Talk:-lei

RFV discussion: December 2020–April 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

-lei

German. Tagged by 2003:de:3729:1760:a0d8:c799:2397:adb on 4 October, not listed:

“As far as I see, there's only "beider [line-break] ley" in the 16th century. However, back than even when using a hyphen to denote splittings, not all splittings were marked e.g. one can also find "Chri [line-break] stus" ([1]) or "Göt [lb] licher" ([2]).”, “for ley or beider ley” J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Again concerns the etymology. I see various spellings. “Baider” is a more expected spelling for that time. IP could also have looked in the Middle High German dictonary under lei, leie, where it is also spelled apart in some quotes. Fay Freak (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Plus it does not say the older texts are NHG". The section does imply it's NHG (possibly Early NHG).
• "Better write “baider” then". There are 6 results at Google Books for "baider ley", but they don't contain the word as there is a linebreak and often a hypen between it. It's not really better.

--Schläsinger X (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Fay Freak: The RFV tag you removed was re-added by 2003:de:373f:4031:3515:67e:bd2c:b01b on 18 December: “"baider ley"”. J3133 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Still it did not say it was written so in New High German. However after 1500 the most common spelling was writing it together, you easily find many instances of baiderley written together, and it is absurd to assume that one could just find everything with Google Books from the time printing just had begun; if the supposition that one also wrote that morpheme apart was true at all in New High German then surely one also has baider ley somewhere but it is not found from the swivel chair in front of the computer. Anyhow, the IP should not RFV words mentioned in etymologies, etymologies usually contain non-standard words not easily found but in etymological works, and it is quite disruptive to play up attestation demands in this our task of lexicographical work. He might have asked in WT:Etymology scriptorium when it became less frequent to write that word apart, but then again it is a job for a whole statistical scientific treatise. Fay Freak (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Has been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)