Template talk:xno

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFD debate[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Per User talk:Mglovesfun#Old French vs Anglo-Norman. The entries and templates would be merged into {{fro}}; the etymologies into {{etyl:xno}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How different are they? Did they have distinct literary traditions? Did they follow the same orthographical practices? — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually started gathering evidence at Category talk:Anglo-Norman language, but only yesterday! Metaknowledge presumably didn't see that. See Appendix:Anglo-Norman spellings, which is all my own work so probably quite incomplete. I think w:Anglo-Norman language has more information. Was actually hoping to delay this nomination a bit. Still got my Leeds University Library card though it may have expired, as was going to go snooping in the Old French section to find evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Also w:Talk:Anglo-Norman language was requested to be moved to erm, something (proposer suggested a move, but not to what!) which was met with opposition, most of it with really dubious reasons, or no reason at all. "Anglo-Norman clearly had both an army and a navy" looks like a total misunderstanding of what was being proposed, "Continental French made changes not made in Britain (chief > chef, for instance). The older forms are well represented in English and must not be disregarded." This is the same point made by Widsith on Category talk:Anglo-Norman language. While true, how is it any less accurate to use {{etyl:xno}}, in the same way we don't consider American English, Canadian French, Late Latin and so on to be separate languages, but we do have Category:French terms derived from American English (and so on). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Didn't Webster 1913 and Century have both Old French and Anglo-Norman tags? Did they have Old North French? I don't see why we would through away any distinction that sheds any light whatsoever on the origins of Middle English and Modern English words. If we don't understand the basis for the tags in these sources, then we should keep until we know for sure that there is no distinction of any validity whatsoever. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This won’t affect English etymology, because {{xno}} will be moved to {{etyl:xno}}. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As Ungoliant says, etymologies aren't affected, and we can distinguish entries with qualifier and context tags when necessary. It's just a question of whether or not they merit separate L2s. Also, IFYPFY. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
DCDuring is right but what he says does not seem to have any relevance to this debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I've started compiling some evidence here. As you might imagine, it's not wholly straightforward. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Also for long term purposes, that discussion is now at User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/19 as section #50. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
@Ungoliant (trying to keep this thread alive) the languages are not standardized at all during this period, so two copies of the same text can be very different with respect to spelling. In fact even within the same text, within the same paragraph you might get quer and then cuer. Dictionaries treat them as the same; the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub seems to include a lot of 'Parisian' Old French, and the Godefroy dictionary tags entries as Anglo-Norman in the same way it would tag them Normandie or Picardie. My question would be, if they're not the same language, how do you tell them apart? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
If you’re sure Wiktionary would benefit from merging both languages, then I support. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen I'd fully support the merge. My one worry is all the stuff I've read is early Anglo-Norman, as pointed out Anglo-Norman continue into the early Middle French period. Some sources say it develops into a different language, some sources call it a dialect. I would suggest letting this debate continue. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If w:Anglo-Norman literature is accurate, this text is from the 14th Century, it's the latest I've been able to get hold of and it is Old French. It has spelling differences with say, Le Voyage de Saint Brandon, one of the earliest Anglo-Norman texts such as respoundre instead of respundre, but this doesn't justify a different language, just a progression. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually if you go to [1] the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub list of quoted texts, it gives dates with the texts. I've looked at a few 15th Century texts and this confirms my interpretation that it's not a separate language. Also, it seems to exclude a lot of 'traditional' Anglo-Norman texts like Marie de France, la Chanson de Roland and Le Voyage de Saint Brandon, I can only assume it's because they're too early and the Anglo-Norman society considers them to be Old French not Anglo-Norman. Sticking with delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Merge the lects per Mg. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No comment for 10 days, any final objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Failed, merge to come. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A few more advantages[edit]

  1. Not having to find a way to tell whether something is Anglo-Norman or Old French. For example, it turns out all the stuff I entered as Anglo-Norman from Wace, Wace was educated in France not England so I got the language wrong.
  2. Most entries that have both Anglo-Norman and Old French, I just copied one entry wholesale from the other, changing only the header and the language codes. So merging them is simply a matter of removing the Anglo-Norman
  3. A lot of the requests in WT:RE:fro will be incidentally fulfilled when Anglo-Norman headers and categories are changed to Old French.

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty funny, actually (about Wace). Tell me when you're ready to start deleting categories and I'll lend a hand. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Error reports[edit]

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:xno should now all be uses of {{etyl:xno}} or not in the main namespace. If any aren't, please change them or tell me if it's more complicated than a simple replacement. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman is correct mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What about Template:xno/script? That should be deleted too, but it still has a few transclusions. —CodeCat 21:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ahá! Mglovesfun forget a bunch of non-mainspace transclusions, evidently. Mutatis mutandis, I have deleted it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)