Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion.
This page was on rfv. for the verbal and adjectival senses. I have taken the quotations from Webster's 1902. I dont agree with the quotes, and if anyone is offended by them, please feel free to justify why, and to set the disputed senses back at rfv for furhter consideration. Andrew massyn 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) ARTFL lists this as an n. and adv., not adj. nor verb. --Connel MacKenzieTC 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
ARTFL is American, right? See OED. — Vildricianus 18:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yuck! Why would I want to spend money for a dictionary that tells me how to spell words wrong? :-) (I.e. British.) All humo(u)r aside, that research will have to wait until I can get to the library next week. So far, Collins, AHD, m-w, bartleby, and ARTFL all agree that the verb sense doesn't exist. And the one that listed the adj. looks like a typo. Hence the request for verification. --Connel MacKenzieTC 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I haven't found any web sources either that list the verb - so we're the first ;-). My Shorter OED (no money to the long one either) lists it as transitive verb:
Disregard, despise, hold in contempt. Long obsolete exc. Scottish.
Efface (esp. oneself). Archaic exc. Scottish.
Seems to appear primarily in the past participle form (couple of Google print results for noughted). — Vildricianus 11:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You can find it on Google used (primarily in religious texts) where they speak of "self-noughting", though it is not common. Julian of Norrich, 14th c, (Revelations of Divine Love, Hinduism Today, and Hindu.org. Google also shows that a lot of people can't spell "nothing". :\ Cruinne 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we please just tag that usage as "archaic", and let it rest. Why beat ourselves up over whether this word/meaning is well enough verified. --Richardb 04:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, what? How did the word suddenly become archaic? This requests page is for verification of questionable terms. Checking other references, I didn't find the verb meaning listed - and verification of it is proving it to be very obscure. But 1998 is hardly archaic, in dictionary years. --Connel MacKenzieTC 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Has this been sufficently checked by British English speakers? Could one remove the RFV tags when done please? --Connel MacKenzie 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
Rfv-sense Verb? To nought? The example given is to set at nought. -- ALGRIFtalk 12:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The sense appears in Middle English. I have added and cited a sense that derives from a different ME sense. DCDuringTALK 10:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It needs tidying up before striking. There are still three definitions, and the quotes are therefore not correctly placed. Should it be just one sense? (It looks like it to me) -- ALGRIFtalk 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a rare(?), citable(?) sense of set to nought as in "I noughted the trip counter before leaving." If you thought the sense I added with cites should be merged into the first sense, you could be right. The dictionary that had that def (MW1913?) must have had at least the old citation. DCDuringTALK 16:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)