Talk:rediculous

rediculous
An alternative spelling of ridiculous. Though it may be in some idiolects, it seems like a low-frequency (ie, not "common") misspelling, occurring a a frequency less than 0.5% of the frequency of the generally accepted and used spelling. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be at RFV. 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of attestation. It's a gum-flapper. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * gum-flapper? In any case, if this is attested, and there is no idiomaticity issue, then I don't see a reason not to have it. So keep. 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but change to misspelling. Not sure where your frequency figures come from but I see this all the time online. Equinox ◑ 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but classify appropriately - I think we need a new categorization scheme for intentionally ironic Internet-age nonstandard spellings (wrong spellings that are nevertheless not an oversight by the writer). On a side note, I have heard this word in spoken English (where the speaker clearly intentionally pronounced the first syllable as "reh"); although the correctly spelled form uses a schwa and could theoretically take this pronunciation, it is far more likely to naturally take a "ri-" or "ree-" pronunciation. I therefore think that the use of the spelling, "rediculous", implies the specific pronunciation "reh-diculous". bd2412 T 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the misspelling implies anything about the pronunciation. For example, the way I always type "ridiculous" as R-E-D- - - -R-E- -I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. It seems my fingers are just itching to put an "e" in there. --WikiTiki89 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see the data and methodology from which we could make a determination as to what might be ironic. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could tell from the context, in Usenet posts and Twitter posts and the like. For example, this forum post looks like intentional misspelling. bd2412 T 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have made it clear that I don't doubt that enough good-quality citations could be found for attestation especially on Usenet. I am very skeptical how one could document that such usage predominated. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If enough citations exist to attest that the intentional usage exists independent of spelling errors, what difference does it make whether that usage predominates among all usage? bd2412 T 04:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because if it will mislead normal users if we do not treat some minor deviant usage as a minor deviant usage. If it is attestable as an intended usage by an author writing in his own voice, it is includable aa such. But we would be downgrading normal use in favor of the precious to treat this as an alternative spelling, any more than we should treat boyz as an alternative mainstream spelling of boys. DCDuring TALK 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All of that can be solved with context tags and usage notes. We have plenty of words in the dictionary with multiple definitions, some of which are rare or obscure. We don't leave them out just because including them might seem to overstate their importance. I'm sure we can arrive at some solution that describes this word both as a misspelling, and sometimes as an occasional intentional usage. bd2412 T 17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but change to misspelling. I completely agree with Equinox. --WikiTiki89 13:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I only checked Google Books, BNC, and COCA. For misspellings GloWBE is a better source of both absolute and relative frequency. It is hard to trust Google counts. But after several years of the question coming up we still don't have any consensus of what combination of absolute and relative frequency on any corpus makes something "common". A formula like (log(misspelling_rate_per_billion))*(misspelling_ percentage ratio) for a specified corpus should yield a good ordering. If there were agreement on the adequacy of the ordering, we would need to determine which corpus and where we would set the threshold. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At GloWBE rediculous occurs about 2.0% as often as ridiculous, 560 occurrences per billion words. For comparison occurence occurs 300 times per billion and 3.9% as often as occurrence. Applying the formula gives a score of 0.127 for rediculous and 0.222 for occurence, ie, same order of magnitude. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This may or may not be relevant, according to Google Ngrams, the relative frequency (ignoring what seems to be noise) has stayed rather constant throughout history (at a ration of about 1:1000, or around 0.1%). --WikiTiki89 15:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Edited works may not be good for finding out about the tendency to misspell among ordinary folks. OTOH the GloWBE corpus would over-represent typos. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly as a common misspelling, per . For a calibration that I used, see User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013. If this is intentional, then I don't really know how to mark it. Common misspellings are kept per long-standing practice, and there is now even better evidence of consensus or lack of it at Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping_common_misspellings. what are 7 examples of common misspellings that you would keep, and why would you keep them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan P., re "If this is intentional, then I don't really know how to mark it", see template:deliberate misspelling of. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no reason we can't have two senses, one for a "misspelling of" and the other for a rare "deliberate misspelling of". bd2412 T 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reason: the sense is the same sense in both cases. But a note can explain this point. Lmaltier (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, but I think an intentional misspelling, whether for irony or emphasis, is a different "sense" from a mere lack of care in spelling or typing. bd2412 T 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept. The question of whether an intentional misspelling is something different from a common accidental misspelling is beyond the scope of RfD. bd2412 T 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So where does such a discussion belong? If it can't be decided - one way or the other - here, is it a matter of policy? Does it need a vote, too? If the discussion needs to continue to resolve this, so be it. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we call this both a "common misspelling", possibly in the online context AND an intentional misspelling. The latter could be RfVed if someone were so inclined. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Intentional misspelling" is misleading. It gives the impression that people are aware of their use being "wrong" and intentionally making a mistake. At least when I use it, I'm not intentionally making a mistake, I'm intentionally using a rarer spelling that many people disagree with. —CodeCat 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want us just to trust your eccentric idea on this! It's too controversial. How do we know that anybody else in the world would stick to this spelling as "correct but rare", even after being shown that it is not in any standard English dictionary? I find it hard to imagine there can be many such people. Equinox ◑ 18:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "I'm intentionally using a rarer spelling that many people disagree with." That's rubiš. Pjúr rabiš. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that we shouldn't be making assumptions on the intentions of the people that use such spellings. "Intentional misspelling" sounds to me like saying "they know the true path, yet choose in their folly to stray from it". "Misspelling" is not suited to a descriptive dictionary, as there is no way it can avoid implying that there is some kind of authority applying judgement. It also strongly implies that Wiktionary is that authority, which is wholly inappropriate for our descriptive point of view. To then add more wording to that which implies that someone had the audacity not just to make a mistake, but to do it on purpose, is even worse. —CodeCat 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If a dictionary can describe what people generally accept words to mean, it can describe how people generally accept them spelled. That most people would consider a spelling wrong is no less descriptive then saying that most people would consider calling a dog a cat wrong. There are a lot of spellings out there that no one would really defend as correct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I support BD2412's closure above; is good, just the usage note is on wrong level. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The usage notes was not based on fact, just speculation, much more so than our normal assertions that something is a misspelling. (BTW, when did we decide to weasel out of asserting that a misspelling was "common"? Can't we stand up on our hind legs about anything?) DCDuring TALK 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your is good. Would you agree that this RFD is now being closed with the outcome that (a) the entry for the spelling is kept, and (b) the definition line should say "misspelling" rather than "alternative spelling"? I propose to put the usage note out of scope of this particular RFD. If you are still disturbed by the fact that the usage note is not based on any evidence, another RFD on the usage note could be in order (or an uncustomary RFV on the usage note?), but to keep things managable, I think it should be a separate RFD. So again, would you agree with (a) and (b)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an example in the wild: May 28, 2013, The Official Justin Timberlake Thread, page 13: "I love Britney but, That's rediculous, not ridiculous but, rediculous!" bd2412 T 19:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closure challenged by DCDuring in . (Just for the record, so we know what the heck is going on here.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How is this really any different from teh? It's very hard to type "rediculous" as a pure typo because the "e" is not that close to the "i" on the standard keyboard. When you look at Google Books results for the word, you get two kinds of results - pre-20th century uses like:
 * 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Volume 1, page 188: "O, stranger! that's rediculous, altogether," said the man.
 * and modern usages that seem very likely to be intentional, like:
 * 2013, Carolyn Costin, Your Dieting Daughter...Is She Dying for Attention?, page 44: "Jackie's schedule sounds too rediculous to be true, but it was confirmed by her family and friends".
 * 2012, Tom and Julie Nowak, Say What?, page ix: "A collection of preposterous and common proverbs and sayings, rediculous expressions, senseless, slang, colloqialisms and familiar folk wisdom..."
 * 2012, Winston Groom, Forrest Gump, Ch. 7: "Him bein a tank officer an all, he say it rediculous for us to be wagin a war in a place where we can't hardly use our tanks on account of the land is mostly swamp or mountains.
 * <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes you think any of those "very likely to be intentional"? (I mean, as CodeCat says, a deliberate choice to use a spelling that isn't in dictionaries, rather than simply not knowing what the standard spelling is. I am not suggesting anybody hit the wrong key on a keyboard.) Equinox ◑ 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the closure was that this was kept, which is abundantly clear from the discussion. The nuances of the definition should be worked out on the entry's talk page. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pure typos are not only caused by proximity on the keyboard. They are also caused by muscle memory, Freudian slips, dyslexia, etc. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is no dissension from the entry existing, can we move this discussion to the entry talk page, or to the Tea Room, if it requires a broader forum? My master plan of cleaning house on the RfD page after this weekend is in jeopardy! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll settle for the closure, but I think once an item is open here, it deserves to get the attention of participants until it is a decent entry, if it is to be kept. I had the feeling that we were closing things for the sake of clearing out the page. (tail, dog) I will undertake to do what I can to move RfDs in which I participate toward a conclusion.
 * As to the source of error in those cases that it is a true mistake, it seems likely that the writers have misconstructed the word as derived using the prefix re- and/or in accordance with a common emphatic pronunciation, which I have used myself. I suppose those who enjoy violating spelling norms deserve their space in this dictionary if no other. Getting a free attestation ride on pure mistaken spellings seems an easy way to gain an entry. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be an easy way, but it's within the rules. See, Category:English misspellings. This (rediculous) is by no means unique. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * RFD kept as misspelling per discussion above. (Second attemp at closure.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened #rediculous (usage note) specifically for the usage note. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

rediculous (usage note)
The following usage note is herewith proposed for deletion: "This spelling may sometimes be used intentionally for effect."

Rationale: weak or non-existence evidence supporting the usage note.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this be an WT:RFV thing? --WikiTiki89 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Even if quotations are provided, their assessment as to their support for the usage note may turn very controversial. I propose to leave it here in RFD, and let those who want to keep this collect as much supporting evidence as they can. In the end, the closure will be a RFD-one, based on vote counting. (Yes, in the ideal world, it would be based on the strength of arguments, but no one has yet come up with an algorithm assessing strength of arguments.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One citation that I provided makes exactly this distinction: May 28, 2013, The Official Justin Timberlake Thread, page 13: "I love Britney but, That's rediculous, not ridiculous but, rediculous!" Here the writer is basically indicating that they know the word is spelled "ridiculous" but that the situation is so extreme as to be "rediculous". I would also point again to 1986, Winston Groom, Forrest Gump, Ch. 7: "Him bein a tank officer an all, he say it rediculous for us to be wagin a war in a place where we can't hardly use our tanks on account of the land is mostly swamp or mountains". Here the misspelling is obviously being used as eye dialect representing the character's accent. 2013, Tracey Hollings, The Curious Musings of Sally Columbous, page 108, has a chapter heading titled "Rediculous". While we are on the subject, by the way, the number of hits for 18th and 19th century uses suggests that at one point this was a legitimate alternate spelling. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Eye dialect is yet another separate sense line, presumably, since it's neither (accidental) misspelling nor eccentric personal choice à la CodeCat. Equinox ◑ 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Four senses, then? Common misspelling, intentional misspelling, eye dialect, archaic alternative use? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thinking we're overdoing it. I think "misspelling" covers all those cases. But I'm going to vote keep on the usage note based on BD's evidence. --WikiTiki89 20:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The way I've handled other things that were acceptable in the past but are now restricted in some way is along the lines of this: . I recognize that "nonstandard or eye dialect" is a bit clunky, so perhaps "eye dialect of" could be a separate sense, but saying "now nonstandard: alternative spelling of" rather than having separate "archaic spelling of" and "misspelling of" senses seems useful. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, this Ngram suggests that it has been hovering around 500-1000 times less common than ridiculous (except for a bizarre spike around 1817-1818) for the last 200 years. It does, however, go back a ways before that. Here is a slightly earlier quote: 1598, William Shakespeare, Loves Labors Lost: the first quarto, page 57: "Their shallow showes, and Prologue vildly pende, And their rough carriage so rediculous, Should be presented at our Tent to vs". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With Shakespeare, one can always blame the typesetters. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really a matter of blame – spelling was rather fluid then. I would just say ‘obsolete or non-standard spelling of’. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think one citation from Shakespeare is enough to call it obsolete. --WikiTiki89 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some more citations contemporaneous to Shakespeare:
 * 1592, Thomas Nash, Pierce Penilesse, His Supplication to the Divell, page 28:
 * Dalliance in the sagest and highest causes is an absurdity, and like a rediculous Vice in a tragedy, or a poisonous serpent in Paradise.
 * 1594, Robert Parsons, A Conference about the Next Succession of the Crown of Ingland, page 14:
 * ...but if it be ment as though any Prince had his particuler gouermenr or interest to succeed by institutió of nature, it is rediculous, for that nature giueth it not as hath bin declared, but the particular constitution of euery comon wealth with-in it selfe...
 * 1603, George Gifford, ‎Thomas Wright, A Dialogue Concerning Witches & Witchcrafts, page 60:
 * God hath given naturall helps, and those we may use, as from his hande against naturall diseases, but things besides nature he hath not appointed, especiallie they bee rediculous to drive away devilles and diseases.
 * 1609, Jean François Le Petit, A Generall Historie of the Netherlands, page 1288:
 * It were a rediculous spectacle, that after they had stript our wives and children of all their clothes, and made them forfeit to your highnesse, they should afterward condemne them to depart out of your territories Within three dayes.
 * 1610, St. Augustine, Citie of God, page 327:
 * O lamentable necessity! nay rediculous detestable vanitie, to keepe vanity from diuinitie.
 * Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, excellent! --WikiTiki89 14:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it the same typesetting shop? ;-) DCDuring TALK 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But seriously, folks, EME is almost as bad as Middle English in terms of lack of standardized spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That would certainly explain this. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have hypothesized proliferation from the very beginning. Maybe editing/proofreading was better initially, but rapid growth (and lower prices?) reduced such effort. I wonder if anyone has studied this? DCDuring TALK 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent citations from bd showing old usage. And I like the <tt>context + alt form</tt> solution which has been implemented. I question only whether it should say "archaic" rather than "obsolete". According to our glossary, obsolete is for things "no longer in use, no longer likely to be understood" while archaic is for things "no longer in general use, but ... generally understood by educated people, but rarely used in current texts or speech"; the latter seems to apply here. PS, I find a few citations of "radiculous" as an archaic or obsolete spelling of "rediculous", plus a few citations of it as something related to "radicular" (but one book says "radicular pain" emanates from radicles, while "radiculous pain is pain without anatomic basis"). - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, keep the usage note. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * RFD kept per either consensus for keeping or in any case no consensus for deletion (2 boldface keeps for the usage note, one non-boldface possible keep (-sche), one non-boldface possibly opposing argumentation (DCDuring)). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)