Talk:oportunus
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mglovesfun
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.
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.
Merge into opportunus, or the other way around if oportunus is more common than opportunus. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Extremely rare variant from of (deprecated template usage) opportunus. I will mark it as such and merge the defs as needed. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a rare misspelling? Because we only allow common misspellings, not rare ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there even such a thing as a misspelling in a language without standardised spelling? —CodeCat 21:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Remember, Latin is extinct. I'm pretty sure that there's one, maybe two classical citations. That makes it very rare, but definitely inclusible under the CFI. Yes, it is technically a misspelling, and Latin is remarkably standardised in that respect. The double p results from what was originally the consonant cluster bp; it almost certainly reflects pronunciation as well. My guess is that SB made a typo when creating it and just got lucky that it's a real term. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there even such a thing as a misspelling in a language without standardised spelling? —CodeCat 21:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a rare misspelling? Because we only allow common misspellings, not rare ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support the current revised version. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)