Talk:plight

(To Widsith) I strongly suggest you to reconsider such kind of edits, since in Wikipedia removing sourced information is considered vandalism, I am a novice in Wiktionary, but I really do not figure out any other possible cause for you removing two sources, one of them undeniably demonstrating the Old Norse origin, other than striving to obfuscate the origine of the word according to the ODS and I hope I am wrong. If in fluent Danish it is written: "eng. plight; AFL. AF MNT. PLEGEN", then that means in fluent English "ENGLISH PLIGHT IS A DERIVATIVE OF MLG PLEGEN". I am really tired of quoting for every edit of mine from what academic source it stems and am flabbergasted by your persistent unsourced objections causing (not only to me, but to the readers too) numerous tribulations in the elucidation of etymology. One more thing, if you think I am misunderstanding my sources (in fluent Danish), that can be proven very easily by me beginning to write to you in fluent Danish and observing whar kind of answers would you write. Bogorm 10:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right then. Let's look at the information you previously entered.
 * "From Middle Low German plegen: (whence Danish pleje:), from Old High German phliht: or fliht: (whence German Pflicht:)".
 * This doesn't make any sense. The English word is a noun, with a clear noun suffix (the -t is a form of -th:).  It cannot conceivably come directly from a MLG verb plegen:.  Furthermore, this MLG verb cannot come from an OGH noun.  I don't know what the ODS is trying to say, but clearly there is some confusion here.  It would help if we knew which "plight" they are talking about, since there are (at least) two distinct words in English.  What exactly does Danish pligt: mean?  Ƿidsiþ 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The etymology of plegen is here and as you can see, it stems from OHG phlegan. The English word is NOT ONLY a noun, as you can see in the section "Etymology 1", there is a noun and a verb and I consider it sheer coincidence that the noun precedes the verb. Why do you think I should write the etymology taking care of how many words are stemming therefrom? Danish pligt means exactly the same as German Pflicht, obligation. And obligation is very close to "put in pledge", which is the meaning of the verb in the same section. If you are so inquisitive about the MLG noun, the Gebrüder Grimm have not mentioned a MLG noun, only LG plicht, but have clearly stated: "ein von pflëgen abgeleitetes verbalabstractum, wie (ge-)wicht von wëgen (wägen, wiegen)" (it is a derivative verbal abstractum from pflegen(to take care about, mine), as Gewicht (weight) from wiegen (to weight)). So, both sources are coherent about the noun originating from the verb and if you are not content with verbs in the etymology, then just change the places for the noun and the verb, they both still are in jurisdiction of the same etymology. Bogorm 11:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The nouns may have come from verbs in continental languages, but they didn't in English. The MLG (and Dutch) verb plegen: and the German verb pflegen: do not have a direct modern English cognate, but they correspond to the OE verb pleon:.  This goes back to a proto-Germanic root (*plig- or *pleg-) which is also the source of English .  In English the situation is fairly clear: the verb "plight" was formed later, from the noun.  The noun pliht: is incredibly old and appears in the Vespasian Psalter which was written in the early 700s.  The verb, plihtan:, is clearly formed from the noun, and this is strongly supported by the fact that it is a weak verb.  It is not attested until around the 9th century.  Ƿidsiþ 11:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am really sick and tired of this "appeared anywhere" and distorting it so that it be contrary to the ODS, which I firmly count on. Why do not suppose that the word may become extinct somewhere between 800 AD and 1040 AD, when the vikings have vanquished Albion twice and left a profound influence on its language??? If magister dixit (ODS: "eng. plight; AFL. AF MNT. PLEGEN"), there is no use in trying to make original researches. Ceterum censeo, verbum anglicum plight ex plegen originem suam trahendum esse! Bogorm 12:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing original about it. The facts are well expressed by the OED (subscription required), the American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, the Online Etymology Dictionary, and basically anywhere else you look.  The only reason I have gone into so much detail is to try and make you understand why "plight" cannot possibly have come from a MLG verb.  It is self-evidently nonsense.  If the ODS are really saying that I can only assume it's a mistake or a misprint.  Ƿidsiþ 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I shall not assume such thing about ODS by any circumstances (unless explicitly tagged as misprint), that is out of question. I can assume it for one of your sources, but I think we should cease the skirmish here, as you have won the upper hand with regard to number of sources and leave the version of ODS at least in the talk page, so that any impartial reader can acquaint himself with it. I would, of course, be more content, if it were present in the article itself, but I am not going to return it until I find some other independent source corroborating the Middle Low German origin of the word. I only hope that removal of comments is considered vandalism as in Wikipedia and that the discussed version disparaged by you can still thereby be available here. Ceterum censeo, verbum anglicum plight ex plegen originem suam trahendum esse! Bogorm 12:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)