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.
Second sense. I see no evidence of this spelling of have/hast. The quotation offered seems to actually be "hast," not "haet." Atelaes 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- b.g.c. agrees with you; on our linked page it doesn't highlight anything, but if you change dq=haet to dq=hast in the URI, it highlights the right word. —RuakhTALK 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking closer, all the b.g.c. hits seem to be scanning errors. --Connel MacKenzie 05:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to jump the gun a bit and remove the sense. If anyone can actually find cites for this, by all means feel free to reinstate it. Sense removed Atelaes 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)