Talk:tewit

RFV discussion: March–July 2016
RFV of all of the alternative forms which were just copied and pasted from the OED, and most of which don't seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to try and attest any (outside dictionaries I've only ever encountered the peewit form in Sunset Song), but if somebody wanted to, they may (or may not) find this webpage helpful too (in addition to the OED quotes). --Droigheann (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * that would help cite the terms as Scots (at the moment they are claimed to be English). - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They are in the OED (as mentions) but unless the original editor provides actual usage (and nobody else will) they will be removed. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The only use of "tchuchet" I can find is an oft-quoted passage about a "Tchuchet-Storm". I can only find one Yorkshire use of "teafit" (and several mentions). "teewheep", "teewhoap": only mentions. "teewitte": nothing at all. "tequhyt": no English uses; one oft-quoted Scots passage about "the bones of ane tequhyt". "terwhite": only scannos. "teuchat", "teuchit" I've cited. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For teufet, teufit, tewet, and tewfet I only find scannos. tewhit is possibly attestable. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weel, let's not throw the bairn out wi' the bathwater - Dictionary of the Scots Language http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/teuchit has a few non-mentions, as does EDD - but someone'd have to go through and check which forms have 3 cites for this. Though, I have to ask, does the 3 cites rule apply to British dialect forms (given the variable spelling of dialect sources)? I note that CFI states "different requirements apply for certain languages" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We treat Scots as a separate language (language code sco). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, cool - about the Eng/Scots split, I mean. Thanks for letting me know. But this does bring up some queries about CFI: the rules seem to be applied to words and phrases, and also to definitions for polysemous words. But, first, do the CFI rules apply to every variant spelling of a word? And, second, does the 3 x non-mention cites rule apply to British dialect words? The actual CFI rules themselves do not seem to be clear on this, and the note that "different requirements apply for certain languages" does not seem to be elaborated on there - so is there a list of which languages to which different rules apply? [And, is there somewhere where these questions should be discussed?] - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is some disagreement about variant spellings. Some users think that three citations should be required for each spelling and that if there are two citations of one spelling and one citation of another spelling, the word does not meet CFI. Other users support pooling citations of different spellings to attest a single entry.
 * The requirement of three non-mention citations applies to all languages listed at WT:WDL, including English. British dialectal words are not exempt. Other natural languages have weaker requirements, as described at WT:CFI.
 * The WT:Beer parlour is a good place to discuss these topics. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mr. Granger. I would be a pooler of variant spellings myself (esp. for sections of the language that are not standard - slang, dialect, etc.). Seems that the 3-cites rule doesn't apply to dead languages ... from which one might be able to make a case for pre-20thC British dialect lexis such as appears in EDD - a lot of which is essentially dead now. But - to the Beer parlour I must hie me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "pooling" is irrelevant here, because some spellings of this word (including tewit) meet CFI with three citations each. Some people have said that if e.g. foobar gets two citations and foobarr gets one, they want to create an entry (presumably at foobar) using those citations, although this is controversial and has never been done yet: we have always RFV-failed such terms, AFAIK. But if foobar gets three citations, then the only reason for giving foobarr an entry too is if it too attested 3+ times. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the unattested words from the first two columns (RFV-failed); the third (now second of two) column still needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * tuquheit might be attestable, though just barely. tufit gets too many scannos to tell. tuchet does not seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Cited forms RFV-passed, rest RFV-failed and removed from the entry and deleted, except for two which were converted to Scots. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)