Talk:Aɑ(n)schei(n)

RFD discussion: August 2019–March 2020
As SemperBlotto vandalised the entry twice by deleting it, I'm demanding an undeletion here. The entry is sufficiently attested (see WT:CFI + WT:LDL): Bavarian is a LDL and hence a single quote is sufficient to attest the term, and there is a quote. The quote is correct and the word is spelled with ɑ (to differ from a) and brackets, and both things are part of the word as is the tilde in, the trema in Zaïre, bang, acute and tilde in , or slashes in etc. Thus the entry is fine. SemperBlotto's deletion of the entry on the other hand are obviously wrong and vandalism, so hopefully an admin can also take care of the vandalism report at.

The entry's content were:

==Bavarian==

===Etymology===

Cognate to 🇨🇬.

===Noun===

--Apauge (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  appearance, semblance, impression
 * 2) * Hans Nikolaus Krauß, Aɑ(n)sprauch. In: Hans Nikolaus Krauß & Georg N. Dümml, Eghalandrischs, 1903, p. 3:
 * No ja, ɑn Aɑ(n)schei(n) haut's scho(n) dɑnau.


 * I find it hard to believe that this is a correct spelling. Which alphabet consistently uses brackets and that often? The text might mean: either “Aɑnschein” or “Aɑschei”. Fay Freak (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the parenthesis the Bavarian version of the apologetic apostrophe? And since when has ɑ been a part of an orthography? Wikipedia lists a few languages of Cameroon, but this is an European tongue, and I'd be surprised if a practical orthography actually used such a thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Requests for verification/Non-English. --Lambiam 23:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it "might mean", but that's just speculation and there are more plausible things it might mean: It might denote nasalisation, or it might be a Bavarian version of the apologetic apostrophe so Standard High German readers can understand the text easier. In other cases, it might denote other things: in miɑ(r) and waɑ(r) it might denote a dropped r or an a-schwa sound; in mi(d)n and Mai(d)l a dropped d or a d which turned into an r-sound. In any case, it's not a regular use of as the text uses  to often and differently from. [ Instead of ɑ & a it could also be two a in different fonts of which one is a round a (like ɑ) and one an a with head and belly (like a), but it's impractical to use html font (like this: a a a -a or a - a ) in a proper way in the title or in the entry. ]
 * @Fay Freak: It's rather a matter of the orthography than of the alphabet, and the source is given.
 * @Prosfilaes: ɑ (to differ from a) is part of the orthography used by Krauß and Dümml, see the given source.
 * --Agaupe (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What Krauß and Dümml use in a reference work is beside the point. What's more important is what a speaker of the language would use to communicate with another speaker of the language. Reference works are more interested in being clear and concise than in reflecting usage character-for-character, and they often use shorthand to save space. Readers are expected to decode that shorthand when they put that information to actual use. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't talk about things you don't know: Krauß & Dümml is not a reference work. It's a text written by speakers for other speakers of the dialect and possible other people as well. --Agaupe (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So that no one else makes the same mistake, here's the work in question: "Eghalandrisch's". It does, in fact, use parentheses in running text (in Fraktur, but that's unremarkable for the period). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After studying several pages of that work I am fairly sure that the function of all these parentheses was to serve as a visual aid to understanding for readers familiar with High German by adding letters absent in the Bavarian pronunciation but present in the standard orthography of the corresponding word in High German. It always concerns a final “n” or final “r” (written but also usually silent or else sounded as a schwa or semivowel in present-day High German), or an ”n“ or “r” as the first consonant of a consonant cluster.
 * Furthermore, in writing “Aɑ(n)schei(n)” here, the suggestion is created that the second “a“ is special, but in the font used by Krauß and Dümml it is in Fraktur like most of the text, while the first “A” is exceptional, being in Roman type, thus: “A𝖆(𝖓)𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖎(𝖓)”. We see the same exceptional roman “a” in lower case in words like “𝖌a𝖓𝖟”. --Lambiam 07:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the alternation between Roman and Fraktur. That basically blows this out of the water: it's not an accurate representation of the orthography. Oddly enough, it's possible to create an entry for, but the search behaves strangely, and I suspect it might cause problems with some of our modules. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam: True, and one could argue that round-a and roof-and-belly-a are reversed (𝖉𝖆𝖓a𝖚 becomming danɑu) because of the script change and because it's not the form of the a that matters but the script/exceptionalism. Then it would be Ɑa(n)schei(n), danɑu.
 * A𝖆(𝖓)𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖎(𝖓) is wrong:
 * The source has a long s and not a round s.
 * Those unicode fraktur characters are mathematical characters, not fraktur letters and lack several fraktur letters. That's different to Gothic letters like 𐌰 and runes like ᚠ. It's said (at WP) that unicode argued that fraktur is only another font for the Latin alphabet, and that hence something like this would be correct: A a(n)ſchei(n), dan a u.
 * --Agaupe (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Unicode Fraktur characters are a joke; I merely used them to present a visual approximation of what we see in the K&D typography. K&D used Fraktur because at the time it was the standard font style for German texts; it was not an orthographic device. But obviously they wanted some a’s to stand out, which was an orthographic decision. I guess their “outstanding” a corresponds to the Aussproch Sondazeichn “ɑ̃” of the Wikipedia article . The orthography of the Bavarian Wikipedia itself uses no special signs. Two data points: the Bavarian Wikipedia writes ' for High, but ' for High . It is probably not a good idea to use every way of writing a word found in the wild – which may apply a random and inconsistent mix of a range of approaches – as a lemma. Which orthography to use here for languages that do not have a (de facto) orthographic standard, especially if one wishes to unify the orthography of the various dialects, is a difficult puzzle. --Lambiam 11:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aɑ(n)schei(n) is clearly wrong; while we could use it as a transcription of what the authors wrote, we don't have any way of directly writing what authors wrote. I don't think we should fight to preserve this orthography, and technically CFI offers us no obligation to keep a mangled version of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Query: Is the indicated Krauß & Dümml book the only source that uses this orthography?  If so, this appears to be a kind of neologism.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Lambian: Bavarian WP uses special characters, such as å, ' in, å, é, ĕ, ó in , à, é, è, ì, ò in and ~ in . Also there's : "S'nasale O wiad déswéng in da Dialektlitaratua oft mid da Tildn gschrim [...] Es gibt åwa kõa schdandardisiate Schreibwais fia s'Boarische und déswéng schreibt a da õane aso und da ãndane wida ãndas.".
 * WT:CFI, WT:LDL: If attested, there can be an entry. It's not our task to unify the orthography or to invent a new one.
 * @Prosfilaes: WT:Main Page: "all words of all languages".
 * @Eiríkr: WT:CFI, WT:LDL - A single quote is enough for LDLs and that's for a good reason. (picture below "Originalmundart / Egerländer Volkslied") has an unusual orthography too: fi(n)ft, Moa(n [no closing ")"].
 * --Agaupe (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As you say, it's not our task to invent a new orthography. Since ɑ is not in fact the letter they used, Krauß & Dümml is not in fact an attestation of Aɑ(n)schei(n). Unfortunately we can't record the orthography of Krauß & Dümml.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Entry remains deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)