Talk:nemorivagant

RFV discussion: May–June 2016
Citation given is not adequate. DTLHS (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added one. bd2412 T 00:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two issues with that citation (one possibly minor): if you search most editions of Auden's collected works (same editor), this verse doesn't seem to appear. I can't find a title or anything to identify it, although I did find one version that contained it.  Why would different editions exclude it (apparently)?  Secondly, in the quoted passage, it's spelled nemorivagrant.  This could be a typo (since I could only find it in one copy), or Auden may have confused "vagant" with "vagrant" (understandable, since they mean the same thing and probably spring from the same Indo-European root, but one is Latin and the other Germanic).  It's clear what word is intended, but I have no idea how to treat a citation in which the word is misspelled.  It's still valid in the sense that he meant to use the right word.  But does it still qualify, or would it be grounds for a usage note (you can't tell from a single instance whether it's a common misspelling, can you?  Although I would expect it to be, if the word were more widely used)?  P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The title is 'Bestiares Are Out' (now added to the citation); the poem also appears on page 738 of the 2007 hardcover Collected Works, and on 739 of the 1991 paperback, both in print. The word appears in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Auden; although obviously a derivative usage, it is notable the discussed spelling or printing error is silently corrected.
 * Ah, good. More satisfying if the passage can be identified and definitely occurs in multiple versions (I wonder why Google Books was unable to locate it?).  Reasonably satisfied with the citations now.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. I would say the Auden quote shouldn't count, but even if it did, we'd only have two cites. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm too late, and I'd be on the fence about this anyway, but, there is also this:
 * `Few would go to the wall to save the mellifluous 'nemorivagant' ('wandering in the woods'), but there are head- words in seventeenth-century dictionaries, ignored by Johnson, that I would miss, had not Thomas Blount, lawyer, antiquarian, and country gentleman, taken pains to...;'
 * It is the sole result in scholar.google.com for this word, appearing in an International Journal of Lexicography, 2005; it seems people do talk about not talking about this word. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is a clear mention, rather than a use (see use-mention distinction) and thus cannot be used as a quote to save this word (but it's never too late if you find more evidence that meets our requirements). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, I had forgotten.  Isomorphyc (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)