Talk:fiþele

RFV discussion: October 2022
Old English. Not in Bosworth-Toller or the DOE; thus attestation is unlikely, given that the DOE Corpus apparently contains "at least one copy of each text surviving in Old English". I see no reason to doubt that statement, so this entry should be moved to Reconstruction:Old English/fiþele (the reconstruction of such a form is necessary as there's no other plausible source for ; positing borrowing of a into Early Middle English would be highly unparsimonious and circular). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with moving to a reconstruction either, but how is it not in B&T, that's precisely where I took it from, see here [], and here [] (?) Are the entries here reconstructions then ? Leasnam (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad; I searched for "fiþele", not "fiðele". Still, it seems to be unattested given that B-T provides no quotes from it; my guess is that they saw it in some earlier Old English dictionary and mistakenly carried the form through. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems to be that it existed (either attested or glossed), as Koebler also has it [] Leasnam (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Koebler is usually good in showing obliquely attested terms with an trailing asterisk (e.g. fiþele*); directly unattested (but found in compounds or derivatives) with a leading asterisk (e.g. *fiþele), and non-attested but possible with an asterisk and question mark (e.g. *fiþele?). Here, they show no indication of non-attestation. Leasnam (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about Kobler's reliability; note that the MED and OED both list it as reconstructed. Conversely, the word is listed in this list of OE words "only appearing in glossaries", and several papers neglect to asterisk it (though they could be cribbing from Bosworth-Toller). However, at the end of the day, there's no getting around WT:RFA WT:CFI's requirement for a use or mention, and we currently don't have one. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I find Koebler's reliability to be in many respects (and not disrespect to them) better than B&T, especially if you're focusing on the Germanic stuff. The MED shows it as a reconstruction ? I don't see that here []. Do you have access to DOE ? If so, can you search for fiþela and fiðela please and let me know what the result is ? Leasnam (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you meant WT:CFI ? Old English is not on the list of Well Documented Languages. Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I must've been mistaken about what the MED showed; I was quite ill when writing my response. I don't know whether you're trying to be clever or asking a genuine question, but the DOE 's entry for notes that it means "fiddler", not "fiddle". This is supported by the term it glosses  and the readings of other MSS. ; presumbably it is from . As for the reliability of Kobler, I wouldn't be surprised if it's better than BT, given that the latter's more than 100 years old and IIRC built of the backs of even older dictionaries, but that doesn't make it foolproof. Finally, WT:LDL cannot get us out of the need for attestation, as WT:AANG states that only those terms that are attested in the original early medieval sources are allowed. So unless we can find  in said "early medieval sources", then there is no grounds for a entry outside the Reconstruction namespace. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved to . Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)