Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RFV discussion: March 2014[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

From the Tea Room:

I don't think this exists! A misspelling of machicolate? —This comment was unsigned.

I have added three citations, and verified they are not scannos. It would be hard to find more. Equinox 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It could still be a misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
And even if you believe that this strange spelling was intended, it still looks like an alternative spelling, not a separate word. Dbfirs 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as an uncommon misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the quotes, the first one is from the sequel to the poem quoted in the second one, so it's even rarer than it looks. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It is hard to determine the relative frequency to "machiolated" (of which this is supposedly a misspelling or alternative spelling), since the latter is not very common either. In any case, machiolated should be turned into a standalone entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I think machiolated is really an alternative form/misspelling of machicolated. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the definition of machiolated to point to machicolated. Machiolated is not quite as rare, either in absolute terms or relative to machicolated, so I am not going to RFD it. You can RFD it if you like. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Would anyone object if I change the machiolate entry to "rare spelling of machicolate"? I can't see any difference in the meanings, so I assume that they are the same word. Dbfirs 08:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me to be a very rare misspelling, and thus not includable. - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
At first I thought that all the Google hits were echoes of Wiktionary, but I've found more than three citations, including one from a UK Local Government publication, and from various historical websites, though they mainly cite a usage from Middle English. (I think we have entries for spellings that are even rarer, but I'd be happy to have those deleted.) Should the language header be changed to Middle English, since the word was obviously widely used by Henry VII in numerous licences to build? Dbfirs 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Orthographically updated, post-1500 versions of Middle English works — which is what the citations currently dated 1469 and 2014 are — probably count as ==English== according to the logic set out here. But note that those citations (a) are not independent of each other, since they're both by Henry VII, and (b) support "machiolate" being a synonym/variant of the verb "machicolate", not an adjective. In contrast, the 1825, 1903 and 1990 citations are of an adjective, but the 1825 and 1903 citations are not independent of each other (and one of them seems to be dated incorrectly), according to Chuck's comment above. However, I am persuaded that the spelling is intentional rather than a misspelling.
I suppose this thread should be moved to RFV, since the question is now an RFV question of whether any sense/POS is attested. At the moment, we have effectively one citation (really two non-independent citations) for a verb ("{{cx|rare|archaic}} {{alternative form of|machicolate}}"), and two citations (two non-independent citations + one other citation) for an adjective ("{{cx|rare}} {{alternative form of|machicolated}}"). - -sche (discuss) 08:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This had been listed at RFD (after being mentioned in the Tea Room), because it seemed to be a misspelling. Enough uses have been found to suggest that it is in fact an intentional spelling... but not all of the uses are independent or for the same POS — see my comment of 08:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC) above. There is effectively one citation of machiolate as a verb, and effectively two of it as an adjective, and I just can't find any more. Can you? - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for citing the verb instead of the adjective. The verb occurs in many different documents issued by the administration of HenryVII, but I agree that these are not independent, even when quoted in other documents. I've added one more cite for the adjective. Dbfirs 19:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Thanks for finding so many citations. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)