This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-senses. Both nouns. Never heard of 'an annoy'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing you saw my talk page comment. :P Hehe. It's weird isn't it? Would be hard to verify though because annoys can also be just the verb. Tooironic 09:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, early Google Book hits for "an annoy" tend to be for "an annoy-ance" or "an annoy-ingly […] ". Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Have added a cite for each; I've definitely seen both of these used quite a bit. I've tagged them "now rare, literary", but in fact it may be that they're just obsolete. Will have to see what other citations turn up... Ƿidsiþ 10:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but when do we accept citations from? I thought anything pre-1600 was regarded as Middle English. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No – that would include half of Shakespeare. Middle English is usually considered to run until around the 1470s, when Caxton's printing press got going. But there is no clear division in the literary record, which is why I firmly believe ME citations should be allowed to support an English word, in those cases where the word outlived the ME period. Ƿidsiþ 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Widsith. Passes. Striking.—msh210℠ 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)