Talk:enmilden

RFV discussion 1

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

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.

---

(And all the inflections, too.) Google Books has zero non-German results. OED has a single reference (in the en- prefix article, **cough**) from "Montaigne's Essayes, or morall, politike and millitarie discourses" tr. 1603 (1632), and that is the ony one I can find anywhere. Aside from which, it was clear this was just created to promote a particular point of view about "circumfixes." I don't think this can be attested. Dmcdevit·t 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, you’re right; this is rare. I didn’t check any search engines — I was just going on the OED’s list (at the prefix article that you’re talking about). I can find no citations myself — anyone else? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only are you vandalizing pushing your bizarre POV, but you are also systemically entering copyvios from OED, without even bothering to list attribution? What a lovely confession. --Connel MacKenzie 09:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m not vandalizing (which I shall take as knowingly entering false information; such as by creating an entry for a personal protologism) — I quite reasonably thought that this word existed. Yes, I relied on the OED (an invalid argumentum ad verecundiam) without checking a primary source (that is, a source of citations), which I don’t usually do. But I did do that this time, so I can only apologise. However, this doesn’t constitute a copyright violation, as I wrote the definition myself and the citation given by the OED (which I shan’t pretend that I knew about), shows that it isn’t a nihilartikel — right? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added the 1603 citation, but I don’t have the text from which to quote — Dmcdevit, does the OED quote it? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The full citation is: "1603 FLORIO Montaigne III. xii. (1632) 599 'That *enmildens mee'." Dmcdevit·t 19:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I’ve updated the entry; is what I’ve written accurate? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This verb is listed in the “Charles Payson Gurley Scott Dictionary of Etymological Terms”, whereto I’ve made reference in the entry. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion 2

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

Tagged long ago, but apparently never listed. Dominic·t 07:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was listed, but a lot of RFV discussions from back then ended up on month archives that never resolved anything. I've now moved this one's discussion from Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/June 2007 to Talk:enmilden, so it's a bit easier to find. Maybe we should just mark this failed and delete it now? It did have its thirty days — more, actually — back in the day. —Ruakh_TALK 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to Citations:enmilden. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for re-creation

To preclude another request for this verb's verification, or this entry's summary deletion, I offer this rationale for its re-creation:
Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation, criterion 2 is “[u]sage in a well-known work”. I assert that Montaigne's Essays, as the opus which saw the invention of the literary form of the essay, is a well-known work. I further assert that the first edition of John Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays, as the very first translation into English of the Essays, is by extension a well-known work. (deprecated template usage) Enmilden cites the first edition of John Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays. Therefore, (deprecated template usage) enmilden is attested according to the second attestation criterion of the CFI. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this the only known usage? In that case, a {{nonce}} tag is appropriate. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "nonce word" = "hapax legomenon". I understand by "nonce word" that it is a word that is coined for the sake of coining it. Florio's use doesn't seem at all frivolous, however, so I don't think that {{nonce}} would be appropriate. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)