Talk:daven

RFV discussion: November 2020–October 2023
Base form for the frequentative, but I am not convinced that this is attested in Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1881 1820 1629 1618 I guess this is technically Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Thadh 1618 is draaft, 1629 is ſlaaft (next to draaft), 1820 is laaft and 1881 is correct, but also a bit mentionny and an example sentence. (It is used to illustrate the mentioned verb daven.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Thadh Yes, many scanned texts before 1850 are of very poor quality, so there are many scannos and other problems. Long s is rather common in Dutch before 1830. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't doubt this word existed, it doesn't meet WT:CFI. It is better off discussed in the etymology of.

RFV-failed. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)