Talk:implement

Given its commonplace use, should the adjective "implementable" be included despite its historic absence from traditional print dictionaries?

RFV discussion

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.

---

Has “Etymology: From Scottish English or Scots implement (“fulfill”)”
Unreferenced for one thing, and it doesn't look like a Scottish word to me, more like Latin. --Jerome Potts 03:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the sentence. It is not Scottish Gaelic, it’s from Scots. English-speaking Scottish lawyers coined the word about 200 years ago for use in law with the meaning of to produce or cause fulfillment (as of a contract). It was a time when Classical education included lots of Latin and Greek. In Latin, the word was implementum (a filling up), from impleo (to fill). —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which definition is being disputed here? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is the Etymology 2 section (which currently relates only to implement (verb)) which was queried. FWIW, OED's first cite of implement (verb) is some legal-speak in Scotland in 1806, as Stephen says (OED doesn't differentiate between English English, Scottish English and Scots). However, they also show (Scottish legal) use of implement (noun) to mean fulfilment from 1764 - 1868.

I suggest firstly, that the verbal use probably developed from that usage of the noun; secondly that that noun usage is not so very different from the Late Latin implementum (= a filling up); thirdly that the more common uses of implement (noun) are cited in OED from 1454, but with no obviously-Scottish English/Scots cites till after 1850, 80-odd years after the Scottish-legal use to mean fulfilment, by which time there had been much more cross-fertilisation between Scots and English English.

Since the Scottish legal meanings (both noun and verb) are much closer to the original Late Latin than any of the earlier English English meanings, it is strongly arguable that they came to English via Scots, rather than developing from the previous English usage...for which, unless someone finds a cite, there is no evidence of use in Scotland at that time.

So I would suggest keeping Etymology 2 separate from Etymology 1, but extending it to read "From Scottish English or Scots implement (“fulfill”), from Late Latin implēmentum (“a filling up”), from Latin impleō (“I fill up”)" thus noting it as a separate import. OED do not, and would not, make that distinction, because they treat Middle English, Scots and Modern English as one language, but since we do treat them separately, it is appropriate for us to do so. Of course it would be great if someone could research old cites to add evidence to confirm this (unfortunately, I haven't time to research further myself at present) but with a meaning so much closer to the Late Latin than any of the English meanings, and since lawyers of the time would be familiar with Latin, it seems fairly sure.

I note that Semperblotto has already removed the RFV tag. I agree with Stephen and him, and if no one objects, in a day or two I shall extend the Etymology 2 as I proposed above. --Enginear 03:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Scottish lawyers "reinvented" the word with a slightly different meaning. The OED recognises the continuum from southern English to northern English to Scots, but since Scots now has the status of a separate language, and Scotland has always had separate laws, that proposal sounds reasonable. Dbfirs 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Right then, struck. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

give tools to somebody (transitive); (law) requirement

Transitive: to provide or equip somebody with the tools or other means to do something (formal)
(law) something needed in order to achieve something else (formal)

--Backinstadiums (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)