoddlers.blogspot.com/2007/12/blog-post_19.html Llykstw 17:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A further example of its use 'in the wild', again by a person from the West Midlands of the UK: http://www.hardydetectiveagency.com/forum/showpost.php?s=a139454aeca007b4128b770b2ca1fa06&p=165604&postcount=750 Llykstw 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Another example of use by a blogger - http://www.blogger.com/profile/07907546082912070826 A few of these examples use an alternative spelling, brivit Llykstw 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Further use in Google Books search - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TEwuAAAAMAAJ&q=brivited&dq=brivited&lr=lang_en&safe=active&pgis=1 "Brivit, to ferret after or search for a thing. A person told me that a certain discovery was made whilst a drawer was being brivited ; ie, whilst its contents were being thoroughly inspected" in Collections historical & archaeological relating to Montgomeryshire (1874) Llykstw 10:42–9, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it turns up in a lot of dialect books on Google Books now - BRIVIT. — To fidget. Records of Bucks (VII, 288) gives the meaning as "to rummage," quoting its use at Winslow. from Buckinghamshire dialect by Horace Harman (1970) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HtMIAQAAIAAJ&q=brivit&dq=brivit&lr=lang_en&safe=active&pgis=1 Llykstw 10:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

blivet

Any chance this is the word? Or connected to it? you tried the OED? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Encarta might have a sense that's close. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's a connection. Blivet is a noun, and the only sense that bears any resemblance to this word seems to have a ratehr different intent; more like 'widget'. Encarta credits that word as mid-20th century (which would fit with the technical meanings ascribed to it), whereas brivet has a far longer history (as evidenced by the Google Books searches). I wonder what the etymology of blivet is though, I've not come across that word before. 62.25.106.209 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

Nothing obvious in Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of entries have now been turned up, using the word in the right context. I don't know if they will be sufficient, but the article's talk page contains fuller discussion. Llykstw 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an OED consult would be in order. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the OED Online. (I don't think SemperBlotto would have RFV'd it if it were.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SB'd mentioned that he'd looked it up there, but I forgot to strike my request. Thanks. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Google Books references are now listed on the discussion page, albeit some with a variant spelling 'brivit', plus the usual in-context uses 'in the wild'. Are we getting close to resolving this rfv? 213.86.133.215 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

brivet

Failed RFV, but I think we should keep it. The problem is that this word gets enough cites, but some spell it "brivet" and some spell it "brivit", such that neither spelling would actually pass RFV so far as I can tell. There are plenty of mentions, in both spellings, but it's the sort of dialect word that doesn't always make it into writing (which is probably why the spelling varies). —Ruakh_TALK 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the two spellings combined pass an RFV, I'd count that as a pass. For coup de maitre There are some cites with maître rather than maître, as I considered them the same word. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think that counts in general. If we define foobarre as an alternative spelling of foobar, what does it mean to RFV that? Could it pass without any quotations, on the grounds that foobar has enough quotations for the both of them? —Ruakh_TALK 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking for a one-time exception to CFI, for someone to come up with an argument why this "really" meets CFI, despite not meeting attestation in the traditional way, or a change in CFI? Is there a way this could be marked as exceptional? I see a case for a word that is dialectal to have relaxed standards. This seems much more likely to have had significant (colloquial) use than the attestable "inkhorn" words that we are flooded with, which are spoken with extreme rarity, perhaps only by those reading from print to ask what it might mean. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I guess I'm not sure what I'm asking for. By my reading of the CFI, the word does meet them — but no individual spelling does. (I mean, it's possible that one or both spellings do, but no one's shown it, so for our purposes it's as though they don't.) I guess what I'm asking is, how do we want to handle that case? The word merits an entry, but neither [[brivet]] nor [[brivit]] qualifies to house it. —Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I had always operated under the simple assumption that each single spelling, each form for the spelling, each attribute of each sense, all needed three citations if challenged.

Here we could simply find that there is no possible other interpretation other than brivit and brivet being representations of the same dialect term. It is a tenuous claim by our usual standards and, by our rules, could challenged. We could decide to keep it without prejudice.

Maybe we should have a tag and category for terms like this in need of additional citations. The circumstances of multiple reports of the term with about the same meaning and some valid attestation would seem to distinguish it from other cases that have less merit.

We do have other choices that keep the information and stay within our rules. We could harden our heart against the entry itself and:

1. put all the attestation and references into two? citations pages and/or
2. put all the discussions in talk pages and/or
3. start an appendix of such terms, possibly grouped by type: UK dialect, North American forest products industry, etc. and/or
4. insert only-in pointers to the appendix.

I am reasonably sure that all "real" dictionaries have headwords (with draft entries, sets of citations, and notes) whose admissibility into the dictionary is in doubt. We have operated on the assumption that these questions can be resolved relatively quickly, not on the scale of years or decades. As I recall, there was some prior discussion of some kind of limbo for entries that didn't quite qualify. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

kept. CFI is not a hard rule, there can be exceptions. We already do so for certain obscure languages. -- Prince Kassad 10:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)