Jtle515
Hello! Please be careful when using the template {{compound}}, as specifying the lang=ang will cause the word leman to be categorised as an Old English compound word, when it is rather English. Thanks! Leasnam (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the reference to Old English really doesn't belong, as the word was formed in Middle English so far as we know (it is unattested in OE). Saying it is equivalent to lief + man will allow users to research the derivation of each component separately. Otherwise, if you can find where it is likely that it existed in OE (which by the ME form leofman, which looks like early ME, and thus probable that it did), you can use *lēofmann (“dear one, darling”) for the reconstructed form. Leasnam (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for all your good edits. Please don't remove a sense you doubt: instead use {{rfv-sense}} (or, if the sense is redundant to another, {{rfd-redundant}}; the page [[template:rfv-sense]] explains how to use both templates).—msh210℠ (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The word (deprecated template usage) oaken is not an example of word formation using this suffix. See the etymology of oaken, and note that it derives from a word that existed in Middle English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)