Talk:creuseté
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFV[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- Discussion moved from WT:RFD#creuseté.
This entry was created by a trolling IP. As a French native speaker I assure you this word is not even employed in colloquial language (never heard it commonly used). This is a pure barbarism. Nebogipfel 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Plenty of hits on Google books. SemperBlotto 18:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not many hits correspond to useable content, lots are in fact typos. This word may have existed in earlier states of French, but not in modern French any more. And the behavior of the IP clearly resembles trolling or harrassment. Nebogipfel 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should be at RFV, but hopefully I can cite this either today or tomorrow. Unless the hits are indeed scannos, in which case I can't cite it, obviously. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do as you think it's the best. I think a short block for the IP wouldn't be bad. This IP clearly meant their intention to keep creating entries for non-existent words. Nebogipfel 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that may be the case but I am assuming god faith if/until there's some more serious evidence. If that is the case, the IP's screwed by trying to create a protologism, only for it to be attested albeit only just. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do as you think it's the best. I think a short block for the IP wouldn't be bad. This IP clearly meant their intention to keep creating entries for non-existent words. Nebogipfel 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should be at RFV, but hopefully I can cite this either today or tomorrow. Unless the hits are indeed scannos, in which case I can't cite it, obviously. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Now at Requests for verification)
- There are now three citations, one of them is fine, the first one is technically Middle French as it's pre-1600, the second citation is a bit dubious but I'd tend to accept it as it conveys meaning. IMO it would be a bit silly to fail this as one of the citations is slightly before the Modern French period. So I personally would call this a pass - though another citation, maybe two, would seal the deal. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another possible use, albeit only two words long, can be found here and the date given is 1604. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a French native speaker and I've never heard (nor read) that word. Modern French language dictionaries don't know it either [1] [2]. But the Dictionnaire du Moyen Français as well as Godefroy include it in their pages. In conclusion : keep as a Middle French entry, but not as a Modern French word. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 10:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another possible use, albeit only two words long, can be found here and the date given is 1604. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are now three citations, one of them is fine, the first one is technically Middle French as it's pre-1600, the second citation is a bit dubious but I'd tend to accept it as it conveys meaning. IMO it would be a bit silly to fail this as one of the citations is slightly before the Modern French period. So I personally would call this a pass - though another citation, maybe two, would seal the deal. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Though, the only Godefroy citation is 1604. If you were to count that as valid and as Modern French (WT:AFR) then it would pass with three citations, and would pass in Middle French with one citation, as long as you accept the 'one citation for dead languages' rule which admittedly hasn't passed a vote yet as we're still haggling over the wording. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- We have three citations in running text; QED, this is going to pass, the issue is how to label it. I've put obsolete or nonstandard, which seems to best reflect native speakers' opinion. RFV passed. Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)