Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Denglisch citations[edit]

Per consensus at WT:RFV#gewiss, the following citations use or mention the German word gewiss in the middle of English sentences; they do not use (and thus do not belong in a section called) gewiss#English. However, as citations of gewiss#German, they would all be mentions (of the German word in English text), so they do not belong there, either. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

    • 1953, Upton Sinclair, “Best Draw My Sword, V”, in Return of Lanny Budd, Fiction, Viking Press, ISBN 9789997531759, page 303:
      "Um Gottes Willen, Lanny! You are gewiss?" / "I know all about it. He has been pretending to agree with Bess, but he does not agree with her."
    • 1998, Arthur Schopenhauer, E. F. J. Payne, On the basis of morality:
      Even the etymology of the word Gewissen (conscience) seems to me to rest on this, since only what has already taken place is gewiss (certain). That is to say, that through external occasions, kindled emotion, or internal discord, [...]
    • 2002, John Llewelyn, Appositions of Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas:
      Heidegger observes that for Dasein its death is certain. He says that it is gewiss, and in saying this he prepares the ground for his statement Dasein's being toward its death underlies the ordinary concept of science, Gewissen.
    • 2009, Rodolphe Gasché, Europe, or the infinite task:
      [...] suggests that spirit is not something of the order of the intellect but a state of mind in which Being is disclosed to Dasein (erschlossen, that is, in which Dasein recognizes Being, in the sense that it is gewiss or certain of it) [...]
    • 1911, The Saturday Evening Post:
      "Rubies is pretty high now, Abe, " Morris said; "carat for carat, rubies is a lot more expensive as diamonds." "Gewiss, Mawruss," Abe cried; "but I seen the back of the fiddle, Mawruss, and if the varnish on it was made from rubies, Mawruss, I would eat it. [] and he smells it, and Gott weiss what he don't do with it."
    • 1947, Mark Schorer, The State of Mind, Fiction, Houghten Mifflen, page 187:
      'No,' he said, 'No, Ursula. Gott!' 'Did you have them? Are you certain you had them?' my wife asked. Gewiss, gewiss,' he said impatiently. 'Always I have them.'
    • 1951, F. van Wyck Mason, Proud New Flags, Fiction, J.P. Lippincott:
      (page 59) "Du lieber Gott, er ist ein starker Krieger!"
      (page 183) She had spoken in German, she was that frightened. Do lieber Gott, []
      (page 189) Was this the neat, clean creature Mr. Brunton had admired? At once horrified and relieved, she set down the pan. Gewiss.
      (page 405) Gott im Himmel!

I have also removed the Adverb section, for reasons discussed on RFV.

  1. certainly, indeed
    • 1900, Rupert Hughes, “Chapter IV, The Colonists”, in Contemporary American Composers Being a Study of the Music of This Country, Its Present Condit[1], edition Reprint, Music History, Project Gutenberg, published 2007, page 380:
      This provoked from that conservative of conservatives, the music copyist, a patronizing annotation, "Quinten!" to which Gleason added "Gewiss!"
    • 1906, Margaret Potter, “Death Joy”, in The Genius[2], Fiction, Harper & Brothers Publishers, page 79:
      "There is—no other way? She—she has got to submit to the knife?" /"Gewiss! Nor can we promise—recovery—even so. Without it—two weeks—a month, perhaps!" he shrugged, helplessly.
    • 2000, Oscar White Muscarella, The lie became great:
      The "new" Denkmal is a purchased, non-excavated, gold, damaged metal vessel, [] .
      Although I accept the fact that I am physically distant from the object [] the defense of its antiquity by its purchasers generated a déjà vue experience for me: here again was the deus ex machina Museum Ritual recited wthout self-consciousness, [] . In the ritually required authoritatives voice, the authors proclaim the object ancient: "Trotz aller Schwierigkeiten [sic!], die uns unser Blechbeschlag bereitet, ist er gewiss keine Fälschung." Gewiss?
      I do not claim that the vessel is a forgery; I do claim that it has not been demonstrated that it is gewiss ancient.

- -sche (discuss) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.

I don't think this is a modern English word, and I certainly don't think it's a direct continuation of the Old English word. Rather, I think this is a German (and perhaps Yiddish) word which has been quoted in a few English texts. Of the citations I have been able to verify, both are of it in a German sense. In the cite Hughes 1900, the "gewiss" is a reply to the German word "Quinten" scrawled on a manuscript, and the full quote of Sinclair 1953 is "Um Gottes Willen, Lanny! You are gewiss?", which appears in italics in the original book and is said by a Jewish-German immigrant who peppers her speech with German phrases. I can't see the exact quote in Proud New Flags, but from what I can tell, it looks like that book has a character/characters who speak Denglish too ("Ach, dear Mamma in Heaven!"). Are there any examples of "gewiss" being used in a context where it's fairly clear it's being used in English, not in broken German/Yiddish? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit: I misread the etymology section - the entry does make clear that any modern use, if it exists, is as a loanword from German) Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The same could be said of many foreign words ... Should apres be taken out of English? How about chaise longue? They're not English words per se but are often noted in a manner that the writer expects the person to know what they means.

  • 1906, Margaret Potter, “Death Joy”, in The Genius[3], edition Digitized, Fiction, Gutenberg Project, published 2007:
    "There is—no other way? She—she has got to submit to the knife?" /"Gewiss! Nor can we promise—recovery—even so. Without it—two weeks—a month, perhaps!" he shrugged, helplessly.

Here the word gewiss is noted in without italics yet gnädige Frau and chaise-longue (a bit earlier on the page) are in italics betokening that they are foreign words. I think that you'll find more German/Yiddish terms in play in the US owing to the great tale of folk who are of German or Jewish heritage. You'll also find many ex-soldiers with German wives or who served in Germany as I did, who are much more familiar with many of these words than the myriad of French words and expressions floating about in English as if they were English (Franglish?).

My point is, that authors often note these words without translation or italics. If you take out gewiss then you should also take out apres and many other French expressions that are often thrown out just to add flavor for they gewiss (or wisly) are less English than gewiss!

So that is the conundrum isn't it? Should all foreign expressions noted like apres, avant-garde, asf be put under their respected language headers or should they be considered English? We can do that here at wikt whereas M-W or the OED has totally separate wordbooks for foreign tungs so if they find these words noted in English, they mix these words in their English wordbooks as well. The OED recently added abuela and abuelita to English while we hav abuela under Spanish. As a speaker of Spanish, I can't see a time when I would note abuela outside of a Spanish/Hispanic context ... Does that bar it from being listed as English if noted in English writings? Seemingly not to the OED.

If we take off the English headers for these foreign words, should we then put the English quotes under the foreign language header to show that the words are also found in English writings?

We should do it one way or the other ... leave gewiss under English or take apres, avante-garde, asf out. I'll be offline again for at least week. Still no net at the house. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point I was making is that avant garde is unequivocally understood as an English word. The sentence "I went to an avant garde art exhibition" is unmistakeably English. Similarly, although you might be thought of as pretentious, "apres" can describe/suffix anything taken after another thing, regardless of whether it's a French thing or not - "apres-dinner", "apres-movie", "apres-surgery". On the other hand, although most English speakers would understand "We're off to Deutschland on holiday", most people would agree that I've simply used the German word for effect, and would be unlikely to describe it as an English word - no-one would ever say "The railway line passes through the Netherlands, Belgium and Deutschland". I suppose the test is: does the word carry any currency at all when divorced from its specific linguistic context? Any afternoon nap could be called a siesta, but the only time an English speaker would call breakfast desayuno is in a very Spanish context (eg this article about breakfast in Mexico). abuela, and similar words like oma, are more on the fence, but news agencies use both these words without gloss in formal English sentences, and they're are used by people who don't otherwise use the language at all (cf. a friend of mine who speaks no German, but calls his grandparents oma and opa because those are the titles his family, with distant German roots, has always used). I don't think that "gewiss" could ever be used divorced of Germanness - I doubt anyone who did not know German would know this word or use it in a conversation (the Yiddish equivalent, incidentally, is "gevis", which I can't find any examples of in English at all). The fact that German is closer to English than French is has no bearing on this, incidentally. It doesn't matter how closely or distantly related languages are, if a word has currency in a language, it's part of its vocabulary, and if it doesn't, it's not. boomerang, bungalow, paprika and powwow are all English words, despite being from languages with very little relation to English. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(One more point - if we have a foreign word with very limited English use only the section for its native language, that might cause our users a little confusion, but if we list a word with an English tag when it should only be listed in its native language - especially without giving a tag like "rare" - we risk making them falsely believe they'll understood if they just throw the word into conversation when odds are they won't, which is a far bigger problem.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree ... avante garde may be understood by you, but to be honest ... I hav no idea what an "avant garde art exhibition" would be like. Avant-garde tells me nothing here. OTOH, gewiss is understood by me and perhaps not by you. (BTW, likely the reason you can't find gevis is that the w is said as a v ... so gewiss would be said as gevis.) Same with apres ... If you were to say "apres-movie", folks I know would look at you and say "Huh?" And even if they did know what it meant and you said it seriously (not in a mocking manner of being a showoff), they would think you to be snob showing out that you know some French words. They don't think of apres as an English word ... I don't.

As I pointed out, in The Genius, not only was gewiss not glossed, it wasn't even italicized ... while chaise-longue is italicized betokening it "foreignness". If I recall rightly, the Upton Sinclair Lanny Budd series won some kind of award. So it's eath-seen that, at least when these books were in print, that a word like gewiss was well-known enuff that they didn't feel the need to gloss it.

So, what it comes down to is not whether these words are truly English ... they're not (tho anyone who knows iwis, wis, or wisly would see the akinship much faster than someone who didn't kno what avant-garde meant) ... avant-garde is not English despite your feelings about it. It is a pure French phrase that is known by some. Now, considering how many English speakers there are, that some is a lot. But the same goes for gewiss ... It is known by some (and that some would be a lot of folks) ... and, as I said before, given the large number of folk of German descendants and German immigrants, it may very well be more well known. Almost any soldier who was posted to Germany during the Cold War picked up many German words that are not in widespread use but still known. I still call the subway the U-bahn. We even hav the Englishened version of nichts - nix. Eath-seen, the authors felt the word gewiss was well-known.

It's not only German and French but we also hav nyet. My guess is that more folks know what nyet means than avant-garde. Most folks don't note it outside of movies and books but there is an entry for it and I don't hav a problem with it.

It's not so much whether these words are English ... it's whether they are noted in English writings. If someone doesn't know what nyet, gewiss, or apres means, then they can grab a wordbook and look it up. Here at wikt, we hav the choice of headers to put on it. I'd hav no problem with putting them under their respectiv languages and inputting the byspels of how they are noted in English ... but we should do it across the board. If avant-garde and nyet fall under English, then gewiss has enuff history and usage to do the same. OK, my time is up. I truly am off here til next week. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Avant-garde is English. It's not comparable. Take a look a google books:avant-garde; it's used over and over in flowing English, not in any character's voices, to refer to things Spanish, English, Egyptian, Russian, Chicagoan, New Yorker, etc. The question is indeed are these words in English. Under the adverb section at gewiss, the first is clearly not a cite in English, and the next three seem to be a German word tossed into English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Added 4 citations to Adjective; 2 to adverb. Leasnam (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, most of these citations look like English books quoting German texts, especially philosophy texts. Admittedly, if "gewiss" has a special meaning in philosophy (like, say übermensch), I'd give it a pass, but it doesn't look like it does. The citation in The Lie Became Great is about a German quote: "Trotz alle Schwierigkeiten [sic!] die uns unser Blechbeschlag bereitet, ist er gewiss keine Falschung". In Abe and Mawruss, Abe is a German speaker who does not speak much English ("And did that teller learn me English, Mawruss? Oser a stück"), and the gewiss is in italics like the rest of his Germanisms. The Schopenhauer and Llewelyn quotes are both explaining a German pun on the word "Gewissen". The last cite is italics (and immediately glosses the meaning), and the book is quoting from works of Heidegger, who was a German writer. I honestly want "gewiss" to turn out to be a word used in English, but all these cites show is that it's a word German speakers use. (You also added an Upton Sinclair cite - we already had that very same citation, two entries up.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would tend to agree. The word has not made a far-enough in-road into standard English usage. And the entry does make it look as though it was a full-fledged English word, which at this point in time it "gewiss" is not. It is a foreign word often used/appearing in English texts. I tried. Leasnam (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I must apologize for my hasty writing. Til I get the net back up at the house (looks like at least another month), I'm hindered by a lack of time so I'm throwing these thoughts out off the cuff.

Let's back up and look at the criteria for inclusion:

A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.

Further, if needed, … Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year …

  • Clearly, under these rules, gewiss can and should be added under English.

But you bring up a worthy point for a talk. Maybe this isn't the place for it but here we are.

Now, as I understand it, you're naysaying it is for that it is being noted to add a German "taste" or "flavor" to the writing therefore, it doesn't belong under an English heading even tho it is found in sundry English writings.

What I'm trying to point out is that this reason for exclusion doesn't exist; there isn't such a sub-clause against inclusion … at least not that I'v seen. If there is, then it needs to be applied across the board.

The English word for avant garde is vanguard. When folks use avant garde, apres/après, au revoir, asf they do so merely to add that French "flavor". The same goes for nyet (Russian), mirabile dictu (Latin), purda/purdah (Persian) and many, many other words like these that fall under the English heading but aren't truly English. None of these are English words themselves but are found in English writings either in academic writings in context of the region or time period (historical); or in more general writings to add "flavor" to the writing with a reasonable expectation that a reader will understand them.

So, if we're going to start tightening the entry requirements so that these words don't go under the broader English heading (words found and noted in English writings), then it should apply across the board. Avant garde, apres, au revoir, asf should be under French; nyet under Russian, purdah under Persian, mirabile dictu under Latin, asf.

So I guess the broader frain is whether the English heading is only for "English" words or is it a broader heading for words found in English writings or can be noted in English writings, with a reasonable expectation of understanding. I go with the latter, but if it is the former, then a rule needs to be written but be aware that you're opening up a can of subjectiv worms. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Every time you claim that "avant garde" is not English, you hurt your case. There are 8,000 books in English on Worldcat using this word in the title. Again, the context of the word does not support your claim that it adds a French flavor to the text; it is the general word used in many fields where vanguard would be the wrong word to use. Even in the more general case, you're failing to understand the opinions of those you're arguing against; your definition of what makes a word English is not the only one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Again ... we're viewing this from our subjectiv sides ... to me, I hav yet to see avant garde noted where it wasn't for a special "flavor". For me, it's nothing more than a snob word. Vanguard wouldn't be "wrong" to swap for avant garde, it just wouldn't sound so "pleasant" to those who prefer "avant garde"; it wouldn't hav that "special air of sophistication" (that flavor). The meaning wouldn't change, only the snob appeal. Again ... that is my subjectiv view.
I think it's hypocritical to claim that a pure French phrase like avant garde and the sundry other byspels that I wrote (and they are only the tip of the iceberg) belong under English while gewiss does not. It shows a bias. I'm only saying that what is good for one is good for all. Gewiss is found in English works ... unglossed ... unitalicized ... and meets the minimum criteria as set forth.
I'm not failing to understand their viewpoint ... I'm disagreeing with it in context of what has alreddy happened. They're trying to shut the barn door when most of the herd is alreddy out in the pasture. This talk seems to come up see talk:avant la lettre every so often and it boils down to the same two stances. By the stance taken on gewiss, then avant la lettre shouldn't be under English either. Here is a phrase that I'v never heard of ... but yet it is under English because some hav. What I'm saying, is that if this the stance that one wants to take, then there are a lot ... and I mean a whole lot ... of words that need to be reclassified. The citations for gewiss are more than numerous enuff to meet the criteria as written! See y'all next week!--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly with respect to music, "avant-garde" is the normal term for the genre; calling it "vanguard music" would be wrong, as that isn't what it's called. There's nothing snobbish about it. —Angr 13:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
What phrases you have and haven't heard of seems rather orthogonal to the question of whether something is English or not. Whether they are snobbish or have that "special air of sophistication" is likewise irrelevant.
Definitions are basically arbitrary. Your definition of which words are English is not the only possible definition, and arguing that our (equally arbitrary) definition is "wrong" doesn't help.
gewiss is certainly borderline. But the first citations under adjective and under adverb are clearly not English to me, and the second under adjective is not using it as a word but using it to explain the German word Gewissen. After those have been removed, the rest are borderline; The Saturday Evening Post one clearly feels like code-switching.
This isn't a standard rule, but one of my rules is "does not including it make it hard for our user?" Москва (once claimed as English) will be found by English readers under Russian; nyet, on the other hand, won't, since Russian isn't written in the Latin script. If the spelling has undergone mutation, then we probably need an English entry. In this case, users will find gewiss under German with the same meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And a user will find many foreign words and phrases under their respectiv languages with the same meaning but yet we list them under English for that they are found in English writings. But if that is how we want to do it, then we must be truthful and it apply it across the board. Take out the knives and let the bloodletting begin! There are many questionable words and phrases in addition to those I'v alreddy mentioned. I'm a veteran but I'v never heard état major noted in the US military. I'v never heard a wittol called a mari complaisant. Even the usage note for preux chevalier says: Often italicized as a foreign borrowing. Well Duh! That may be because it is! L'ultime_avertissement/ultime_avertissement is not only italicized but usually glossed as well. I can go on and on.

Anent spelling and Latin script, there's no need to make that distinction either if we're going to go this route. At one time gewiss would hav been written as gewiß, would that mean that earlier it would hav been acceptable but now that the Germans are dropping the ß, then it's no longer acceptable? Nyet could be redirected to нет. There's no loss of meaning if avant garde is only under French. So on and so forth.

It's not that any of these words are English, they are not, but they are found in English writings. So what we are truly doing is keeping an inventory of words found in English writings. (And therefore I find the ME/"modern" English split, unique to wikt, to be rather silly but that is another soapbox.)

That fits the rules by which we make entries. Under those rules, gewiss is good to go. It meets and even surpasses the criteria as written! I don't know how many times I need to say that. The shade that is trying to be made here doesn't exist under the rules as written and if it did, then there is a wide swathe that needs to be cut thru the wordbook. That's a hella subjectiv and two-edge sword. Do yu truly want to go there? AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else finds any of that interesting, speak up and I will respond. I don't think further response to AnWulf on my part will be productive.
As for the Middle English / Modern English thing, that you would say that it is unique to wikt is itself rather silly; at the least, it comes from ISO 639 (the standard list of languages), which lists enm, English, Middle (1100-1500), as a separate language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Although a different topic, since we're touching on it I may as well interject: I would have to somewhat agree with AnWulf (not on gewiss=English), but on the Middle English-English divide. To me, though we treat Middle English as a separate language, it really is the same language in a different period. Periods of the same language, when they are adjacent to one another should be given special consideration and somewhat relaxed rules. Truthfully, using the division date as being 1470, English speakers on 12/31/1469 did not wake up on 1/1/1470 speaking a new language. And let's say, for instance, that there is a word, attested only 3 times: once in 1468, once in 1469, and a third time in 1471, what do we do with it? Here it would rfv-fail for both MidEng and ModEng, but the word certainly existed in English! Of course, Old English would be considered a different language from Modern English, as there is no blending/blurring line between the two. But for languages blending into the next stage, I think we should at least allow some bending of the rules for words which are straddled upon the line. Leasnam (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to his claim that wikt was unique in this. Personally, I can see the argument that gewiss is English; it's the issue that there is one unique definition for a word being English, and thus we include non-English words under English, rather than CFI and Wiktionarians including only English words in English sections, using a rather broad definition of English words, that I object to.
It should be taken to the Beer parlour, but I'll note that Middle English gave rise to two languages, English and Scots, and considering English the same language as Middle English and Scots not the same language isn't based on reality on the ground. As per CFI, just one cite counts for an extinct language like Middle English, so except for Dutch and Afrikaans, the case you state will never come up, even under the most obdurate treating of the rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, which isn't much, I think that the difference between Scots and Scottish English is a state of mind. If Scots is a sunder tung, then should be American. As for ME ... yea, we should take this to the Beer Parlor or Tea Room, but ME is eathly readable with the right wordstock ... and isn't that what wordbooks are all about? This isn't linguistics, this is an inventory of words in a tung (English) and those words in ME are or should be in the inventory. Further, most of those words can be found in modern books talking about ME poetry! So where does that leave us? We can and do mark word (historical). You won't find goom much outside of ME ... unless it's referring to the history of bridgegroom. Oh ... and the order should be English > ME > OE ... THEN outland tungs in alphabetical order. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As I hav been saying all along. The word meets and goes beyond the criteria for inclusion. If we want new criteria, it must be more objectiv and eathly followed than the fuzzy-wuzzy stuff I see going on now. I put forth the following:


Guidelines for Outland Words And Phrases (GOWAP).

Owing to the technology of the internet and that there is no hardcopy of Wiktionary, it is no longer needed to put the English header on outland words that are often found in English writings. This in no way lowers or lessens their standing or noting in English, it only rightly groops them.

Outlander words are often noted in writings to either add a kind of taste or worldliness in a writing and/or as a marketing ploy. However, for the purposes of Wiktionary, these words are to be put under the befitting tung header.

To go under the English header, there must be a meaningful change in meaning or spelling. It must follow English spelling guides, English speechcraft / stafcraft (grammar), and way of speaking (pronunciation). Meaningful means more than the dropping of a diacritic, change of capitalization, a misspelling, or change of a few letters. For byspel, apres would be written as:

  1. English spelling of the French word for after, see après

Après should be under French as well. Mark also that the spelling of neither apres nor après follow English right-spelling for how it is said but that of French.

The noting of a word in a specialized field, does not put it under English. Thus, many legal Latin or legal French words and phrases will go under Latin or French, as befitting, rather than English with a mark that it is noted in legal writs in English. Many outland words noted by gleemen, cooks, craftsmens, and so forth will go under the befitting tung as well.

Words from other than Latin alphabets (OTLA) will still be put under the befitting tung header. For byspel, nyet should be as:

  1. English spelling of the the Russian word for no, see нет.

After writing the above I found the guidelines set forth by the Dansk Sprognævn. I think I hit it near the mark:

"The Dansk Sprognævn (Danish Language Council) collects and registers all new Danish words. As with all languages, modern Danish is influenced and enriched by foreign words. One of the Council's tasks is to decide which words are considered Danish, and which are loan words. 'Bar', 'bus', 'film' and 'slum' all fit Danish rules of spelling and pronunciation, and so are now considered Danish words, but 'freelance' and 'playboy' are used, but considered mere loan words."

As I keep saying, doing this will cut a wide swathe thru the wordbook. All the words that I hav talked about above, to inhold avant garde, would not go under English as they are now. They would be acknown as loanwords. Until then, gewiss, and all of the above, meet the criteria for inclusion.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • <prescriptivist_tangent>
Arrowred.png swathe (/sweið/) is the verb and swath (/swɔːθ/) the noun, much like breathe (/bɹiːð/) and breath (/bɹɛθ/). Likewise for loathe (/ləʊð/, /loʊð/, verb) and loath (/ləʊθ/, /loʊθ/, adjective), or bathe (/beɪð/) and bath (/bɑːθ/, /bæθ/), where the final consonant is consistently voiced for the verb form. This distinction appears to be dying in the popular use of the language, possibly related to the loss of spelling precision regarding lose (/luːz/) / loose (/luːs/), but it does exist. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
So you're O.K. with note meaning "use", respected meaning "respective", wordbook meaning "dictionary", tung meaning "language", hav meaning "have", show out meaning "show off", eath-seen meaning "obvious", enuff meaning "enough", and so on, but draw the line at swathe meaning "swath"? I gotta say, your prescriptivist-tangent priorities do not match mine at all. —RuakhTALK 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
While I don't know that "O.K." is the best description of my take on those :), most of AnWulf's oddities appear to be deliberate archaisms or stylistic decisions, and as such I'm willing to give those a bit of a pass. I may have read it wrong, but I suspect that using swathe for the noun was an unintended mistake. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I'll take a look at swath/swathe when I come to town next week. The Oxford. Dict. Online has them both swathe/swath listed as the noun. I don't hav a problem with noting swath as the noun, I'v just always or mostly hav seen swathe. And yes, I hav become a freespeller. I'v been noting altho, tho, thru (and all cmpds), thoro, and stedfast since high school (thru college, the army, corporate worlds, asf). I'v embiggened my simplified list to many other simplified spellings that hav been either noted and/or recommended by sundry reforms boards (both British and/or American) in the past. And yes, I like old words and old forms ... if someone doesn't note them, they die out. Just my bit to keep them alive.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the Adjective section as RFV-failed, because a majority of us (myself included) view its citations as not supporting gewiss#English. (I have moved them to the talk page because I think it would also be bad to give them as citations of gewiss#German.) I am going to look more closely at the text surrounding the Adverb citations before registering an opinion on them. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the three adverb citations which were clearly not of gewiss#English to the talk page. I am less certain how to parse the remaining three citations. The 1906 citation's problems have been debated back and forth above (it also uses "gnädige Frau", but then, it italices those words whereas it does not italicise this one). The 1900 citation is similarly debatable (Quinten is the German name of a work). The 2000 citation seems to simply twice repeat a German's use of a German word, to question it, after quoting the German's full sentence. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to be froward about this. But rules are rules. If yu're going to hav rules then liv by them. Otherwise, you're playing Calvinball. If yu don't think the rules go far enuff, then propose new rules ... heck, I even drafted them out for yu. Yu're not following the rules. If I hav missed a rule that yu're following, then cite it for me. Otherwise this attitude of ... we of the cabal play by the rules as long as it suits us and when it suits us ... is abusiv, subjectiv, and befuddling ... if yu don't apply to all the other loanwords I'v cited and more ... it is hypocritical as well. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
We have rules; that you don't understand or appreciate them doesn't change that fact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Cite the rule. It's not a matter of not understanding. Once can't understand something that doesn't exist. I'v cited the rule that I'm following. Cite the rule that gainsays it. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)