Talk:forswonk

RFV discussion: September–December 2023
Probably just used by Spenser, and he didn't even spell it proper P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I did find two other uses, both of which place the word alongside like Spenser does: forswonke for-swunck.
 * We have an interesting problem here: All three of the texts spell the word differently, and none of them in a "modern" way. Should we normalise our entry to the expected modern spelling in this situation? I think we should. OED chooses forswunk as its lemma, which seems to be more in keeping with the past participle forms listed at our entry. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It means each different spelling fails, and should be deleted. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * any chance one of the spellings predominates? If so, that should be made the lemma. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only found three cites, each with a different spelling. As for WF's suggestion, that is certainly one way to read CFI, but I don't think it is a very constructive interpretation. This, that and the other (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I used to wonder why the OED normalizes spellings when the spelling of the lemma doesn’t seem to be attested. Maybe this is why—to group several variant spellings together. However, our inclusion criteria are currently more stringent than the OED’s. Maybe there needs to be more flexibility for terms attested only in the 16th and 17th centuries, I don’t know. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start a vote about flexibility! P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * RFV failed Denazz (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)