"Definition 2" of the verb is just the usual (but dying) rule for the subjunctive. I'm not sure how best to clean this up, so I'm marking it rfc.
- It's an irregular subjunctive, so it's worth its own definition. I've reworded it. Colin 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.
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.
Other Wiktionaries make extensive use of templates for inflections. The English Wiktionary really needs to catch up in this regard. Compare the neatness of http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/be with http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be. The conjugation table is a straight Mediawiki markup table which is hard to edit. -184.108.40.206 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not really a suitable comparison, since be is a highly irregular verb in the first place. Some of the French entry's neatness comes from having only three of the possible definitions, and from its lack of subjunctive forms in the conjugation tables. On the whole we do make extensive use of template tables, but not in English because most English verb entries don't need them. --EncycloPetey 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Northern England "was"
It says that "were" means "was" in the North of England. Are you sure? Actually I think that the Northern English are the best at using "was" and "were" when they should. The conditional tense should take "were". In most of the English-speaking world, people say "was". e.g. "I wish I was dead", "I think it was your job", etc. The North of England is about the only place where the average person says "were" rather than "was". I think that somebody's got confused with this entry. Should it be deleted 220.127.116.11 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it might have been referring to the use of "were" in place of "was" as the past tense rather than the conditional. It's a trait of Yorkshire English to use "were" as such. 18.104.22.168 12:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- The part were in werewolf might etymologically mean man, but that doesn't attest a New English word were meaning man.
- By "as in werewolf" it might be the same as were-. And then were- could be the more correct lemma.
- Webster 1913 () has "Were (wēr), n. [... Cf. Weregild, and Werewolf.] 1. A man. [Obs.] [...]" but without example. Maybe it's just the part were as in weregild and werewolf which doesn't attest a New English word were meaning man.
-22.214.171.124 23:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is what we are looking for, but I put in some quotes that use "were wolf" or "were gild" -- that is, where the "were-" is not a prefix, but a separate word. That seems to be what this definition is looking for. Finding a quote where were is used on its own to mean man outside these combinations has proved extremely difficult to search for, because there are so many other more common uses of the word, and when I get to works old enough to have a chance of containing such a use, the spelling is so flexible that I am finding lots of other words, such as ware. Kiwima (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- It could be were or several terms like were wolf, were gild. For me it's good enough. Thank you were much.
I changed the example from "as in werewolf" (which could be were- + wolf or from ME werewolf) to "as in were wolf" (which can not be analysed as were- + wolf and which is spelled differently than NE werewolf, werwolf, ME werwolf) -126.96.36.199 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)