Talk:weighth

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Dated form of weight. Suspect they are typos/scannos in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uno, dos, tres. --Pilcrow 02:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think they are typos/scannos. Does any other dictionary have this? Equinox ◑ 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a mistake on the analogy of height:, which etymologically is high: + -th: and which used to have heighth: as a common alternative form. But weight: is not from that suffix (at least, not unless you go really far back). On the other hand, in the books cited by Pilcrow, weight: is used consistently apart from those individual sentences, so they're probably typos. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, just errors. I can also find cites for "weighth" when "eighth" was intended, but I don't claim that this is an "old spelling"!  Many (but not all) of the mis-spellings I've found are by authors for whom English is not their first language, but perhaps we could have a "mis-spelling of" entry?  Even "really far back" in the word's thousand-year history, there was never a spelling weighth, not even in Anglo-Saxon!   D b f  i  r  s   22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found some good citations for this. Three that Pilcrow has above, plus one more. These are not scanning issues.
 * 1) First, a citation where "weighth" is clearly a spelling error for "weight": http://books.google.com/books?id=MytFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA447&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 2) Next, a citation in which the rules of spelling are explained, and the "th" in the theoretical "weighth" is reduced to "weight": http://books.google.com/books?id=0vUDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 3) But here are three clear citations: http://books.google.com/books?id=2UcZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA189&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyxuT8qLBsqhiAfP9MiMBg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 4) http://books.google.com/books?id=9PYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyxuT8qLBsqhiAfP9MiMBg&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 5) http://books.google.com/books?id=pWwDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA349&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 6) One more: http://books.google.com/books?id=g01CAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA649&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false


 * Alright, I've restored the entry and made it a "misspelling of" entry. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)