Jump to: navigation, search

Hi CodeCat, before I take any action, I would like to have your experienced view on the validity of my proposal as well as on the process I need to follow. I would like to remove the Dutch entry "effe." As you most likely know, n-deletion for words ending on -en is a widespread phenomenon in spoken Dutch. I see no valid reason to allow spellings like "effe" if they are or were not recognized at some point of Dutch's modern history. Words like "effe" indeed occur in e.g., chat and sms language, though all words (all verbs, the majority of noun plurals...) ending on -en often appear as -e in that language register, which would give us an endless list of unrecognized variant spellings. What do you think? Thanks a lot in advance for your advice! :) Morgengave (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

20:22, 18 January 2013

Effe is probably used about as common as gonna is in English. I really don't think it should be deleted.

21:13, 18 January 2013

I find the analogy not perfect. Gonna has a difference in pronounciation compared to "going to", has a different background (is an enclise, not a spelling variant), and is recognized in written language in a way that surpasses chat and sms language (i.e. used in films, songs and books). And why, for you, does "effe" warrant an entry and other -en words which have n-deletion do not? What's the criterion of inclusion? Morgengave (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

09:54, 19 January 2013

I don't understand why you say that effe is used only in chat and sms language. There are many hits of the word on Google books. As for the criteria: if it is attested according to WT:CFI, it can be included. So that includes forms without -n and other colloquial respellings.

14:01, 19 January 2013

You are right. I have never seen it outside chat and sms language. It really looked the same to me as e.g., (non-subjunctive) "lope" and (plural) "bure" for respectively standard "lopen" and "buren". But apparently, effe has been used in texts.

08:55, 20 January 2013