Talk:thy

RFV discussion: February–March 2020
Conjunction meaning "because". Not in the EDD or Century (which sometimes help find citations of things), and is only finding me scannos across line breaks and other chaff. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was usually used following for as in for thy. May be Middle English Leasnam (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that hint, . This is now cited. Kiwima (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If this is only found as "for-thy"/"for thy", which looks like a mere alternative form of, then I think this would need to be reduced to something like (with that entry defined as an alt form or synonym of ). - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we can conclude that it is only found in that formation - the reason all our quotes use "for thy" is because I used that string to search on, thereby weeding out many false positives. Kiwima (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, the etymology section identifies thy as a short form of for-thy or forthy. The citations show an alternative form of for-thy, not a shortened form of it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, both the etymology and the citations suggest this only exists as forthy. The Middle English Dictionary also does not appear to have this except as forthy (I looked to see if they would have pointers to any other collocations). I found one source suggesting "withe thi"/"with thy" might exist, but I can find no evidence of it except with the other ("thine") since of "thy". - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've redefined this as proposed above (as it seems to only exist as a constituent of forthy, possibly even in Middle English, since the MED only has for-thi. Someone check that the part of speech is right, though; thy says conjunction while forthy lists itself as both an adverb and a conjunction. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)