Talk:undeadliness

RFV
Rfv-sense: Middle English; one citation is for vndeedlinesse, the other two seem to be modern English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The other two are Middle English as published in modern works. As published, Middle English is frequently coerced into modern English spellings to make it more transparent to modern readers. is another example, and I find it provocative that the first cite under the Modern English heading is a translation of the Middle English; in fact, I would claim a poor translation, since undeadliness is a calque of the Middle English. Richardson's New English Dictionary cites Wycliffe as undeedlynesse, an example of the variety of spelling for even one source.--Prosfilaes 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is difficult. Wiktionary considers English and Middle English different languages, meaning the 1852, 1929, 1957 and 2007 books are all translations written in English (the texts they translate were written in Middle English). Thus, the English section has six citations. The Middle English word has only one, but it is a well-known work: moved to "vndeedlinesse" or "undeedlynesse" or both, it will pass for that reason. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This word is still lingering in a state of undeadliness, in the space between passed (alive) and failed (dead). Please give input on what we should do with it... - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Be it a poor translation or not, is attested; English translations of works in other languages (even if the particular language happens to be Middle English) are not disqualified from constituting the attestation data of an English term. As for the Middle English, it passes because a term in a dead language only needs one citation for its attestation — undefined: has that, and it's one from the Bible — undeniably a well-known work. RFV passed × 2. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)