Talk:thereto

RFC discussion: January–February 2018
Can't we just remove the Middle English citation ? Do we need a Modern one added ? Leasnam (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Middle English citation should be moved to a Middle English entry. But what should that entry be? How's Middle English normalised at wiktionary? Should it simply be moved to, and if other forms exist and are more common, be changed later? -80.133.107.175 03:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "solved" by moving the cite to WT:Requests for cleanup. -80.133.98.90 19:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The simplest thing would be to simply move it to Citations:thereto. We allow citations to be added to citations pages as long as they're the same spelling, whether an entry exists for them or not. As for normalizing Middle English spelling: I don't think we do. If there are 20 different spellings attested, we create 1 main entry and 19 alternative-form entries (just don't ask me how we choose which one is the main entry). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC discussion: February 2018–April 2024
As Anglo-Saxon and Middle English are not (New) English and as thus Anglo-Saxon and Middle English cites do not belong into (New) English entries but might nontheless be useful for Anglo-Saxon or Middle English entries to be created, I'm moving them to here now: -80.133.98.90 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) from God the Son, God the Father,God the Holy Ghost (maybe for God Fæder, Godes sunu, God þe son, God þe holi gost, though are the latter three idiomatic enough and not SOP?):
 * 2) * c. 900,,  (1891), iv. xvii. 312
 * Wuldriende God Fæder butan fruman.
 * 1) * c. 920,, Aldred, , John i. 1
 * in fruma uæs uord & uord þæt is Godes sunu uæs mið God feder.
 * 1) * c. 1400,, Primer, 47
 * God, fadir of heuene... God þe son... God þe holi gost, haue merci of us!
 * 1) from thereto (maybe for þher-to?):
 * 2) * c. 1430 (reprinted 1888), Thomas Austin, ed., Two Fifteenth-century Cookery-books. Harleian ms. 279 (ab. 1430), & Harl. ms. 4016 (ab. 1450), with Extracts from Ashmole ms. 1429, Laud ms. 553, & Douce ms. 55 [Early English Text Society, Original Series; 91], London: N. Trübner & Co. for the, volume I, OCLC 374760 , page 11:
 * Soupes dorye. — Take gode almaunde mylke caste þher-to Safroun an Salt
 * I added the þher-to quotation to . — SGconlaw (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is difficult to address because our Middle English entries (if they exist at all) are in a poor state, with little standardization of spellings. DTLHS (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow the headwords in the Middle English Dictionary Online? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As for a clean-up of (New) English entries, moving it to citation pages (like Citations:God, Citations:þher-to) as somewhat suggested in WT:RFC seems like a good idea. With Category:Old English citations, Category:Middle English citations the citations can than be found.
 * MED? -80.133.97.179 02:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Following the headwords in the MED is a good safe bet, I think. We could then put the other spellings in alternative forms, I suppose?  In some cases there are a plethora of spelling options, some of which are universal (e.g. the '-e' ending that may or may not be included; 'þ' and 'ð' instead of 'th' and vice versa, the wynn and the yogh, etc.)--it might be good to somehow standardize how those are handled as well. Or, perhaps, there are already ways the treatment thereof is standardized here--if so, I'd love to know. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there's not really any standards. This should be documented at About Middle English, if something is agreed upon. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not really that simple. There is no hard dividing line between ME and modE, it's more of a sliding scale and some texts (like Malory) could fairly be counted as either. I think ME citations should not be removed from modE entries if they are doing the job of showing the word's usage through time. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By time and WT:About Middle English, Malory is Middle English. -84.161.47.237 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we picked 1500 as a dividing line, but that is arbitrary. Language did not morph into modern English overnight. Malory is right at the end of the ME period, and in fact is functionally identical to early modern English. He is a world away from (for example) Chaucer. Ƿidsiþ 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this as a four-step process:
 * make a list of works/authors used in English quotes and quote requests
 * select from those a list of those which are from before modern English
 * make a list of English entries with pre-modern English quotes
 * go through the list and fix them
 * The first and third require processing the dumps, the second can be done by anyone who has the time to research or who knows already which is which, and the last requires someone who knows ME well enough to create entries.
 * It won't get everything, but it will at least catch a large subset of obvious ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Quotes are not parseable enough to make step 1 feasible. DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also not necessarily desirable, since it's been established here already that Middle English citations can be used to support modern English definitions if the definition in question is also attested from the modern English period. Ƿidsiþ 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For lack of any consensus about whether this is evne a problem, I suggest archiving this long-stale discussion. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)