This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense: Esperanto. JorisvS (talk • contribs) thinks this is only Ido, and the Esperanto is always anjono. Upon asking my opinion, I suggested an RFV as it's not 'ridiculous' enough to merit speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely used; there's two hits in "aniono kaj" in b.g.c. (I always search on kaj, since it's rare enough outside Esperanto to be a better locator of Esperanto than setting the language.) The citations are mildly incomplete, because I was working from snippet view and couldn't get article details or the full title on one work. I don't think b.g.c. is going to yield a third hit, though.--Prosfilaes 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm actually not surprised about that. Even if technically the Esperanto word is just "(an)jono", we are bound to see "(an)iono" in a few Esperanto publications, simply due to interference from people's native language (mostly due to spelling I guess). So far every dictionary I've tried gives only (an)jono and not (an)iono. --JorisvS 11:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually having trouble finding any references to anjono outside dictionaries. On the ground, admittedly from a tiny sample, aniono seems to be the form in use.--Prosfilaes 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If you count Wikipedia: w:eo:anjono, w:eo:jono. These pages seem to have consistently used this spelling throughout their histories. The next few days I've got ridiculuously little time to look around in the world at large, so more input from my part will have to wait a few days. --JorisvS 11:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest putting in a "common misspelling" entry at aniono, but now I'm not as sure about that anymore: Googling 'aniono kaj' telling Google to look only at Esperanto (pages) gives a mere 14 results (and several "similar pages" Google leaves out by default), of which one is our page, one a mirror of our entry at anjono, one at Vikilibroj where (an/kat)iono appears only three times alongside countless (an/kat)jono (and thus just look like misspellings), one a Portuguese-Esperanto word list (with eo only anjono), one an Esperanto-Russian word list which uses aniono once, alongside (an)jono, 5 Ido-Esperanto word lists (actually just two pages, but these are five of the hits) with the Ido being aniono and the Esperanto anjono, one is in a very short word list on a Finnish page, and three look more legit (these are actually just two instances, and one of which I can't open). Telling Google to show those it left out only gives a few more of the ones already seen. On the other hand, doing the same thing with anjono gives many many more hits. Googling 'aniono kaj' without telling Google to look only at Esperanto (pages) gives a great deal of non-Esperanto hits and has trouble turning up new hits (maybe one or so later on in the hit pages).
Prosfilaes, the first quote you've given starts with "ci-kaze", which should at least be "ĉi-kaze" (or might even be somewhat better "ĉi-okaze"), and uses "-jono" in the same phrase, and so gives me the impression of it being a misspelling. Oh, and what's b.g.c.? --JorisvS 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
B.g.c. is books.google.com (more properly "Google Books" or "Google Book Search"). See Wiktionary:Glossary. —RuakhTALK 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's -kaze--OCR doesn't tend to lose letters like that unless it's really having problems. But possibly erroneously I changed the quote to ĉi-kaze; it won't show me a snippet of the text now, just the OCR, and as I noted in an HTML comment, the snippet cut off the tops of letters making it hard to tell whether there was a circumflex on them or not.
I'm having problems seeing anything that's citable under WT:CFI, given that that demands we pull from printed material, or Usenet, or Google News. Webpages are not considered citable. "aniono" doesn't quite hit the standards unless another cite can be found, and "anjono" is completely unattestable so far.
While there has been some noise about eventually accepting webpages for stuff that can be retrieved from the Web Archive, it's not there now, and dictionaries would still be out of bounds as mentions, not use. There has been some argument that the three use rule in CFI shouldn't/doesn't apply to most languages, including Esperanto, ( and more fully Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Lingua Franca Nova) but that wouldn't help anjono, as there's no evidence suitable under CFI it's ever been used.--Prosfilaes 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any explicit or implicit prohibition from using webpages at WT:CFI (except Wikimedia sister projects, obviously). And from what Google Books tells me, the first quote really uses "Ci-kaze", without the circumflex (I also saw the snippet where the circumflex would've been lost). --JorisvS 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
All of them? I mean, indiscriminately? So then, basically, all web material, in fact all digital material can be considered not to be permanently recorded, can't it? Is there a page that specifies when something is/isn't considered "permanently recorded"? --JorisvS 23:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)