Talk:œconom

RFV discussion: April 2011–January 2012
This spelling is at best an alternative spelling to oeconom, if it can be attested at all.


 * Note: I don't think that the supposed precedent that gives priority to the first spelling entered is meant to contradict facts about relative commonness.
 * From what I gather, it was a rule to reduce conflict and create productive competition between UK and US spelling advocates. At the time there was no free access to a large American corpus to allow explicit comparisons of relative frequency of forms. There is now.
 * To this entry, furthermore, the existence of bgc provides a reasonably usable corpus for assessing relative frequency of terms such as this one, however much filtering of scannos, capitalized forms and abbreviations ("œconom.") may be required. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is a common spelling and a rare spelling, then certainly the rare spelling should not be the main entry; but in this case, even seems pretty marginal. (In searching for cites for, I did find five or ten cites for , so it certainly meets the CFI; but unless I'm failing to see something, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently more common for me to care which is the main entry, provided both meet the CFI.) —Ruakh TALK 22:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hence move if and only if the ligatured spelling fails RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ I have not found any other good citations for this word. I think this should be classified as an alternative spelling of œconome or econome.--Pilcrow 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)