Talk:were

"Definition 2" of the verb is just the usual (but dying) rule for the subjunctive. I'm not sure how best to clean this up, so I'm marking it rfc. — This unsigned comment was added by Dmh (talk • contribs) at 03:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC).

It's an irregular subjunctive, so it's worth its own definition. I've reworded it. Colin 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scots

Missing the Scots definition (see werian).--达伟 14:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.

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.

---

Other Wiktionaries make extensive use of templates for inflections. The English Wiktionary really needs to catch up in this regard. Compare the neatness of http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/be with http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be. The conjugation table is a straight Mediawiki markup table which is hard to edit. -17.214.91.130 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a suitable comparison, since be is a highly irregular verb in the first place. Some of the French entry's neatness comes from having only three of the possible definitions, and from its lack of subjunctive forms in the conjugation tables. On the whole we do make extensive use of template tables, but not in English because most English verb entries don't need them. --EncycloPetey 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern England "was"

It says that "were" means "was" in the North of England. Are you sure? Actually I think that the Northern English are the best at using "was" and "were" when they should. The conditional tense should take "were". In most of the English-speaking world, people say "was". e.g. "I wish I was dead", "I think it was your job", etc. The North of England is about the only place where the average person says "were" rather than "was". I think that somebody's got confused with this entry. Should it be deleted 94.14.169.151 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it might have been referring to the use of "were" in place of "was" as the past tense rather than the conditional. It's a trait of Yorkshire English to use "were" as such. 185.7.166.235 12:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2017

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

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

---

were

"(archaic) man (human male), as in werewolf (“man-wolf”)"

• The part were in werewolf might etymologically mean man, but that doesn't attest a New English word were meaning man.
• By "as in werewolf" it might be the same as were-. And then were- could be the more correct lemma.
• Webster 1913 ([1]) has "Were (wēr), n. [... Cf. Weregild, and Werewolf.] 1. A man. [Obs.] [...]" but without example. Maybe it's just the part were as in weregild and werewolf which doesn't attest a New English word were meaning man.

-84.161.40.101 23:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is what we are looking for, but I put in some quotes that use "were wolf" or "were gild" -- that is, where the "were-" is not a prefix, but a separate word. That seems to be what this definition is looking for. Finding a quote where were is used on its own to mean man outside these combinations has proved extremely difficult to search for, because there are so many other more common uses of the word, and when I get to works old enough to have a chance of containing such a use, the spelling is so flexible that I am finding lots of other words, such as ware. Kiwima (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It could be were or several terms like were wolf, were gild. For me it's good enough. Thank you were much.
I changed the example from "as in werewolf" (which could be were- + wolf or from ME werewolf) to "as in were wolf" (which can not be analysed as were- + wolf and which is spelled differently than NE werewolf, werwolf, ME werwolf) -84.161.46.50 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2018

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (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.

---

were

Rfv-sense "(archaic) man (human male), as in were wolf (“man-wolf”)." It was previously RFV'ed, and found only in were wolf and were gild, but accepted anyway. I do not see that the given citations suffice to show that English were has the sense "man".__Gamren (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with removing "were" meaning man, unless someone finds an example of it standing on its own, but if we do so, we should probably add in were gild to cover that sense. Kiwima (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Should it be an {{only in}} pointing at those terms? (I'm on the fence.) - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I’d support having {{only in}}. Regarding the sense itself, it seems to have last been used independently around 1400, in the Middle English Parliament of the Three Ages; Middle English resources show no more recent attestations, and searching for it in Lexicons of Early Modern English yields only the weregild meaning. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 08:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Would one of you who supports using {{only in}} please add it? I don't know how to use that template when there is more than one term that a word appears in. Kiwima (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The template probably needs to be expanded to accept more than one term; otherwise, the solution is to write something like {{only in|foo|lang=en}} ''and'' '''[[bar]]'''. But I actually hadn't realized there were other senses from the same "man" etymology which would enable were gild and were wolf to sensibly be mentioned on the page: given that, I think it may make more sense to do this. - -sche (discuss) 00:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Middle English citations

These will need some sorting out. I took this passage from the ben entry, where it didn't belong since it doesn't use that word. Equinox ◑ 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

1. • 1407, The Testimony of William Thorpe, pages 40–41

     And I seide, “Ser, in his tyme maister Ioon Wiclef was holden of ful many men the grettis clerk that thei knewen lyuynge vpon erthe. And therwith he was named, as I gesse worthili, a passing reuli man and an innocent in al his lyuynge. And herfore grete men of kunnynge and other also drowen myche to him, and comownede ofte with him. And thei sauouriden so his loore that thei wroten it bisili and enforsiden hem to rulen hem theraftir… Maister Ion Aston taughte and wroot acordingli and ful bisili, where and whanne and to whom he myghte, and he vsid it himsilf, I gesse, right perfyghtli vnto his lyues eende. Also Filip of Repintoun whilis he was a chanoun of Leycetre, Nycol Herforde, dane Geffrey of Pikeringe, monke of Biland and a maistir dyuynyte, and Ioon Purueye, and manye other whiche weren holden rightwise men and prudent, taughten and wroten bisili this forseide lore of Wiclef, and conformeden hem therto. And with alle these men I was ofte homli and I comownede with hem long tyme and fele, and so bifore alle othir men I chees wilfulli to be enformed bi hem and of hem, and speciali of Wiclef himsilf, as of the moost vertuous and goodlich wise man that I herde of owhere either knew. And herfore of Wicleef speciali and of these men I toke the lore whiche I haue taughte and purpose to lyue aftir, if God wole, to my lyues ende.”

I'd say you were about 50

Would it be O.K to add this example to exemplify the irrealis mood? --Backinstadiums (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RFM discussion: February 2021

See Talk:wer#RFM discussion: February 2021.