Talk:asearch

asearch
All the Google hits I could find seem like scannos of "a search". --Jackofclubs 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could probably argue for a Middle English header (although I hate that) – I've added a Wyclif cite. It appears a lot in his Bible, which is obviously quite a well-known work.  Ƿidsiþ 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's for aserch though. --Jackofclubs 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please render the citation in proper(contemporary) English, I cannot understand it. Bogorm 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Bogorm's problem (which I share) is why separate Middle English entries and translations of (some?) Middle English citations are needed. Given all the spelling variations and inflected forms, we would harvest a lot of entries too. We might find more than 20 forms of terms related to serch. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you mean we should have entries for all spelling variants?  If so, I agree.  But this is the lemma form.  Ƿidsiþ 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sticking to the point. I was arguing for Middle English entries, which you had said above that you hate, using Bogorm's and my difficulties with understanding the Wyclif passage as support. More specifically to the point at hand, the cite is not of the term asearch. It seems instead to be of aserch or aserche or aserchen. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think I already lost that argument ages ago. There are quite a few ME entries here.  But the point is this: when do you draw the line.  There are many early-modern texts which are just as hard to understand, and I would find it very weird ‘translating’ those.  Also, there are very few words which only exist in Middle English, ie which did not survive into early modern and therefore I think it's more useful to collect this historical development under one =English= heading.  (Although annoyingly, asearch isn't a good example because I don't think it did outlast ME!).  Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cited from well-known work (Wycliffe). Translation from Middle English needed! Moved verb to Middle English. New RfV for underattested archaic adverb below. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification debate (2)
asearch. Only one 1916 poetic citation not from a well-known work. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added two more. Really wasn't that difficult. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This has now passed RFV twice. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)