Talk:onomatopoeïa
Add topicLatest comment: 9 years ago by Dan Polansky
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
Bad character in name. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's not "bad", that's a trema. Also, though it should be common sense, the use of trema is not limited to dictionaries, but does also appear in normal texts. -IP, 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- But Wiktionary:About Latin says "Do not use diacritical marks in page names". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- That should be limited to macrons (and breves), which aren't part of usual Latin writing. Trema (as in onomatopoeïa or poëtica) and circumflex (as in deûm, short for deorum) should be treated differently. In poëtica (that does even exists here in wt: poëtica) oe is not a diphthong, but two vowels, which is indicated by the dots above e. In case of poetica one could get the false impression that oe is a diphthong. (poetica most likely was also used, most likely because some printers didn't have tremas and umlauts and because with some knowledge one knows that the word doesn't have a diphthong.) -IP, 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- RfV? poëtica is a SemperBlottoBot creation, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. The actual term is poetica but the headword has the diacritic added. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe not. It's a tough one because I know that diacritics are often added when typing manuscripts up. s:fr:La Chanson de Roland is a particularly good example because it has the original manuscripts and the typed-up versions. Not only are the typed-up version not all the same, they don't match the manuscripts verbatim. The de jure ruling is that if WT:ALA says to exclude them, we can, as WT:CFI recognises language-specific instructions. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- WT:ALA is a think tank so I am surprised to hear de jure in connection with WT:ALA. The editors of Latin and other interested editors have to make the determination; WT:ALA cannot do it for them. To me, the argument that macron should be excluded because it does not appear in the actual printed text whereas trema (¨) should be included as long as it appears in the actual text sounds convincing. But there may be good counterarguments. I checked google books:"onomatopoeïa" and it may be borderline attested, or not; it has to be in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:About Latin might consider itself a think tank, but WT:CFI#Language-specific issues says otherwise. Which has more gravitas, hmm. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that the mentioned part of CFI makes these think tanks automatically into policies; that would be outrageous, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the common practice to include diacritica in the page name when their absence constitutes an orthographical error and otherwise link as alternate spelling? _Korn (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that the mentioned part of CFI makes these think tanks automatically into policies; that would be outrageous, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:About Latin might consider itself a think tank, but WT:CFI#Language-specific issues says otherwise. Which has more gravitas, hmm. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- WT:ALA is a think tank so I am surprised to hear de jure in connection with WT:ALA. The editors of Latin and other interested editors have to make the determination; WT:ALA cannot do it for them. To me, the argument that macron should be excluded because it does not appear in the actual printed text whereas trema (¨) should be included as long as it appears in the actual text sounds convincing. But there may be good counterarguments. I checked google books:"onomatopoeïa" and it may be borderline attested, or not; it has to be in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- RfV? poëtica is a SemperBlottoBot creation, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- That should be limited to macrons (and breves), which aren't part of usual Latin writing. Trema (as in onomatopoeïa or poëtica) and circumflex (as in deûm, short for deorum) should be treated differently. In poëtica (that does even exists here in wt: poëtica) oe is not a diphthong, but two vowels, which is indicated by the dots above e. In case of poetica one could get the false impression that oe is a diphthong. (poetica most likely was also used, most likely because some printers didn't have tremas and umlauts and because with some knowledge one knows that the word doesn't have a diphthong.) -IP, 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Abstain. I wonder whether this is attested anyway. More of my thought are above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging Latin-speakers @JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym. I believe one of you had been going to rewrite WT:ALA's diacritic guidelines based on the two discussions of duûm. Whatare your thoughts on tremas? - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @-sche: I'm sorry that I still haven't finished that rewrite; I made good progress, but then got distracted rather a lot… Per the guidelines I'm drawing up, onomatopoeïa is not permitted as a lemma, but it is inclusible as an
{{alternative typography of}}kind of entry. As for the concern about attestability raised by Dan Polansky, if one includes google books:"onomatopoeïam", the form is attested in several sources. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)- I've reformatted the entry into an alt-form-of. Once WT:ALA is updated, I reckon this RFD can be closed. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- WT:ALA updated in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've reformatted the entry into an alt-form-of. Once WT:ALA is updated, I reckon this RFD can be closed. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @-sche: I'm sorry that I still haven't finished that rewrite; I made good progress, but then got distracted rather a lot… Per the guidelines I'm drawing up, onomatopoeïa is not permitted as a lemma, but it is inclusible as an
- Keep: I'm not seeing any RfD-able grounds here. Maybe RfV-able. Purplebackpack89 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Closed as keep: per -sche and Dan's noting that this entry now conforms to ALA, and because there isn't enough support and/or policy for deleting it. Purplebackpack89 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- WT:ALA is not a policy. I updated WT:ALA (diff) only to accurately reflect the state of discussion and point to this particular RFD discussion. My update of WT:ALA cannot be used as the basis for closing this RFD in any way. Nonetheless, this RFD can remain closed since it shows no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)