Talk:paranœa

Almost all hits are mentions. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be "obsolete" not "archaic", but apart from that I think it's OK. Actually according to the OED this is the first recorded spelling of paranoia:. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 12:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Could you please forgive me if this sounds meagre? I have never defended my work (since I started the entry) like this before. I am not sure if you are saying that dictionary mentions are inappropriate, but surely two of these authors are important, no? ¶ Words from Greek often had the digraph οι replaced with the ligature œ; “παράνοια” has the combination of οι, thus the transliteration was written as “paranœa”. Here are some more examples of the word “paranœa”:

Firstly: William Whitney: The Century dictionary and cyclopedia Secondly: Henry Eugène de Méric: Dictionary of medical terms (French) Lastly: Robley Dunglison: Medical Lexicon

¶ Would this suffice, sir?  75.142.190.21 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because they're all mentions, not uses. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (See . < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC))


 * ¶ Noted. Please pardon my ignorance.  75.142.190.21 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Actually according to the OED this is the first recorded spelling of paranoia:" any chance we can keep this in good faith? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first citation in the 3ʳᵈ ed. OED's draft revision for paranoia is a 1749 one of, the next is from 1789 and is of , and the third and fourth are from 1811 and 1842 (respectively) and are both of undefined:; however, both its citations of undefined: are from dictionaries. Pace the OED, I have nevertheless quint-cited it; of those five, these three are unambiguous uses. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cites look good. Seems to warrant a, though not as rare as all of our mostly untagged hapax legomena from well-known works. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the tag myself, on the grounds that it's much more common than many of our untagged rarities (as you said); nevertheless, I'll leave that judgment to you. I agree with Ƿidsiþ that this should be marked obsolete, rather than archaic; my reason is that, as the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1909] entry shows, undefined: would be pronounced, whereas everyone pronounces undefined: as ; therefore, undefined: has been obsoleted by the change in pronunciation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ May I please have permission to remove the { {rfv}} tag? --Pilcrow 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. Per comments above, I've tagged this as obsolete. —Ruakh TALK 19:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)