Talk:recal
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I propose deletion of the entry "recal", not so much because I believe it inappropriate (to the contrary I was the one who created the entry in the first place), but because it seems to so frustrate other editors that they have changed it to a different meaning. Let me explain. I discovered this word used by Charles Dickens (an example quote is in the entry), and I originally considered it an orthographic peculiarity of Dickens. Then I discovered an 18th century dictionary (described as "complete," I guess what we would call unabridged) by John Ash. This dictionary was so popular that after its publication in 1775 it was re-published in the 1790s. In any event it treated "recal" as separate from "recall," not as spelling variants, but rather as separate entries. I then created the entry, following the definition (for noun and verb) provided by Ash and footnoting the reference.
Not long after that, an editor entered a primary definition both for the verb and moun as a misspelling of "recall." This of course makes no sense as a dictionary entry. If every misspelling were included, the dictionary would be twice as big just from entries of words used by James Joyce. Plus, it is silly to describe it as the primary meaning of the work.
Later another editor revised the definitions provided by Ash, without any reference for the revision, as an obsolete or original version of "recall." Clearly this is not what Ash had in mind. If that is going to stand as the secondary meaning of the misspelling, then the entire entry makes no sense and the word "recal" should be put in the entry (if anywhere) "recall" as a variation.
Even if these two edits were reverted, I can't see how other editors would not decide to change the meaning. Perhaps they are right. Whatever the reality, the entry provides too great a temptation to remain. And I propose to be deleted. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. In the dictionary by Ash, I see the following definitions for the verbs recal and recall:[1]
- Reca′l (v. t. from re, and call) To call back, to revoke.
- Reca′ll (v. t. a different ſpelling ) To recal, to call back, to revoke.
- So to Ash, these were merely spelling variants and did not correspond to different meanings. Until the late 19th century, the spelling with one l, now in disuse, was still fairly common.[2] The entry as it stands seems fine to me. --Lambiam 16:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per Lambiam. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- It sounds like we might benefit from a usage note in one or both entries, if recal was formerly a (or the?) standard spelling for one (or all?) senses. Certainly, we should include an entry for the spelling (if it is attested, and was once standard), pointing to what is now the standard spelling (without duplicating definitions). - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Google Ngrams Viewer suggests that it was never the standard spelling, but merely a perfectly acceptable spelling until around 1810, when its gradual decline really began to set in. --Lambiam 12:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- The obsolete spelling cal for modern call can also be attested,[3] but was never similarly popular.[4] --Lambiam 11:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep — Dentonius 08:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)