Talk:to-gloried
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English § to-gloried. Per utramque cavernam 11:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
The term is attested only once (in the quotation I have duly moved /having corrected it/ to the citation page); it is neither in the OED nor in the Middle English Dictionary. As it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, the entry can now be deleted without further ado. Jiří Bezděka (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Move to WT:RFVE? "Mankind: 1470" -- is it attestable as Middle English (requires only 1 cite)? -84.161.49.148 14:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Middle English does have the prefix to-
(orange-linked, but I plan to add it soon)as a common prefix applied liberally to verbs and participles, including the function as an intensifier. It wouldn't be totally out of place considered as Middle English; that said, 1470 is pretty late and very ambiguous between ME and EModE. I can't find any other usage of in the more typical chronological range that would make a placement into ME more comfortable, and because I can't find a version of the cited text that isn't "updated" English, I can't really see how "Middle" or "Early Modern" the tendency of the original is. So I don't know. The formation of it would have been pretty commonplace and definitely unsurprising in ME, so I guess I lean slightly towards accepting it as ME, at least in theory. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)- ISO 639-2 defines Middle English as existing 1050-1500. We've usually gone along with that definition, because there is no hard line, at least at the modern end, and an arbitrary round and standard 1500 is as good as anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I just like to approach ~1450-1530 with wariness and deliberation for exactly the reason you stated. This is just an odd case because often one can look forward or backward and see where the trend is with the word's use, but one data point obviously doesn't allow that.
- Given this, and considering that the to- prefix tapered during EModE into rarity during ModE but was productive and common both in OE and ME, I think that including it in ME is valid. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've never seen that done on Wiktionary. A work written in 1510 by a native English speaker in their native tongue is written in one language, not a mixture of two. Listing some words as Modern English (and not Middle) and some words as Middle English (and not Modern) does violence to the unity of the language. If necessary, I'd go the other way; a word in an intermediate text should attest both Middle English and Modern English, effectively calling the text simultaneously ME and ModE if we can't resolve it one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree with that: I feel the same way about Malory (1485-ish), who could really be justifiably cited in both ME and English entries (and is, I think). To be honest, the distinction between ME and English completely breaks down in a project like this one, which deals with historical language change. The literature shows a very steady and gradual change. Ƿidsiþ 08:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've never seen that done on Wiktionary. A work written in 1510 by a native English speaker in their native tongue is written in one language, not a mixture of two. Listing some words as Modern English (and not Middle) and some words as Middle English (and not Modern) does violence to the unity of the language. If necessary, I'd go the other way; a word in an intermediate text should attest both Middle English and Modern English, effectively calling the text simultaneously ME and ModE if we can't resolve it one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- ISO 639-2 defines Middle English as existing 1050-1500. We've usually gone along with that definition, because there is no hard line, at least at the modern end, and an arbitrary round and standard 1500 is as good as anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Middle English does have the prefix to-
Moved from RFD. Per utramque cavernam 11:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
RFV-failed. I have converted the entry to Middle English, where a single cite suffices. Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)