Talk:sightly

RFV discussion: September 2021

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

sightly

"Open to sight; conspicuous. The house stands in a sightly place." It really annoys me when I see this kind of usage example, and imagine an English-learner picking up this stuff and assuming it's normal because it was in the dictionary. Nobody on Earth would say "my house is in a sightly place". Christ. Anybody want to cite it? Equinox ◑ 07:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Rare does not mean abnormal. In some uses, “a sightly spot” is clearly a spot that is easily seen, as when located on a hill.^[1][2] It appears that it can also mean “a spot that offers a good view”.^[3][4]  --Lambiam 10:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I note that it is marked as archaic, at any rate, so that would be an indication to learners. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Archaic tag's location. Rare tag too?

Nobody on Earth would say "my house is in a sightly place".
Indeed.

imagine an English-learner picking up this stuff and assuming it's normal because it was in the dictionary
I looked it up because I came across it as a misprint for slightly, and wondered why it was not picked up as a spelling error by Microsoft Word. Actually, my version of Word marks it as a (possible) error of grammar — with a blue squiggly underline.

I note that it is marked as archaic.
I didn't see the tag at all until you mentioned it. And I was looking for it. However, I was looking for the label to occur at the start of the definition of each sense. I hadn't realised that it appeared just under the headword(?). I understand the logic, but I'm not sure that's really prominent enough.

By the way, I suggest a case could be made to mark it as simultaneously archaic & rare, to indicate that even in the past it was uncommon. I'm not too clear on how to make labels that distinguish

• a word that was rarely used in historical texts, and is (practically) never used today — probably this is then (obsolete);
• a word that was rarely used in historical texts, and is still used today albeit rarely — perhaps (archaic, rare); and
• a word that was extensively used in historical texts, and is still used today albeit rarely — perhaps (archaic).

One hypothetical possibility would be labelling the headword archaic, and then selectively labelling some senses as rare. I think the logic holds, but am not entirely sure it would be seen as unambiguous.

—DIV (49.186.96.130 02:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC))

I have had a go at fixing the issue of the example identified by User:EclipseEquinox (above), by changing house to manse.

In the process I noticed another problem with the original example — The house stands in a sightly place. — which is that it is so vague that it could fit any of the three senses: i.e. that the "place" is beautiful, or the "place" offers a view of something beautiful, or the "house" is highly visible.

Hence I modified further to arrive at You cannot miss the manse of the Stewart family, for it stands in a sightly place.

I was unsure whether to wikify manse.

—DIV (49.186.96.130 12:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC))