Talk:wortcunning

RFV discussion: February 2019

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

wortcunning

Looks like an Old English word with modernized spelling. DTLHS (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Whoever closes this: please note that Leasnam removed the "obsolete" gloss because it can be found in modern texts (apparently), but all those texts are trying to be Olde-Worlde so I think the gloss should remain. This is clearly not a word that any random modern person in the street would know or even understand. Don't let faux archaism in by the back door. Equinox ◑ 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's found in modern books that are trying to be Olde Worlde, that's "archaic", I think; I've added that label. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought "archaic" meant that it was understood by many, though not used except self-consciously to seem olde-fashioned. This seems more obsolete. But some label is better than none. DCDuring (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "archaizing" might cover this? And/or a "fantasy" label? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The 19th century uses are discussions of Old English texts and the Wiccan ones are attempts to revive Old English terminology as part of reviving medieval culture- think Anglish or Society for Creative Anachronism-I'm pretty sure they're obsolete outside of the Wiccan and perhaps the Pagan communities. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that the 2017 cite in the entry is almost certainly referring to the beer-brewing sense of wort (mentioned in the paragraph preceding the cite), which is a distinct etymology. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's actually referring to both: literally to the brewing sense of wort and alluding to this sense of the phrase as a pun. The relevance for our purposes is that the humor depends on familiarity with the herbal sense- it doesn't meet CFI standards, but it does add credibility. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"I think that the most important thing about wortcunning is learning to grow and harvest the herbs yourself." is not Olde-Worlde. "wortcunning" is the only part of that sentence that isn't clearly standard modern Modern English. There are lots of words that any random modern person in the street might not know; I don't suspect any random modern person to know the word ideograph or dative, for example. archaic, yes, but not obsolete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Related issue: if a word is archaic for all intents and purposes, but is still in use in tacky fantasy novels, (i) does this make it non-archaic? (PLEASE NO), (ii) do we somehow need to gloss this? I recently heard some eye-stabbing YouTube talk where "thee" was used in all the wrong places. Equinox ◑ 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thinking of the "long game" again, some day we will auto-create obsolete and archaic glosses based on actual use in every book ever known to Google. (Books never existed outside Google and suggesting that they did will lead to automated punishment.) So, I suppose we spend our time best on doing things that machines will never do, like distinguishing the definitions of "grumpy" and "tetchy". Just saying. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

More realistically, the long game is that Google deletes Google Books because it doesn't make them any money and we never get a similar archive of searchable printed material in our lifetimes. DTLHS (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I'm amazed that Google Groups even still exists. Who remembers "Deja News"? Anyway, this does seem like a big conversation we should have, but probably not here (sorry, I know I started it). Equinox ◑ 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would kill for a content-searchable Library Genesis, although that still wouldn't come close to the potential Google Books had and still has. (God I wish someone at Google would leak that entire archive...) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hathitrust has most of it. Given that Hathitrust has been sued about what little they currently do with the copyrighted parts of that database, it's not surprising they talk about how few people have access to the database and how good their security is on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)