Talk:þe

Request for verification
The quotation cited is from 1431, which is before the circa-1470 Middle-English–Early-Modern-English boundary, making it invalid as a citation of an English word. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just change the L2 header to Middle English, even if there is usage in something printed post-1500? There are probably many English "obsolete spelling" entries that would probably benefit from such a change, even if they are all in Roman characters. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have citations both præ- and post-1470, then we need two sections: English and Middle English. Of course, the Middle English section would list the definition simply as “the” and not as “Obsolete spelling of the”. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Go nuts! DCDuring TALK 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I'm assuming that this assuages your complain Doremítzwr.  If not, please feel free to reinstate rfv, as I have removed it.  If so, could you strike this thread?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It does about the misplaced citation; however, I’m curious as to whether saw any use in (post-Middle) English. (I imagine it probably did, considering the fact that our citation is from Middle English’s twilight decades…) †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The English section now has three citations; are they sufficient to verify this word’s (extremely restricted) use in English? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I see why you're asking. The groups cite seems mention-y. The 1901 cover title use seems like graphics. I'd sooner stipulate that it was still in use after 1500 than have those as precedents. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, English section removed. The 1533 purports to be Scots rather than English (unless by "Scots" is here meant "Scottish English"? I don't know anything about the topic, so can't judge); the cover title use I can't see, but DCDuring's statement seems likely; and I wouldn't consider the Groups cite valid, since it is only using the spelling in the context of proposing that people use the spelling. It's one thing to have three cites, of which one is a bit problematic, but three problematic cites really seems like too much. —Ruakh TALK 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)