Talk:befraud

RFD discussion: August 2020–September 2021
appears to be an uncommon mistake for. I checked a couple dictionaries and didn't see it. I did not check OED. Most of the search results are scan errors. It does appear 3 times in durable places so this is not an RFV. I propose to delete as an uncommon error. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "not in dictionaries" is what distinguishes Wiktionary from most other dictionaries ! We represent actual usage. We also cannot make arbitrary judgements. Pairs such as  and,  and , etc. can equally be viewed as parallel developments, and are not that uncommon. Would you consider  to be a mistake for  ? Leasnam (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * CFI explicitly contemplate looking at other dictionaries for guidance. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't inherently exclude entries that aren't though, right? Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "It does appear 3 times in durable places", so keep. Even if it is, prescriptively speaking, a "mistake", people might encounter it and what to know what it means. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to CFI we don't keep rare misspellings. I don't see evidence that this is anything other than a very rare misspelling of defraud.   is described as rare or no longer productive.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the label rare or no longer productive requires review. If you're absolutely convinced there's a monster in Loch Ness, you're likely to see one. Leasnam (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a misspelling, it's a word with a completely different prefix. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the 2000 cite also uses "defrauded" and so the instance of "befraud" could arguably be a typo or misspelling (i.e. unintentional), especially if the authors are not native speakers. And (via Googling) I spot a copy of the 1991 book on b-ok.cc where their OCRed text, at least, has "defraud" in the place where the books.google.com version has "befraud"; the book does not use "defraud" anywhere else, nor does the 1987 book. This complicates things. But if valid citations exist, I would say keep this since, as Mahagaja says, it'd be a different word with a different (semantically intelligible/valid, if nonstandard/unusual) prefix. I recently created a similar entry, ensiege. At worst one might label such things misconstructions. (Certainly, befraud needs some labels: rare? and/or nonstandard?) - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Following your advice, I've labelled as rare and also directed the entry as a synonym of . Leasnam (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI. . One could argue whether this is a misspelling or a misconstruction, though. Deleting a vanishingly rare misconstruction would be a CFI override, I guess, but much in the spirit of deleting rare misspellings. The notion that this cannot be a misspelling since it uses a different prefix seems refuted by the 2000 cite mentioned by -sche for the reasoning supplied by -sche. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a misspelling, per others. J3133 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to note that I'm concerned about Leasnam still creating these Anglo-Saxonish entries based on typos and rare mistakes by Indians. Equinox ◑ 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * fraud isn't Germanic, though, Equinox. Though perhaps that is why you said "Anglo-Saxonish". Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per others. Definitely nonstandard, but I'm hesitant to rule this a misspelling or a misconstruction. The cites seem to include several native speakers as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. DAVilla 04:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Leasnam (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept AG202 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)