Talk:antic

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: To make grotesque. I couldn't find this sense for "anticking" or "anticked". DCDuring TALK 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For me the first hit at is some edition of Antony and Cleopatra, Act II, Scene 7, line 119, with Anticked us glossed as “(1) Made dancers of us, (2) Made us grotesque.” The first hit at  is another edition, same scene, line 147 (presumably there's some prose in the scene, so that different editions will have different line numbers?), which glosses Anticked as “transformed into antics (grotesque performers)”. (We do have that sense at [[antic]].) Unless we have a reason to doubt these glosses, I think this would fall under the "well-known work" ConFI. —Ruakh TALK 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having a dated sense, but I do mind having a dated gloss. "To make grotesque" is not a gloss that communicates to me. Nor does it seem the only or the most direct reading of the Shakespeare passage. All the other uses (not very many independent ones) suggested something like "make fools of" or intransitively "play the fool". Websters 1913 showed that sense as obsolete and cited Shakespeare (no specific citation). MWOnline shows no verb sense. I thought there might be some other citations or contexts that could make sense of the definition as written. Perhaps the OED can shed more light on this. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, no more light. The OED Online does have this sense (&dagger;1. trans. To make antic or grotesque. Obs.), but its only quotation is the same one from Shakespeare. My understanding is that the OED includes at least one quotation for each sense from each century where it's attested, so apparently this sense isn't attested outside the 17th century (at least so far as the OED is aware). —Ruakh TALK 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Clocked out DCDuring TALK 16:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've added the cite. How do you want to handle this? ? —Ruakh TALK 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose our best bet is to consult the annotated editions of Antony and Cleopatra to get the benefit of scholarship on this. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited from well-known work. Still needs a better def. . DCDuring TALK 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC discussion
Two conflicting etymologies are offered; which is correct? Also, there is an older problem with the references section, which is unclear. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * conflicting sources. Online Ety Dictionary seems best. Hard to avoid copyvio without finding a definitive scholarly source, IMO. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all major modern dictionaries, including the MW3 and OED, favor the Italian antico as used to mean "grotesque." "Antique" should be mentioned, but seems to be only indirectly related. -- Visviva 22:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * antic cleaned up. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: April 2013
rfc-sense: To make a fool of. The citation suggests this is valid, so I'm not sure what exactly needs cleaning up. Maybe it needs. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The citation is quoted in this dictionary, which has several related entries (different pos). It seems to mean to make look ridiculous, as performing antics might do to one. Obsolete seems right. — Pingkudimmi 13:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: March 2010–June 2012
Rfc-sense: To make grotesque? Sole known use is in Antony and Cleopatra. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It now says to make a fool of. I can't see a problem with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2016
Rfv-sense: (obsolete) To make a fool of, to cause to look ridiculous.

Only cite is from Shakespeare. Two more needed. DCDuring TALK 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering how widely-read Shakespeare is, that there are whole dictionaries devoted to words used by Shakespeare, and that there are far fewer published works from the Elizabethan era that can be drawn on for evidence of a word's existence, shouldn't we include Shakespeare's writings under some sort of a notability criterion? I'm aware that there is no such criterion for English, but it seems odd to me that someone (like me) looking up a word they found in Shakespeare wouldn't be able to find it in Wiktionary because of our rigid CFI. This especially considering how many times the play from which the quote used to illustrate this sense is included in compilations of Shakespeare's plays, or reprinted in some format (see here).
 * As a side note, I'm fairly sure senses 2 and 4 are identical. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There used to be a criterion like that, but it was removed by this vote. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The well-known work exception to the requirement for three cites from well-attested languages allowed all Shakespearean, Joycean, and Pynchonic nonces to be included. With only a single use how is one supposed to determine what the "conventional" meaning of the term is? DCDuring TALK 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Senses 2 and 4 are certainly identical, but I'm not sure sense 3 should be distinguished from sense 2 either. If they're combined, then only one more citation would be needed.  P Aculeius (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about any of these, but what I found was this: Another, but different Shakespeare reference with the same (or highly similar) sense:
 * Another transitive use of antic as a verb with what looks to me like a similar sense:
 * And finally (and most dubiously)
 * Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And finally (and most dubiously)
 * Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am calling this RFV-passed, unless someone has strong objections.