Talk:praecognita
Add topic
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
This term definitely exists with this meaning, and can be found in Google Books/Scholar. (It helps to add "the" to the search to filter for English results.) That said, I was only able to find it used in italics. Does that make it "not really an English word"? 98.170.164.88 07:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- The term has Scholastic origins and since it's used in the same general way in Medieval and New Latin (e.g. the book title Praecognita theologiae dogmaticae) I would be inclined not to treat it as an English word. All the hits I see on the first page of GBooks for "the praecognita" are discussing Latin texts that use the term. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
There are 8 cites in the OED. Clearly 
cited. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
RFV Passed. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- The cites must be added to the entry itself, I've told you this before. The OED link is also paywalled so we can't even see the cites. Not cited. AG202 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I tried searching and think this could very well exist, though many of the non-italicized uses are borderline, e.g. in quotation marks. The one from G. A. Tawney (1909) seems like it might be good. Still, I think we should have three citations of our own. One could ask, “Isn’t the OED authoritative enough?” Well, they could have different inclusion standards in such cases. 70.172.194.25 19:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
There are problems with the citations in the OED: it is not a noun in "That which is praecognitum, foreknowne in Science", and in others it is marked in italics (not a straightforward sign of code-switching in early modern texts, but it clearly appears to be such in this case e.g.: [1]). The OED's examples from Callaway and this book are probably OK. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Cited in the entry. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Locke and O'Connell quotes are still relatively obvious code-switching (the O'Connell is a typed manuscript where it's underlined in the context of a discussion of ancient philosophy, and Locke uses plenty of Latin and Greek indiscriminately on the same page). The Good is OK, I would probably pass it alongside Callaway and Anderson from the OED. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. 70.172.194.25 01:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Cited again. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
RFV Passed. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)