Talk:twistification

Moved the following from the main page: --Eean 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Google books turns up several. I haven't yet teased out all the meanings.  The main ones seem to be
 * A game or dance popular in the southern US.
 * Thomas Jefferson's characterazation of Justice John Marshall's shifting of the focus of a case to the constitutionality of the underlying law (he may have used it otherwise). This is also mentioned by an article by the Supreme Court historical society and in The Supreme Court: The personalities and rivalries that shaped ..., recently published.
 * Other cases where it seems to connote general convolution or trickiness

There also appears to be a band by the same name, which accounts for many of the Google web hits.

OED
The OED's definition is "A twisting; a twisted object or part." which isn't very good and doesn't even quite match the two 19th century examples that they have. Certainly confirms that its a word though. --Eean 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

archaic or nonstandard
I would think that the entire word is archaic, not just the first definition. --Eean 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

twistification
Can't find this meaning in the few meager b.g.c. hits. Does seem to be restricted to the deep South, only? Or is it also baby-talk? --Connel MacKenzie 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a pretty articulate baby :-). This one seems like a classic RfV in the literal sense (not the "I'd like to see this wart scraped off Wiktionary's ass" sense).  I heard it on NPR from the author of a recent book on the Supreme court, as a word that Thomas Jefferson used in reference to the chief justice's legal maneuvering.  It's also in the OED, but we can do better than they did (how often can you say that?).  The problem here is not establishing usage, but figuring out the meanings.  I wouldn't be surprised if the dance/game meaning is related to Jefferson's (Jefferson was a Virginian, after all), but it could be also a re-invention.  Interesting stuff, but it will take a while to tease out.  In the mean time we keep the page as a place to accumulate research, right? -dmh 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no, that notion has never gained critical mass. The broad consensus I've seen from sysops and other contributors to the community, is that a technical approach to Hippietrail's "multi-level Wiktionary" should be abandoned.  Therefore, the place for "intermediate" entries is the deletion log, until they have three verifiable print citations from independent authors spanning at least a year.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having looked around today's Wiktionary a bit more, I'm more comfortable with the status quo. In particular, the RfV archive is a Good Thing, and it appears (form choda) that if you re-create a page, the talk page magically resurrects as well (this has probably always been the case).  Given that, the danger of losing track of a word, or of losing useful information, is much less -dmh 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this word is even being considered for RfV. Its in the OED. Which I noted in the discussion page *before* it was deleted. The OED shares our "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" criteria. I agree with everything you say there Connel MacKenzie, but clearly this word is in Modern English. (Albeit not in 21st Century English). --Eean 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "few meager b.g.c. hits" ... have you read our criteria for inclusion? It only takes 3! --Eean 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)