Talk:Muhammad

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 8 years ago by -sche in topic Alternative forms
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alternative forms[edit]

Most attested spellings are of the form M(V)h(V)(m/mm)(V)(d/t). Among the 19 most common spellings which retain all three vowels, the first vowel is u in 31% of cases, a in 26%, e in 21% and o in 21%. The second is a in 52% of cases, e in 26%, and o in 21%. The third is e in 63%, a in 31%, and u in 5%.
A few spellings have different structures. Mahoma lost its final consonant as it passed through one or more Romance languages. The Turkish variants Mehmed and Mehmet omit the medial vowel. Six spellings, all but one exceedingly rare, end in -tt; two end in -th. One spelling omits the h (Maomet), one replaces it with ch (Machomet), another replaces it with g (Magomet). Lastly, there is the rare spelling Mathomus.
- -sche (discuss) 07:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
More insufficiently attested spellings: Mohomid, Mohomit, Mohommid, Mohammit, Mohamot, Mohammot, Muhmat, Muhmet, Muhmot. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Catholic Cardinal "Nonsense"[edit]

If anyone thinks that this is utter nonsense, "humiliate" me live on air with any "expert knowledge" that could prove or disprove it. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

While I would hardly intend to humiliate anyone, nor claim any expert knowledge, you might wish to look at w:en:Historicity of Muhammad. I'm not certain, but I believe Cardinals did not exist in the Roman Catholic Church until after 1059, which would rather moot the text of that website which claims a monk who died in 1259, was a church historian, and claimed Mohammed was a Cardinal. Why is this being brought up here on a dictionary entry talk page? - Amgine/ t·e 00:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I modified the entry and got blocked for a week by Ungoliant for it. On the other hand, how about this? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
First, this is a dictionary. Our senses strive to reflect the most common understanding of the term. In some cases a definition will be scientifically or otherwise incorrect because how the word or phrase is actually used is wrong or incorrect. Second, when citing a reference for en.WT you generally need to cite a durably archived example of the term in use supporting the sense or characteristic you are adding. - Amgine/ t·e 00:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply