Talk:носъ
Deletion discussion[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
In a grammar book about OCS, this word is specifically mentioned as just not happening to be attested in any OCS texts. There's no doubt that it did exist in OCS; all Slavic languages have this word so it would be very unusual if it was somehow missing from OCS. But still... —CodeCat 20:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps move to Appendix:Old Church Slavonic/носъ as a reconstructed term? --WikiTiki89 22:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- For OCS, mention in another printed dictionary is sufficient attestation, right? кратъкъ is listed here, носъ here, and снъха here. All three entries include abbreviations and numbers that I assume refer to places in the literature where they're attested. —Angr 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is certainly helpful. Are those manuscripts available anywhere online? —CodeCat 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, it may be that the terms aren't attested in exactly these forms: it looks like кратъкъ and носъ are attested only in inflected forms, and снъха is attested only in the spellings сньха and сноха, but I don't think that's any reason to delete the entries. I have no idea if the manuscripts are available online; it wouldn't surprise me, though. You may want to browse w:Old Church Slavonic#External links and w:Church Slavonic language#External links. —Angr 22:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- @CodeCat, wouldn't that actually count as a mention, hence pass WT:CFI#Attestation? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think so yes. But it would be better to actually have citations, wouldn't it? —CodeCat 18:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- And if one reference mentions that the term is not attested, the presence or absence of citations is (hopefully) what determines whether or not we should have a uage note saying "this term is not attested" or "according to X, this term is not attested". - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- @CodeCat, wouldn't that actually count as a mention, hence pass WT:CFI#Attestation? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, it may be that the terms aren't attested in exactly these forms: it looks like кратъкъ and носъ are attested only in inflected forms, and снъха is attested only in the spellings сньха and сноха, but I don't think that's any reason to delete the entries. I have no idea if the manuscripts are available online; it wouldn't surprise me, though. You may want to browse w:Old Church Slavonic#External links and w:Church Slavonic language#External links. —Angr 22:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is certainly helpful. Are those manuscripts available anywhere online? —CodeCat 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- For OCS, mention in another printed dictionary is sufficient attestation, right? кратъкъ is listed here, носъ here, and снъха here. All three entries include abbreviations and numbers that I assume refer to places in the literature where they're attested. —Angr 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Detagged as "kept" based on Angr's statement that the word is attested (in inflected forms). - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
кратъкъ[edit]
Same as above. —CodeCat 20:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Detagged as "kept" based on Angr's statement that the word is attested (in inflected forms). - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
снъха[edit]
Again, same. —CodeCat 20:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Moved to сноха per Angr's comments above. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This is Church Slavonic and was created in error because the documents it's attested in are not the part of the OCS canon. However, I'm not sure how to reformat this: as ==Russian Church Slavonic== or ==Church Slavonic== with a Russian context label. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)