Talk:ñ

RFV discussion: January–July 2014
Latin scribal abbreviation. I have never studied manuscripts, but my understanding was that this siglum was n with a macron, not a tilde. I only consult normalised texts and the occasional inscription, so I really don't know how to go about citing this. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's :, (also what looks like ). Will that do? It would be no problem to find more examples, if you want them. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In case anyone's curious, here's what it looks like in a handwritten manuscript: . It just looks like an n with a line to me in that picture, but based on Google Books it seems that it's ñ, not n̄, when typed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on Google Books, clod can be dod "when typed". Seriously, though, this is isn't a matter for rfv: the scribal abbreviation definitely has a line over it, and predates the invention of the tilde, but many modern printed editions use the tilde to represent this. The tilde is derived from a flattened n written over the first n to show a double n, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's overlap between the tilde and the suspension mark, since both are scribal marks to show omitted text. I think n with a tilde should be treated as an alternative form of n with a macron, and a usage note should say that the tilde is often substituted due to the wider availability of tildes in typeset and electronic fonts. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we can find citations that are unambiguously using n̄ instead of ñ, then by all means let's make it an alternative form. (I don't think the picture I linked is unambiguous, considering how messy the handwriting is.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think ISMETA's citations verify this term, and I agree with treating it as an alternative form. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed (by -sche). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)