Talk:esquaymous

RFV discussion: March–April 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

---

esquaymous

DTLHS (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's Modern English. The only quote, which you can find in many sources, is Middle or Old English. Kiwima (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The quoted passage is said to be from 1303- clearly Middle English (note the yogh and thorns). The Middle English Dictionary has the same quote (provisionally) in the entry for squaimǒus, which is the ancestor of squeamous. This should be converted to a Middle English entry- if we really want an entry whose "definition" starts with "The definition of esquaymous remains somewhat unclear". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If it was English, and really, as the entry says, a hapax legomenon, it would fail rfd, because hapax legomena are by definition in violation of CFI for a well-documented language such as English. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Convert to Middle English. OED has an entry for this marked obsolete and with the quotation identified above, and defines it as "squeamish"; essentially a variant of squeamous (ME squaimous). The e- prefix is because is derives from Anglo-Norman escoimus, escoymous according to the MED and OED, but the further etymology is uncertain. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Converted to Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)