Talk:forlese
Is this English, or Old English/Anglo Saxon? A language category would really help on an entry like this where it is ambiguous. --Connel MacKenzie 05:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From RFC
This is listed in Webster's 1913 as obsolete, with fewer forms. Also indicated is that it seems to be ==Old English==, perhaps not even ==English== (even though forlorn stuck around.) No other on-line dictionaries I found recognize this as valid. Is it? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes! Definitely valid, just obsolete for the last 300 years or so. I've updated the entry and removed the tag. Widsith 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
RFV discussion: March 2019–March 2020
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-senses:
- 1 (transitive, obsolete) To lose entirely or completely.
- 2 (transitive, obsolete) To destroy, kill.
- 4 (transitive, obsolete) To bereave, deprive.
Are these attestable in modern English, even EME? If not, they might do better as Middle English. It wouldn't hurt to have three citations for the unchallenged 3rd definition "abandon". DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Failed, removed. - TheDaveRoss 14:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)