Talk:escopateur

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

escopateur[edit]

Surely this has to be Modern or Middle French. fr:escopateur gives a citation from 1888, hence Modern French, not even archaic to be honest. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the language to be used, but the citation you mention seems to be more a mention than an actual use. Lmaltier 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the -eur ending is really too modern, see for example (deprecated template usage) menteor (Modern French (deprecated template usage) menteur). The source at the bottom of the page in French doesn't seem to include the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be attestable, but very very rare! Given the era in which Godefroy wrote, I'd suggest that escopateur was his translation into Modern French. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin! Look at the french entry, there is a reliable attestation ;) Moreover, there is a lot of word in -eur in Old French (40 on fr.wikt according to the darkdadaah tools). Cdlt, VIGNERON 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well 1880 is well into the Modern French period, and the dictionary given as a source doesn't (yet) include the word as it's not yet uploaded. So that leaves us with a good old zero attestations. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did they have bin men as early as 1400? Probably, I suppose. Yes, I've come across seigneur in Yvain ou le Chevalier au Lion although -or and -our are more common. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The example is modern but not the word (I’m looking for a better example, I’m sure the word is used in some documents on Rennes archives). The word seems missing in the Godefroy on fr.wsHe is here on fr.ws : s:fr:Page:Godefroy - Lexique (3).djvu/47 and you can chek here : [1].
-eur is not the most common but it’s not uncommon too.
escopateur is very rare in french but was common in Rennes (old books talking about old Rennes speak about the escopateur).
Cdlt, VIGNERON 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's much better. Irritatingly it doesn't give even one example of the word in use, which is what we usually want. However, these texts probably don't exist (yet) on the Internet. What would other editors think about a 'good faith' RFV pass? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Godefroy is an old dictionary and there is some lacks… But it still a good reference.
According to Henri Carré, the world could be found on [2]. I will read the 121 pages to find it, but it will took some times ;)
The world utilization is restricted to the old city of Rennes, it’s hard to find attestation (old documents are not allways easy to find and/or to read).
Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "What would other editors think about a 'good faith' RFV pass?": In some cases, when the editor who listed the word here seems to have had their doubts satisfied, and it seems plain that the term does meet the CFI, I've closed a discussion as "kept" — basically refusing to delete the entry or remove the sense or whatever, but not actually marking it "passed", and making clear that future editors should feel free to re-RFV it if they're not satisfied. (My opinion is that we shouldn't count a word as "passed" unless there are three cites in the entry itself or on its citations-page. There are so often problems with cites — they turn out to be mentions, they turn out to be in the wrong sense, whathaveyou — that I really think they need to be in the entry, preferably with links to greater context, so people can judge for themselves.) —RuakhTALK 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent on the matter. I suspect that Godefroy hasn't made the word up, but since it seems to be unfindable on the Net, it's hard to imagine anyone looking it up. FWIW given the rareness of Old French literature compared with living languages, I'd settle for one citation, but we don't have one, we have zero! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. If anyone comes across a use of this term, in this spelling, in Old French, please let me know and I can restore the entry. —RuakhTALK 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/2012-08/Extinct Languages - Criteria for Inclusion[edit]

Reading Wiktionary:Votes/2012-08/Extinct Languages - Criteria for Inclusion, I think I may have been wrong to restore this because of 'the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention,'. Since there is no such list, this term does not pass than criterion and should be deleted, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, Wiktionary:About Old French#Appropriate sources for a single mention. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion[edit]

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

Bin man? In Old French? Did they have bin men in the middle ages? —CodeCat 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated isn't it. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/escopateur lists it but the Godefroy dictionary allows for mention-only cites in Old French and Middle French, as despite the full title of the book 'Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle', it contains citations way beyond the 15th Century, going at least up to the 18th Century (and it was published in the 19th Century). So it passes either as a mention-only word in Old French or Middle French or both, but not neither, but I can't think of a way to decide which one. CodeCat, if you live by the sword you die by the sword too; if you allow mention-only cites you've gotta allow all the errors along with all the correct forms. This term failed RFV and got restored when the rules changed. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the word itself I am disputing, it's the meaning. —CodeCat 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a question of the accuracy of the translation, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My French is not that good, but I would gather a meaning more like "street cleaner" or "street sweeper". —CodeCat 20:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition at the link above is "homme chargé à Rennes de la repurgation des immondices déposées dans les rues et places publiques : en 1477, ses gages étaient de 3 livres par an", which definitely sounds like some sort of sanitation engineer, although "bin man" may be anachronistic since trash was just lying around in the street, not collected into bins in an orderly fashion. The date 1477 suggests that we should probably change the heading to ==Middle French==. —Angr 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, on all of that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed. Dealt with by CodeCat (talk • contribs). — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:escopateur&oldid=49470590"