Talk:developt

RFD discussion: July–September 2019
This is not a word. Past participle of develop is developed
 * Could it be an obsolete form? Mihia (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an older alternative form, like instead of now more common . Here are some occurrences showing this form was still in use, also in the US, in the early 20th century:, ,  – occurring on many pages in these books. This GB Ngram shows that the form had two periods  of relative popularity before falling from favour after 1940. Unlike spelt, it never was the preferred form and its use may have been some kind of affectation. Also, in this text, an unaltered transcript of the author’s manuscripts, it is an abbreviation of development.  --Lambiam 00:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the label "old-fashioned". If anyone thinks a different label would be better then please change it, but I think some kind of label is on order. Also, it needs to be labelled in the same way at develop, but I don't know how to do that within the template. Perhaps someone else could do it. On the basis that the spelling definitely seems to have existed, I vote keep. Mihia (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think our standard label for such cases is . In fact, just use . — SGconlaw (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I always use, but have never come across developt. DonnanZ (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like "old-fashioned". Actually, one might even say that developt is obsolete, as it's no longer in use, but it was in use in the recent past, so it's not obsolete in the way that is. I also vote Keep. Leasnam (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to start using "old-fashioned," I suggest you bring it up in the Beer Parlour. We already have an established system of marking words as no longer in common use: "dated" for terms that are not in use among younger generations, "archaic" for terms that haven't been frequently used since before the lifetime of people now living, and "obsolete" for terms that have not been in use for centuries (those are my approximate definitions--I don't think we've defined them officially). It's confusing if you start introducing new terms that might mean different things to different people. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I misread the thread and thought Leasnam had added the label. I'm not necessarily opposed to "old-fashioned", but I think we should avoid using it without discussing the issue first. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * no worries, man, it's all good. Leasnam (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * suggests it is a common misspelling, given the poor frequency ratio going back to 1800. The frequency ratio between 1600 and 1800 does not look any better. It could even be deleted as a rare misspelling since the modern frequency ratio is more like . This is nothing like spelt: in, spelt has higher frequency than spelled between 1800 and 1880. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But it exists in print, and for those who encounter it and are not familiar with it, they will want to confirm what it means. Leasnam (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Exists in print" does not rule out that it is a misspelling, and WT:CFI says that "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." The Ngram views linked show that the spelling was very rare at all periods plotted; it had spikes of popularity, but even in those spikes it had a bad ratio typical for a misspelling. Based on the Ngram plots, I would not object to deletion as a rare mispelling, and similarly for envelopt (a redlink, ) or seemt (a redlink, ). --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a mispelling or rare alternate spelling. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: There's not really anything RFD-able here. If you don't think it's really a word, go to RFV. Purplebackpack89 14:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The CFI-based rationale is WT:CFI. What makes you think this is not a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * According to this, "developt" is an "archaic, literary form". This doesn't incontrovertibly prove that any given instance is not a spelling error, but it is evidence of the existence of the non-spelling-error. Currently we label "developt" as "dated". I wonder now if this is quite strong enough to indicate its rarity/marginality. I think I would support labelling it "archaic, literary" per the reference that I linked to. Mihia (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We usually do not defer to authoritative sources making authoritative claims (references) but rather to evidence, bearing a certain analogy to physical evidence. Quoting myself: "The Ngram views linked show that the spelling was very rare at all periods plotted; it had spikes of popularity, but even in those spikes it had a bad ratio typical for a misspelling". Supporting evidence of "we usually do not defer ...": Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly clear that the text that I linked to is evidence that "developt" exists as a word and not merely a spelling error. Mihia (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The referenced text The Oxford Handbook of Modern and Contemporary American Poetry refers, in the passage you refer to, to poet Duncan and it refers to "Duncan's use of archaic, literary forms of past participles and the past tense: ...". Here, the reference may be in error in thinking that each of these apparently archaic forms is a true archaic form: poets have a license to do weird things with language, including use of pseudo-archaic forms. I would admit that Duncan was probably making a deliberate use of the form, just like Joyce makes deliberate use of certain forms that get excluded as unattested. On the other hand, the form may indeed be literary, used as a literary device. I don't know; I know the frequency is suspect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, if the description in that text can be shown to be in error, then that would of course invalidate it. My comment was based on the assumption that it was a reliable source. Mihia (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep - This is definitely citable   and it seems in these cites that it is no misspelling. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Kept as common, Changed tag to archaic, not dated. --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)