Talk:crow ouer

RFD discussion: November–December 2022
I wanted to speedy-delete this but, sigh, we have to go through a dumb RFD instead. GreyishWorm (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems to be citable. Why should it be deleted? Is it because =, so this is SOP? 98.170.164.88 21:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, not SOP in the same sense that crow over isn't. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep . crow means boast but you wouldn’t say ‘boast/boasts/boasted over’ someone but crow over seems to mean ‘boastfully triumph over’ or ‘dominate’, so it’s not SOP. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the real question is whether "u" vs. "v" is enough of a difference to justify a form-of entry. In Latin it wouldn't be, but I don't know how we handle this in Early Modern English. It may be one of those things like "s" vs. "ſ" where we don't bother to show it in entry titles. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At least it seems to be purely typographic: "The pointed form 'V' was written at the beginning of a word, while a rounded form 'U' was used in the middle or end, regardless of sound. So whereas 'valour' and 'excuse' appeared as in modern printing, 'have' and 'upon' were printed 'haue' and 'vpon', respectively." We have both of those, though:, . —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete now. I must admit I was imagining it was crow o’er which would be more justifiable. There’s also over-crow, with a similar meaning, that seems to only be used works by Shakespeare and Spenser. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as a mere typographical variant. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, not even a spelling variant, and not enough to justify a form-of entry. For medieval languages as Middle English the considerations may be different. My vote is also to delete English ouer: it is embarrassing enough to consider this an “anagram” of anything. Fay Freak (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain. I would strongly keep ouer itself (to paraphrase what someone said in a prior discussion, you don't think it's a problem that the "mere typographical variant" it uses is...a different letter of the alphabet, which thus makes it look like a different word/spelling and also prevents hard-redirecting? this is very different from, say, a ct ligature or even Capitalization), but I suppose longer multiword phrases like this could be considered SOP as long as ouer exists. Comparably, we deleted Talk:eatin' for two for being redundant to eatin' + eating for two. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think -sche's take makes most sense, though I see it leading logically to delete—I would tend towards keeping common words like ouer and the like, but it seems superfluous to create variants for every English lemma with initial u and non-initial v, and especially multi-word phrases like this that are already covered at their component(s). I think this is also probably more obvious to readers in context than it might seem from an entry; e.g. in the first entry at Citations:crow over there's also aduersaries (which we don't have) and I'm sure people can put 2 and 2 together. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, we need not have every archaic spelling variant of every phrase. bd2412 T 18:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. In theory we could flood the dictionary with words from early Modern English (not Middle English) like this:
 * fleume is a watrysh humour colde and moyst, which is begone to be altered into blood, and is not yet throughly cōcoct, therfore it is whyte, thynne, and vnsauery:
 * not fatte, nor coloured like blood, it serueth to mittigate the outragyous heate of the bloude, and nourysheth the blood, making it thinne and beinge myngled with the blood, conforteth suche partes as be flegmatik.
 * Now I don't think anyone here is going to do that, because it would be an obvious attempt at disruption, but if we don't set a clear boundary, well-meaning people could each add a few words here and there .... "oh look, we dont have vnite yet!" and bring us in the end to the same place. — Soap — 22:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. If we keep this (and other u~v forms) we would have to include separate entries for long s "spellings" as well. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-failed (needs to be deleted) Flackofnubs (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)