Talk:fever

Old English or Old French

I think the Old French for fever is fievre, whilst the Old English is given as fēfor. Perhaps it's from Old French, reinforced by Old English? What are dictionaries saying? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha the OED has from Old English reinforced by Old French. But... how do they explain the 'v'? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2. transitive : agitate somebody

2. transitive : to throw somebody into a state of intense agitation, excitement, or emotion --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–November 2020

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

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

---

fever

Sense 4: A group of stingrays.

Not in either of the linked dictionaries. - Mocha2007 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are three uses: [1], [2], [3]. Do we have a policy for such collective nouns? We have Appendix:English collective nouns. Would a league of lexicologists agree these are genuine rather than made up – although found in dozens of compendia of collective nouns, many of which are printed books?  --Lambiam 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would we have a special policy for collective nouns? They're either properly cited or not. Everything is made up, and the question is do people actually talk about a fever of stingrays or not?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Collective nouns attract people who like to make lists of collective nouns that are rarely if ever used. We should be especially strict about counting only genuine uses. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should we be especially strict? There's nothing particularly complex here; either they're in use or they're not. The only reason to be especially strict is hostility to other editors who are attracted by the subject, which is opposed to the Wikimedia spirit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It may be worth noting where a word is in use but in some sort of "affected" or humorous way, like certain phobias that are only mentioned by people who have read phobia books, and never by doctors. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we need to avoid citing from the notorious collective noun lists, but even beyond that, there is the issue that Equinox mentions, whereby "list words" may be used in ordinary text but in a non-natural self-conscious or humorous way. We should beware of this, but unfortunately it can be very hard to judge (or prove) where this is the case. Mihia (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are words that appear in citable sources less often than they are really used. I feel comfortable adding slang with one use and a mention in a reputable dictionary of slang. Collective nouns are the opposite extreme. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think, though, that the lemma should be fever of stingrays – which, after all, does not mean “group of stingrays of stingrays”.  --Lambiam 22:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a promising route. Flock can be used without a qualifier, but the two citations currently at fever arguably only support a phrase fever of stingrays. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I found some examples like "Stingrays are usually alone. Sometimes they swim in groups called fevers", but these are a bit mentiony. Nevertheless, if we are to keep this, I would personally prefer to have it at "fever", not "fever of stingrays". Looking at a couple of others purely at random, both of which only have citations of the form "X of Y", loveliness (ladybirds) is defined as "A group of ladybirds", while exaltation (larks) is defined as "The collective noun for larks" (though I suppose this should strictly be in italics?). If "fever of stingrays" is the only form that we can legitimately find, the logic would be to define fever as "A group (of stingrays)", but this has the disadvantage of putting the entire important content in brackets. Perhaps "The collective noun for stingrays" could be an option. As mentioned previously, I do feel that many of these kinds of words should come with a health warning, however. Mihia (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We should apply some subset of the labels (obsolete, archaic, dated, rare, neologism, protologism, pretentious, nonstandard, formal). I don't know if this sense of fever was made up recently or was used 500 years ago and since forgotten. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If this exists, I would keep it at fever, not fever of stingrays. (It pluralizes as fevers of stingrays not, like, fever of stingrayss, besides the points Mihia makes about separable use.) The citations are modern, so "obsolete" and "archaic" seem wrong. We don't include protologisms (only sufficiently attested neologisms), so there's no use-case for that label. Probably "nonstandard, rare" and then perhaps a non-gloss definition "the collective noun for stingrays", as Mihia suggests. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

For me, the labels "nonstandard" and "rare" do not exactly capture the key quality of these "list words", as I perceive it, but unfortunately I have not been able to think of a concise way of expressing this. I suppose we could explain it in more words in a usage note, but I dislike usage notes if a label is possible. Mihia (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what I included pretentious to cover. But that's a placeholder; we'd want a less judgmental label. We say "hypercorrect" instead of "some idiot thinks he understands Latin." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How about calling them "novelty words"? Mihia (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is cited. Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)