Talk:meedfully

RFV discussion: February–April 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

meedfully

I have a feeling that this might not be attestable in proper Modern English (rather than in overly-literal "translations" of Middle English).Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh look it's a word nobody has used for centuries, with no gloss on it! Oh hi Leasnam, fancy meeting you here! Equinox ◑ 04:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember what you were doing 9 1/2 years ago? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and I have detailed notes and journals. And what I wasn't doing was using the word "meedfully". Equinox ◑ 03:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

cited. Most of what I found was Middle English, but it seems to have persisted into the early 17th century. Kiwima (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima: From [1] it is clear that the Krapp citation is quoting the Arnold edition of John Wyclif. The spelling has clearly been regularised from the original Middle English (apparently by Krapp, since this copy of Arnold has old spelling); even so, I'm not sure if we can call this Modern English. This, that and the other (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Julian of Norwich quote is also of dubious ModE status; it's a pretty literal translation/transcription of a Middle English work:

1670, Julian (of Norwich), Revelations of Divine Love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called Mother Juliana, an Anchorete of Norwich:

This light is charity, and the measuring of this light is done to us profitably by the wisdom of God: for neither the light is so large that we may see clearly our blessedful day: ne it is all speered from us; but it is such a light in which we may live meedfully with travel, reserving the worshipful thanks of God.

1373, Julian (of Norwich), chapter LXXXIV, in The Shewings of Julian of Norwich‎^[2], lines 3365–3368:

The light is charite, and the mesuring of this light is don to us profitably by the wisdam of God. For neyther the light is so large that we may seen our blisfull day, ne it is sperid fro us, but it is suich a light in which we may liven medefully with travel deservand the endless worship of God.

This light is love, and the distribution of this light is beneficially done though the wisdom of God. Because the light is neither so great that we can see our blessed day or concealed from us, it's a light that lets us live commendably through deeds deserving of God's endless glory.

That leaves us with only one solid attestation. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, Hazarasp, Kiwima, Hold on: why is a word used in a translation of an earlier work not considered a use ? The 1670 translator could have used any other word to supplement medefully, but he didn't. He used meedfully because the word was still in use and was understood by all. That is a use. This may not change the outcome for this specific term, but it sets a wrong precedent for future RFV's. Leasnam (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

These works here, published in 2012 & 2013 [[3]] continue to use the word, spelt meedfully. How will anyone reading these know what this word means if we do not define it for them ? Leasnam (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, as per the more general principle that every attestable word should be in Wiktionary. I'd note that one of the problems with Middle English is that there's a range of versions of Middle English works, including works in normalized modern-English spellings and works that are minimally to the point where it's hard to call them Modern English or Middle English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I would call the works above Modern English, as 1). all the other words are in modern spelling, 2). there are no thorns (þ), and 3), meedfully is not found in Middle English (i.e. it would not pass a RFV in ME), it is a modern word. Leasnam (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leasnam I don't have a problem with us having a entry for meedfully, but if anything, it should be a Middle English entry; it's found in works with Middle English syntax, Middle English morphology, and Middle English lexis. The only thing that's Modern English about them is the spelling; it is not a translation in any meaningful sense, just like the below isn't:

• 1917, Francis Choucas, “Capital I”, in The Process:

  Ay man must Joseph K. have forliended, then without that he edwhat boast had done, worth he one morn's forhafted.

Even if one replaces the difficult words, as these "translations" often do, it hardly makes for idiomatic Modern English:

• 1917, Francis Choucas, “Capital I”, in The Process:

  Ay man must Joseph K. have libelled, then without that he something wrong had done, worth he one morn's arrested.

As for the lack of thorn and yogh, plenty of late Middle English works (e.g. Malory) lack them; thus that isn't a valid diagnostic criterion. The best solution, IMHO, is to create {{modernised spelling of}} or something of the sort to handle forms like these Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp But unlike those examples above, meedfully is easily analysable as meedful + -ly (adverb marker). Meedfully doesn't exist in Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leasnam That's got nothing to do with it; it's still a word that is unused outside of what are basically editions of ME texts with modernised spelling. Therefore, it does exist, at least in a sense, in Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp with all due respect, that's wrong. It's used in Modern English translations of Middle English texts. That's not the same thing. That's a modern usage, albeit a limited one (think technical jargon). No Middle English person can read the modern renderings and be 100% confident in what they mean. Leasnam (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leasnam The point I am making is that those texts aren't really "translations"; they basically amount to Middle English with modernised spelling and maybe with replacement of some of the most archaic words. I'm pretty sure that a speaker of late ME would be able to read them fine once they adjusted themself to ModE spelling conventions. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a neat idea. Handling modernized editions of Middle English texts and the modernized spellings in them as ==Middle English== {{modernized spelling of}}s would be neat approach, consistent with how we allow (indeed lemmatize) normalized spellings of Old Norse and Latin. (Should we have a BP thread about it and ping other editors who edit Middle English?) This also makes me think of Old Norse blettr, only attested in editions of Old Norse texts made after the end of Old Norse. - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. All that's important is that we have an entry for this. Leasnam (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)