Talk:champian

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

All four "adjective" senses. They each seem to correspond to one of the noun senses. If the term is not used as a predicate or gradably or comparatively/superlatively, it should not be shown as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my challenge to champian#Adjective sense one ("flat or level and open"), which is merely obsolete and noncomparable, but might be gradable and is used as a predicate. I could find no cites for the other three senses in adjective use. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the OED has support for the other adjective senses in modern English, or those senses may not have survived into Modern English. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Our four adjective senses are so close to the OED definitions that they almost constitute a copyvio. The user who inserted them must certainly have been aware of the OED content ans the noun entries also follow a similar pattern. To answer your question, the OED has, respectively, 5, 1, 5, and 2 citations for these entries. The most recent is 1736. However, nearly all of them are a different spelling, mostly champion. Those that cite champian are (excluding sense#1 already dealt with) [1] for sense#2, but note that the gbooks link does not have the same spelling as OED, and [2] for sense#4. SpinningSpark 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the OED PoS heading does not distinguish between adjective and attributive noun senses, they are both listed under the same head. SpinningSpark 22:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally like to have each sense-spelling stand on its own with respect to citations, though others (eg, Ungoliant, Widisth) disagree. We don't have senses at champion#Adjective (or noun) like those of champian.

And, the OED seems to call anything (?) used attributively an adjective, whereas we tend to discount that as sufficient evidence of adjectivity. Maybe we should just use the attributive-use citations in the corresponding noun definitions. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to the copyvio issue, I don't think I put this strongly enough. It is plagiarism of the OED entry. We should do something about this if we are serious about copyvio. SpinningSpark 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've solved the issue by rewording the one attested sense and deleting the other senses for both failing RFV and being copyright violations. - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation. This is text from A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles before it got renamed into the OED, printed in 1893 and worked on by James Murray (1837-1915). (See The Internet Archive copy.) It's plagiarism, but that's fixable. We don't seem to have a policy about uncopyrighted works and whether we worry about the source nation and the US like Commons does, or just the US like the English Wikipedia does, but this would be free and clear by either rule. If it's the US rule, we could use all the way up to the end of Th of the first edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's out of copyright then it's fine to copy, but it should still be credited on the page. SpinningSpark 23:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closed: 3 senses RfV failed; 1 sense RfV passed. DCDuring TALK 01:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: May 2013–February 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (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.

---

champian

The noun portion of the entry has seven senses, which do not seem very distinct. I cannot find more than two senses in other dictionaries (Century). The entry does, however, reference the OED. Can someone verify that the OED has all the senses. Even if the OED has all seven senses, I wonder if three cites can be found to clearly support each distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"A species of landscape that is flat and open." seems too poor to be included. Some of these seem very much distinct, for example someone who farms open land is clearly distinct from the land itself. A field of study seems to be like field (expert in one's field, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought this deserved a look after 8 years! Although the OED has separate entries for champian with 11 senses and champaign with a dizzying 13 senses, the overlap is so comprehensive that I am of the view that they are essentially total synonyms. The senses without equivalents are figurative or only have a single cite (or both). This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring Chances are you've forgotten about this, but could you check what I've done? I used "synonym" instead of "alternative form" because the pronunciations would clearly differ; what is our practice in this case? This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Probably a worthwhile simplification, even though it makes us a smigeon less comprehensive. Can you quickly (eg, from OED) determine whether champyon attestable in modern English? In the Spenser cite is champian postpositive? DCDuring (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring OED offers cites for champyon as champion into the 1400s, but says it was still used into the 1500s without offering evidence. There is a single cite for champyon as champian, which is this text. The Spenser cite is this text – not a postpositive use. This, that and the other (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the Spenser cite show a noun use, ie neither adjective nor determiner?

It seems a stretch to call champyon English. We have it as Middle English. DCDuring (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)