Talk:stæfleahtor

RFV discussion: September 2016–May 2018
An Old English entry created by User:Leasnam in 2009. I can't find any usage in Books, Scholar, News, or Groups. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * stæfleahter is certainly attested. — JohnC5 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @PseudoSkull, You might need to search on stæfleahtres (e.g. Swylce betwyx stánhricgum gruttes and stæfleahtres swelgend), as that is the form that is glossed/attested. The nominative could be either stæfleahtor or stæfleahter, as the second element was / which had multiple forms. Leasnam (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How does Bosworth-Toller attest "stæfleahter"? According to the entry for leahter (genitive leahtres, m.) there are the alternative forms lehter, lahter, leahtor, and according to the entry stæfleahter the attested form is stæfleahtres (and similary synleahter is attested as synleahtras). The nominative singular could be both *stæfleahter or *stæfleahtor (similary *synleahter or *synleahtor). So there should be the following possibilities:
 * Only have an entry stæfleahtres where both possible nominative singulars and their inflection could be mentioned.
 * Have both stæfleahtor and stæfleahter, at best with a usage note. stæfleahtor could be, or vice versa.
 * -84.161.18.82 04:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[5467]  barbarismi, stæfleahtres   80, 9 It's only a mentioning. For this remember WT:CFI: "maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". So if 'old glosses' gets added to the list (which could be added WT:About Old English), would be sourced, and so would be the synonym and the see-also term given above.
 * Anecdota Oxoniensia. Old English Glosses. Chiefly unpublished. Edited by Arthur S. Napier, Oxford, 1900, p. 137 & 148:
 * [5466]  solocismi, ᵹruttes   80, 9
 * 485  barbarismi, miscwedenes wordes [gen. of "miscweden word"?]   80, 9

For the synonym compare also: -84.161.1.61 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar herausgegeben von Julius Zupitza. Erste Abteilung: Text und Varianten, Berlin, 1880, p. 294 (google-US):
 * Sum đæ̂ra solocismus, þæt is miscweden word on endebyrdnysse þæ̂re ræ̂dinge of đam rihtan cræfte.


 * So: this is attested in a period document, which is (AFAICT) sufficient given that the language is extinct. It is attested in a non-'citation'/non-lemma form, but when it is possible to do so we lemmatize entries on the lemma form, and it is possible to do so here because it is a compound word of which the second part is attested in the nominative. I've swapped which entry had the content and which was an alt form, since Bosworth and Toller seem to lemmatize -er rather than -or, but AFAICT this passes RFV. - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO it depends on the interpretation of WT:CFI and the word "should": Is it a polite way of saying "must", "have to" or just a recommendation which can be ignored, a "you may or may not do so"? IMHO it's only sufficient if the mentioning-source is accepted and added to the list, cp. Wiktionary talk:About Old English (similar questions are asked for OHG, Norn, Burgundian). But I think there is no doubt that the source should be accepted. I'd simply copy WT:About Latin and replace the Latin sources by something like "old glosses". If there are no objections on the talk page and nobody doing it before me, I might be so bold and brave and simply add the list in some time. A week after asking the question - in line with intro's "for more than a week without challenge" - could be enough time. --84.161.20.186 03:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)