Talk:wear

Verb 1. is defined as 'To put on an item of clothing.', which strikes me as odd. Though I am not a native speaker, this definition too strongly emphasizes the change in state, rather than the persistance of the state. Would not 'To have an item of clothing on.' or some such be better? --sanna 21:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this is an eight-year-old thread but it seems that it caused a change. I came here for the opposite reason. To me "to wear" has both active and stative senses (if I'm using the correct terms). The active sense is "to put on" and the stative sense is "to have on". Compare with "to don" which has only the active sense. &mdash; 58.160.47.91 05:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

well-worn: carried becomingly
becomingly worn or borne, especially with grace, style, or dignity well-worn celebrity Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wear as a strong verb
It makes sense to me that the change would’ve been modeled on a verb like “to bear.” But my question is when did this happen? Visigothic has it as a weak verb. I wonder if it was originally a causative or denominative.

werede
the past tense of wear, now wore, was once werede; that of spit, now spat, was once spitede --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That the verb was once weak is known. It is a strong verb now, however. What exactly is your point?

anywear: clothing for all occasions
Clothing that can be worn for both casual and more formal occasions (informal) Backinstadiums (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)