Talk:gutbread
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Smuconlaw in topic RFV discussion: February–August 2016
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
All hits are for "The pancreas is vulgarly termed the "gutbread" or "belly sweetbread," and -is the article which would be supplied in the great majority of cases by butchers asked for sweetbread." which isn't actually a use. Any more? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've added some additional citations Leasnam (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- cited. tag removed from the page. If everyone is okay with this, I suppose we can close ? Leasnam (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unstriking, and I've restored the tag. Of the nine citations currently on the page, five (1999a, 1999b, 2006, 2007, and 2014) are of different spellings (either gut bread or gut-bread) and five (1909, 1967, 1999a, 2007, and 2014) are mentions. Moreover, 1999b appears to be SOP gut + bread and 2013 is hyphenated at a line break. That leaves only one solid citation (1920) of this spelling. If we lump together the 1920, 2006, and 2013 citations, that would give us three uses (of two different spellings), but then it is not obvious whether the entry should be kept at gutbread or moved to gut-bread. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see that we also have entries for gut-bread and gut bread. I've tagged them with
{{rfv}}as well, so that we can discuss all three forms together. I've also added some more quotations to gutbread, including a use of "gut-bread" from the 1909 work. As far as I can tell, we now have two citations (1919 and 1928) of "gut bread", two citations (1909 and 2006) of "gut-bread", one citation (1920) of "gutbread", and one citation (2013) that is ambiguous between "gut-bread" and "gutbread". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)- Google ngram only shows for gut-bread [[1]] Leasnam (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is an instance of reported speech a mention? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so—if there's a quote like "Mary said she wanted to buy some gutbread", I think that would be an acceptable citation. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is an instance of reported speech a mention? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Google ngram only shows for gut-bread [[1]] Leasnam (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- My long-term position has been that quotations for gutbread, gut bread and gut-bread should not be pooled. Other editors may differ. As for mentions, I agree with Mr. Granger's assessment above. I agree that the 1920 quotation is the only CFI-good one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do differ on that opinion. I see no negative issues resulting in pooling alternative forms. When I learned English, I learned it first by the hearing of the ear, associating the sounds with the concept. Only later did spelling come into play. So for me and millions of others like me, a "classroom" is one word, representing one thing, whether it is spelt "classroom", "class-room", or "class room". Those are just different styles of displaying the idea. As a native speaker, I grew up accustomed to the fact that words can have multiple spellings, but they are the same word; not different words. The spelling represents the word, not the other way around. So too is it for me with "gut-bread". In speech there is no distinction between it and "gutbread" or "gut bread". We must take heed that rare words do not suffer due to the fact that there may be more than one way to spell it. Leasnam (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Non-lemma entries such as alternative forms should generally not contain quotations, which should instead be placed at the lemma entry. The OED, for example, often notes multiple variant spellings, but quotations are all under the headword. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Passed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Non-lemma entries such as alternative forms should generally not contain quotations, which should instead be placed at the lemma entry. The OED, for example, often notes multiple variant spellings, but quotations are all under the headword. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do differ on that opinion. I see no negative issues resulting in pooling alternative forms. When I learned English, I learned it first by the hearing of the ear, associating the sounds with the concept. Only later did spelling come into play. So for me and millions of others like me, a "classroom" is one word, representing one thing, whether it is spelt "classroom", "class-room", or "class room". Those are just different styles of displaying the idea. As a native speaker, I grew up accustomed to the fact that words can have multiple spellings, but they are the same word; not different words. The spelling represents the word, not the other way around. So too is it for me with "gut-bread". In speech there is no distinction between it and "gutbread" or "gut bread". We must take heed that rare words do not suffer due to the fact that there may be more than one way to spell it. Leasnam (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)