Talk:byspel

RFV discussion: August 2014–January 2015

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

---

byspel

This looks like another instance of a Middle English word being not only propped up under an English header, but given more sense-lines than there are citations of it. google books:(byspel|byspels) that (with that added in an attempt to weed out non-English books) finds only dictionaries, Scots, dictionaries of Scots, Middle English, Old English, miscellaneous non-English, one citation which is already in the entry, and this:

• 1866 (1874), Sidney Gilpin, The Songs and Ballads of Cumberland:

  Thou byspel, I'll shoot.

- -sche (discuss) 07:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1. • 1897, Lord Ernest William Hamilton, The Outlaws of the Marches:

     [...] I thought was none too well beloved of many present, and the King's dislike of him was as marked and clear to all as was his liking for his cousin Lord Bothwell; for cousins they surely were in spite of my lord's father being but a byspell so to speak.

   • 1983, Marianne Powell, Fabula Docet:

     Helmut de Boor offers a similarly narrow definition of the nature of morals to be drawn from fables. Opposing "bispel" and fable he sums up the differences as regards this aspect: "The bispel aims at cognition, the fable gives practical knowledge, and in so far as an educational aim is involved the bispel aims at improving man, the fable at making him wiser."

   • 1992, W.N. Herbert, To Circumjack MacDiarmid:

     What is clear is that his use of glossaries conceals the origins of his own byspales as much as it elucidates his texts. ...The effort towards maturity means renouncing the stance of the 'byspale' Christ and accepting the baffled limitations of the father, Joseph.

   • 1998, Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 7:

     Such episodes and events were used to illustrate and justify more general or abstract 'philosophical' statements in much the same way as exempla or bispel 'edifying illustrative stories' were used in medieval sermons. And just as we have collections of exempla and bispel from medieval times onwards in Europe, [...]

   • 2005, Marco Fazzini, Alba Literaria:

     He is, or his mother would like him to be, on a threshold, between being awake and falling asleep, but this is the very opposite of what the 'byspale', the wondrous, precocious, uncannily unchildlike child, has in mind.

   • 2008, Janie Steen, Verse and Virtuosity:

     In adopting the bipartite structure, then, the Phoenix-poet demonstrates that this poem is a 'two-fold story,' a bispel.

Leasnam (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How do those citations support either definition, even allowing for the spelling variation (which I would rather not)? DCDuring TALK 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point I am gathering modern uses to prove this word made it securely past the Middle English period, per the original concern. Nothing more beyond that. Leasnam (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling "byspel" is not supported by the above citations. Should no more quotation supporting spelling "byspel" be provided, the entry for byspel should be deleted as RFV failed, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk)

Check the entry Dan. There is one above dated 1866, and 2 more on the entry page spelt "byspel". This is also the spelling used for many of the Scots cites, if that makes any difference (it may not). One thing's for sure, there is a lot of variation with this word. Leasnam (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In the entry byspel, there is one "byspel" citation for the sense of "A proverb.", one for the sense of "An example." and one for the sense of "A family outcast; bastard." So we do not have three attesting quotations per sense. As the entry is now, every sense fails WT:ATTEST, and therefore the entire entry fails it, as far as I am concerned. As for Scots cites, I don't see why Scots cites should count toward attestation of English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so what you're telling me is each sense has to have minimum 3 attests to pass? For a word labelled as obsolete and/or dialectal? Afaict, dialects fall under "all other spoken languages that are living" do they not, and therefore might require only one use or mention ? Leasnam (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We sometimes relax the requirement of exact spelling identity for individual senses, especially for EME usage and dialect, but we certainly need three citations per sense. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here's the breakdown and my suggestion:

In the entry (mainspace), we can merge senses 1 & 2, encompassing a story or proverb used as an example, pattern, or model for better behaviour, instruction, etc.

Merge 3-4-5 as a person marked for any quality, used as an example, and often shunned for such.

sense 6 appears to be Scots, not sure if it is used in Scottish English per se

7 is a mischievous child (see below)

8 I've never personally seen but I believe it to be Scots

the cites above (on this page):

1886, 1897 are "family outcast/black sheep"

1983 is proverb, example, model, pattern of behaviour, exemplar

1992 has one of each: first is "model, example", second is a play on the word, using same sense and the sense of "bastard, illegitimate child", so both.

1998, 2008 are "illustrative story/proverb/example"

2005 is mischievous child, or perhaps "black sheep"

thoughts? Leasnam (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And I apologise if I seem a bit curt or snippy: I'm on my mobile and its extremely difficult to edit :/ Leasnam (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I object to using cites above on this page, since they are in a different spelling. Nor do I think "proverb" and "example" to be synonyms, by any stretch, and mergable to a single sense. If a spelling cannot be salvaged, it should not be. “byspel”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. I am unaware of any WT:ATTEST relaxation for obsolete words. Century 1911 has "byspell"[1]; perhaps you will have better luck with that spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: 'dialects fall under "all other spoken languages that are living"': I know of no such regulation or previous practice. I tend to oppose requiring only a single citation for English dialects or any other dialects. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, here it is:

"For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:[...]".

Let's forget about what we all think, want, expect, and come together on what Wiktionary policy says. No ones going to succeed at changing minds. Byspell/byspel/bispel/byspale is a modern English word, and it is being used online. Its best to give people unfamiliar with it and who come across it for the first time its meaning(s). That's what we're here for. Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding us? English is listed at WT:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. English, even obsolete English, is not part of "all other spoken languages that are living". Please read the above quoted part of the policy carefully again. For English, three attesting quotations are required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I make no time for games.

Who is "us" ? Leasnam (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait...is the disconnect this: you see the spelled form byspel as distinct from the others, and to be the page title, "byspel"(in that spelling) must have 3cites? If that is true, then I can surely agree. For me, the spelling is not what is drawing my focus, but the word as a viable term..in whatever form it may take. .if ive missed this, please forgive me .Leasnam (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer it be under the form which occurs most, which users are most likely to run into, be it as byspell, bispel, or byspale Leasnam (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a sentence containing "byspell" or "bispel" is not attesting "byspel", not by my lights; other editor may take a different stance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Ok :) Leasnam (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for information (no opinion) the OED has an entry under "byspel, bispel" but marks it "obsolete or ? dialect". The four senses given are: "1. A parable. 2. A proverb 3. dial. One whose worthlessness is proverbial, who becomes a byword. 4. An illegitimate child, a bastard." It has no recent cites with this spelling. Dbfirs 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed all of the senses from byspel that had no citations, or only one mention-y citation. I've moved all of the citations provided above into citations pages. It looks like bispel just barely passes, with the sense "proverb or parable". Byspel has two irreconcilable senses, "example" and "bastard", with two citations each; the latter sense also has a third citation that uses a slightly different spelling, which we've tended to disallow, as others have noted above. So, unless more citations can be found, it looks like byspel fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this (with the citations moved to Citations:byspel and Citations:byspell), which points users to the citations page (so they can add a thrid citation, if they know of one) and to bispel, the one spelling that seems to meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)