From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in topic RFV discussion: January–July 2014
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: January–July 2014[edit]

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

Latin scribal abbreviation. I have never studied manuscripts, but my understanding was that this siglum was n with a macron, not a tilde. I only consult normalised texts and the occasional inscription, so I really don't know how to go about citing this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's ñ sunt: [1], [2] (also what looks like n̄ sunt). Will that do? It would be no problem to find more examples, if you want them. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
In case anyone's curious, here's what it looks like in a handwritten manuscript: [3]. It just looks like an n with a line to me in that picture, but based on Google Books it seems that it's ñ, not , when typed. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Based on Google Books, clod can be dod "when typed". Seriously, though, this is isn't a matter for rfv: the scribal abbreviation definitely has a line over it, and predates the invention of the tilde, but many modern printed editions use the tilde to represent this. The tilde is derived from a flattened n written over the first n to show a double n, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's overlap between the tilde and the suspension mark, since both are scribal marks to show omitted text. I think n with a tilde should be treated as an alternative form of n with a macron, and a usage note should say that the tilde is often substituted due to the wider availability of tildes in typeset and electronic fonts. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
If we can find citations that are unambiguously using n̄ instead of ñ, then by all means let's make it an alternative form. (I don't think the picture I linked is unambiguous, considering how messy the handwriting is.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think ISMETA's citations verify this term, and I agree with treating it as an alternative form. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Passed (by -sche). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply