Talk:invision

RFV discussion: February–July 2014

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

invision

"Blindness" (presumably in- + vision). I cannot find this in any dictionary. It is on the Wikipedia page, but looks like it could have been added by any joker or vandal. Equinox ◑ 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This is in the OED, which gives the quotation "Aristotle..computeth the time of their anopsie or invision by that of their gestation", attributed to Sir Thomas Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica. Webster's also includes it, and lists "Sir T. Browne"'s name. Strangely, according to this source, the Pseudodoxia Epidemica actually says non-vision, not invision. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably Chicago University substituted a word more easily comprehended for one that the OED describes as obsolete and rare. Dbfirs 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I presumed wrongly. See below. Dbfirs 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering they didn't so much as modernize the spelling of "anopsie" or "Musick", that seems unlikely to me. But in any case, here's a 1904 edition that also says "non-vision": [1]. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Browne died in 1682, and there were six editions of Pseudodoxia Epidemica. I expect that there have been several different printings since then with some substitutions for obsolete words, but at least one of the original editions must have used "invision". The fact that it hasn't been used since the 1600s suggests that, even if it was a word in 1646 (first edition), it isn't now. Dbfirs 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we can find an edition of the work (not just the sentence quoted in the OED) that uses invision, that'll give us one of the three requisite citations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This 1658 edition also says "non-viſion". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't find a first edition, and, even if I could, I don't think I would find two other cites, so I agree that it is unlikely that the word will pass Wiktionary's criterion with this sense, even if the OED allows it. What I do find are a few cites for the meaning "seeing within", "imagination". Dbfirs 11:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any cites for that meaning, but the word is listed in numerous 19th century dictionaries [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Perhaps it should be listed as dictionary only. I do have this cite,

Unless we bow reverently before God, own our ignorance and His omniscience, humbly and contritely wait upon the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity till He condescends to invision with Himself the lowly spirit — unless we will permit God to declare Himself, instead of ourselves constructing Him, we can have no genuine insight into His being or into our relations to Him. [10]

However, that would seem to mean "share a vision" or "bestow a vision". SpinningSpark 18:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)