Talk:wonted

Tea room discussion

Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.

Why was this word tagged as archaic at the 5th non-bot edit (summa summarum at the 7th edit). I suppose that if the archaic nature was incotrovertible, the tag would have been there since its creation. MW does not use any tag whatsoever, can someone check OED? Bogorm 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of the 21 total uses in BNC and COCA indicates:

1. no colloquial use at all
2. one use erroneously for "wanted"
3. several uses in quotations from earlier writings (19th century and earlier)
4. several uses in poetry
5. several uses in what look like bodice-rippers. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Accustomed" had more than 4,000 apparent uses in COCA. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Accustomed is mundane, not to speak of usual, have you ever encountered usual in any poetic work? I just wanted to know whether any of the authoritative dictionares (MW (result: not), OED (result:?)...) bestoweth upon this word the tag archaic. Bogorm 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Longman's DCE and Camb. Intl. show it as "formal".

CompactOED shows it as "literary" and "archaic".

Encarta shows it as "Literary".

MWO, WMWC, AHD, and RHU show no tag; See OneLook.com. DCDuring TALK 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your research. Consequently, I suggest switching from Template:archaic to Template:literary, for of this miltitude of dictionaries a large part did not use any tag whatsoever and the secong largest part seems to opt for literary. Bogorm 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Some folks have objected to the "archaic" label at Wiktionary.

MW3 uses "archaic" to indicate whether a word survives in non-literary use and did not apply it to "wonted" in 1993. Longman's DCE does not use "archaic" as a label at all. Informatively to me they did not use "pompous" for "wonted". I have not looked, for example, at what labels the other dictionaries use and whether the online editions reflect what the print editions do in this regard. The only definitive way of showing the inappropriateness of the archaic label would be attesting to its use colloquially, in newspapers, in contemporary writing (excluding fiction that might be fairly suspected of archaicism). DCDuring TALK 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

accustomed

Since accustomed has different meanings, to resolve this ambiguity I'd add a second meaning 2. accustomed, habituated, used --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)