Talk:enmilden

RFV discussion 1
(And all the inflections, too.) Google Books has zero non-German results. OED has a single reference (in the en- prefix article, **cough**) from "Montaigne's Essayes, or morall, politike and millitarie discourses" tr. 1603 (1632), and that is the ony one I can find anywhere. Aside from which, it was clear this was just created to promote a particular point of view about "circumfixes." I don't think this can be attested. Dmcdevit·t 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeesh, you’re right; this is rare. I didn’t check any search engines — I was just going on the OED’s list (at the prefix article that you’re talking about). I can find no citations myself — anyone else? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only are you vandalizing pushing your bizarre POV, but you are also systemically entering copyvios from OED, without even bothering to list attribution? What a lovely confession.  --Connel MacKenzie 09:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m not vandalizing (which I shall take as knowingly entering false information; such as by creating an entry for a personal protologism) — I quite reasonably thought that this word existed. Yes, I relied on the OED (an invalid argumentum ad verecundiam) without checking a primary source (that is, a source of citations), which I don’t usually do. But I did do that this time, so I can only apologise. However, this doesn’t constitute a copyright violation, as I wrote the definition myself and the citation given by the OED (which I shan’t pretend that I knew about), shows that it isn’t a nihilartikel — right? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I’ve added the 1603 citation, but I don’t have the text from which to quote — Dmcdevit, does the OED quote it? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The full citation is: "1603 FLORIO Montaigne III. xii. (1632) 599 'That *enmildens mee'." Dmcdevit·t 19:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I’ve updated the entry; is what I’ve written accurate? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This verb is listed in the “Charles Payson Gurley Scott Dictionary of Etymological Terms”, whereto I’ve made reference in the entry. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion 2
Tagged long ago, but apparently never listed. Dominic·t 07:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was listed, but a lot of RFV discussions from back then ended up on month archives that never resolved anything. I've now moved this one's discussion from Requests for verification archive/June 2007 to Talk:enmilden, so it's a bit easier to find. Maybe we should just mark this failed and delete it now? It did have its thirty days — more, actually — back in the day. —Ruakh TALK 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to Citations:enmilden. —Ruakh TALK 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for re-creation
To preclude another request for this verb's verification, or this entry's summary deletion, I offer this rationale for its re-creation: Criteria for inclusion, criterion 2 is “[u]sage in a well-known work”. I assert that Montaigne's Essays, as the opus which saw the invention of the literary form of the essay, is a well-known work. I further assert that the first edition of John Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays, as the very first translation into English of the Essays, is by extension a well-known work. undefined: cites the first edition of John Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays. Therefore, undefined: is attested according to the second attestation criterion of the CFI. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this the only known usage? In that case, a tag is appropriate. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think "nonce word" = "hapax legomenon". I understand by "nonce word" that it is a word that is coined for the sake of coining it. Florio's use doesn't seem at all frivolous, however, so I don't think that would be appropriate. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)