Talk:foresave

fore-save
The given citation is the only Google Books result for "to foresave". Equinox ◑ 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * cited and labelled rare, as it is extremely rare yet exists Leasnam (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It still seems that some forms (foresaving) are not attestable: is this a rare error by e.g. learners? Equinox ◑ 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on. It looks like 6 citations spread over two spellings and two senses. The Christian sense is almost certainly archaic or obsolete and is spread over hyphenated and unhyphenated as the the more recent recoinage. To call both senses saving in advance seems like a stretch. It is like ignoring the difference between and . DCDuring TALK  21:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. In fact, one of the citations was of the noun fore-saving. Of the hyphenated citations, the 1907 Forsyth one is of a religious sense "save (ensure the salvation of) in advance", while the 1937 and 1984 ones seem financial and not particularly intelligible. Of the unhyphenated citations, the 1532 one seems to actually mean "reserved"(?); the 1848 citation is religious; the 1907 citation is financial. So, no sense or spelling has enough citations to pass by our usual standards, although in the discussion of witenagemot some proposed laxer standards. - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah but all those senses, whether religious, financial, whatever, can be lumped under the general "save" (all senses) qualifier.Same thing we did at Leasnam (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the 1532 citation can be lumped into a general sense, even if the other two unhyphenated citations can be: the 1532 citation seems to man something like "reserved"; compare: "I have assigned that my [feoffs] shall [go] to the use of the said John & Anne [...] always except and (reserved | saved in advance) that such landes in Throp Bulmer as be assigned to & for the fyndyng of a preist be not parcell." Does the OED have any citations besides the ones we're already discussing? - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Meh, kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)