Talk:coraçón
RFV[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
- (Old Portuguese section)
I’ve only seen this form (with the acute accent, instead of coraçon) in normalised transcriptions. However, I’m not familiar with every Old Portuguese text, and different manuscripts used different rules for acute accent usage, so it is possible this form exists.
I propose that we ban forms with acute accent added by normalisation, just like we don’t have entries for Latin and Old English with macrons and breves. This won’t affect terms with acute accents in the original manuscript. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I hate normalized transcriptions. And I would agree that we ban forms like that. --WikiTiki89 09:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- What about Old Norse, Old English and other old Germanic languages, where it is standard practice to normalise? —CodeCat 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Old Norse manuscripts but as for Old English, our pagetitles only use characters that would have been used back then with the only discrepancy being thorn vs. eth, where either one could have been used and we chose thorn as the standard regardless of context. As far as I know, Old Portuguese used "o" and "ó" interchangeably and not for any particular stress pattern or pronunciation and so we should either "o" or "ó" for all O's regardless of context, obviously it would be very stupid to use "ó" for every O. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is the practice among other dictionaries of Old Portuguese? —CodeCat 15:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The practice is to pretend it is a modern language, so that Portuguese lexicographers will list it as coraçom and the Spanish as coraçón. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is the practice among other dictionaries of Old Portuguese? —CodeCat 15:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also, note I don't think it should be omitted completely, but only in the pagetitle, just like Latin and Old English macrons. --WikiTiki89 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Old Norse manuscripts but as for Old English, our pagetitles only use characters that would have been used back then with the only discrepancy being thorn vs. eth, where either one could have been used and we chose thorn as the standard regardless of context. As far as I know, Old Portuguese used "o" and "ó" interchangeably and not for any particular stress pattern or pronunciation and so we should either "o" or "ó" for all O's regardless of context, obviously it would be very stupid to use "ó" for every O. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about Old Norse, Old English and other old Germanic languages, where it is standard practice to normalise? —CodeCat 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the entry as uncited (RFV-failed) without touching the question of whether there should be a policy against accents. - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)