Talk:sluff
You don't have a single reference for this word's existence that occurs before the 1990's. Your references are coming from periodicals or websites: media that has a known track record for spelling inaccuracies. Is everyone sure they aren't just using misspellings to support the conclusion that "sluff" is a proper word, rather than the fact that people (usually Americans) have just continually misspelled "slough" out of laziness or ignorance?
The claim has been made that this word is from the "Middle English slough". It was spelled "slughe" in Middle English, so your first bit of info is incorrect, there; it wasn't spelled "slough" until 1720. Is there any evidence whatsoever that it has been (or ever was) spelled "sluff" since the 15th century? No, so this article is already inaccurate.
There are other, more obvious origins for this word. The page should be rewritten to reflect the word's true origins (if I am incorrect), or, if they cannot be shown, the page entry should be removed. "Sluff" is not in the OED, or any dictionary in my possession, and if your theory of origin is 1995, I think you need to try a little harder: it's not jargon, it's not a new word. It is misspelled, plain and simple. Every spell-check program on my computer agrees. The word is "slough". Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
RFV discussion[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
I'm just going to copy over my argument from the discussion page, as I will not be returning to this request:
You don't have a single reference for this word's existence that occurs before the 1990's. Your references are coming from periodicals or websites: media that has a known track record for spelling inaccuracies. Is everyone sure they aren't just using misspellings to support the conclusion that "sluff" is a proper word, rather than the fact that people (usually Americans) have just continually misspelled "slough" out of laziness or ignorance?
The claim has been made that this word is from the "Middle English slough". It was spelled "slughe" in Middle English, so your first bit of info is incorrect, there; it wasn't spelled "slough" until 1720. Is there any evidence whatsoever that it has been (or ever was) spelled "sluff" since the 15th century? No, so this article is already inaccurate.
There are other, more obvious origins for this word. The page should be rewritten to reflect the word's true origins (if I am incorrect), or, if they cannot be shown, the page entry should be removed. "Sluff" is not in the OED, or any dictionary in my possession, and if your theory of origin is 1995, I think you need to try a little harder: it's not jargon, it's not a new word. It is misspelled, plain and simple. Every spell-check program on my computer agrees. The word is "slough". Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as misspelled, plain and simple, in a case like this. Spelling is dictated by usage and acceptability, and if a word is "continually misspelled", it's simply spelled that way.
- Oxford says it's okay in some cases. There aren't many uses for the word prior to the 1990s but a quick Google search reveals a few: this advertisement in Life in 1957, and 1982 in the bridge sense (unaltered reproduction of 1973 edition). "It was spelled "slughe" in Middle English" strikes me as unreliable; spellings in ME vary quite wildly depending on manuscript.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps there should be a warning for an ignorant user that the spelling is regarded as non-standard by many or even majority of English speakers - a usage note or something? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. I'd take note that it's found tolerable by at least Oxford for slang usages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Yabopomonofonomopo bay it is about evidence rather than arguments. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- In contract bridge, there is a play known as "ruff and sluff". Google Books reveals that seems to be the only spelling in bridge books. The spelling "ruff and slough" picks up exactly two hits, both to novels, and no bridge-related hits for "rough and slough". But compare Ruff and discard, which I assume reflects British usage. Choor monster (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The 1904 English Dialect Dictionary lists numerous citations to the "sluff" spelling under the "slough" entry. Choor monster (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Yabopomonofonomopo bay it is about evidence rather than arguments. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. I'd take note that it's found tolerable by at least Oxford for slang usages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps there should be a warning for an ignorant user that the spelling is regarded as non-standard by many or even majority of English speakers - a usage note or something? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a related issue to ponder about: if "sluff" and "slough" are alternative spellings, why do we have unidentical definitions for them? According to the definitions we have, "sluff" means avalanche or mudslide, but "slough" is muddy area or type of swamp. As a verb "slough" means shed the skin, but "sluff" is more general in meaning, it even means shrug off or avoid working. They share the senses of dead skin and to discard in a card game. There would be a nice cleanup job for someone, it seems. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Passed. If you think it is a misspelling and not common enough for an entry, WT:RFD it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)