Talk:weighth

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

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


weighth

Dated form of weight. Suspect they are typos/scannos in Google Books. Equinox 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uno, dos, tres. --Pilcrow 02:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I still think they are typos/scannos. Does any other dictionary have this? Equinox 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's a mistake on the analogy of height, which etymologically is high + -th and which used to have heighth as a common alternative form. But weight is not from that suffix (at least, not unless you go really far back). On the other hand, in the books cited by Pilcrow, weight is used consistently apart from those individual sentences, so they're probably typos. Ƿidsiþ 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just errors. I can also find cites for "weighth" when "eighth" was intended, but I don't claim that this is an "old spelling"! Many (but not all) of the mis-spellings I've found are by authors for whom English is not their first language, but perhaps we could have a "mis-spelling of" entry? Even "really far back" in the word's thousand-year history, there was never a spelling weighth, not even in Anglo-Saxon! Dbfirs 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found some good citations for this. Three that Pilcrow has above, plus one more. These are not scanning issues.

  1. First, a citation where "weighth" is clearly a spelling error for "weight": http://books.google.com/books?id=MytFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA447&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
  2. Next, a citation in which the rules of spelling are explained, and the "th" in the theoretical "weighth" is reduced to "weight": http://books.google.com/books?id=0vUDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
  3. But here are three clear citations: http://books.google.com/books?id=2UcZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA189&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyxuT8qLBsqhiAfP9MiMBg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
  4. http://books.google.com/books?id=9PYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyxuT8qLBsqhiAfP9MiMBg&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
  5. http://books.google.com/books?id=pWwDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA349&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
  6. One more: http://books.google.com/books?id=g01CAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA649&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
Alright, I've restored the entry and made it a "misspelling of" entry. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)