Talk:auec

auec


Test case; Middle French variant of. WT:AFRM The thing is, u v share a glyph in the Middle French period as they do in Old French and Latin, but they're really separate letters. We don't have an entry for Latin dvx (or DVX for that matter) which is how appears in the Bayeux Tapestry. Addendum: I was simply going to discuss it with the entry's creator but since he's indef blocked, that's obviously going nowhere. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He can respond just fine. Can't you, ? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Pur ple back pack 89  23:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a usage note at u explaining the evolution of u and v. Words like this can probably be covered by the usage note.  I'd note that the usage note as presently written covers auec, but not bayevx and dvx. Pur ple back pack 89   13:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By way of analogy, our entry is cat but I write cɑt. You have to focus on what the letters are not what they looks like. If you look at the image I've just added, the 'v' of 'voyant' looks more like a b, the 's' of 'si' looks more like a theta (Θi). The idea is not to get as close to the original image as possible. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be usage notes for at least the common variations. For example, don't you think a should mention that in handwriting/hand printing it is usually rendered as ɑ?  As for the other renderings, we don't need to mention the very rare or very archaic ones...but I think I see a ſ somewhere in that ancient text, and that ought to be mentioned at s.
 * I've added u and v. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, a should not mention it is usually rendered as ɑ in handwriting, because Unicode encodes characters, not glyphs (at least in theory). The letter »a« always corresponds to the Unicode codepoint U+0061, and whether it looks like a one-story or two-story »a« is a matter of the font rendering, not the codepoint. The codepoint U+0251 (ɑ) is a different character, Latin small alpha, that is only intended to be used when it specifically contrasts with U+0061 as a character (as in the IPA). Long s is a different matter, because often enough in manuscripts it does specifically contrast with short s (when there are no rules for fully predicting the distribution of long and short s). In these cases it would be correct to render it using the »long s« codepoint. If the distribution is fully predictable, then the Unicode standard recommends encoding them as one character and leaving the display of the correct glyphs up to rendering. Applying the same principles to u/v, presumably they should not be encoded separately when they are noncontrastive, as is the case here (I think, but I’m no scholar of Middle French). Vorziblix (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete please. In old languages that use Latin script, u is always subbed for v and vice versa. That's why there isn't any Wiktionary for Mvsevm or Vndergrovnd. Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A redirection to avec might be acceptable, unless it turns out that another language uses this form. If so, it wouldn’t be a serious loss. Delete or redirect. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just some comments – it's not the same as the difference between a and ɑ, because these glyphs do not represent separate letters. U and v do, now, represent separate letters (although they didn't really when these texts were written). How to deal with this is not a simple decision I think. Since the third edition, the OED has taken to including u/v variants among the "Alternative forms" of headwords, so at least one other very respectable dictionary has decided to include them. Ƿidsiþ 07:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Consider also that auec is pretty obvious, but some of these spellings are fairly opaque to modern readers. Someone coming across yuie or vniust in The Faerie Queene might well want to look it up in a dictionary, and you could argue that we should be able to accommodate this. Hard redirects are not possible because many of these spellings may exist as valid words in other languages. Ƿidsiþ 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * yuie is really a different case, because the modern spelling isn't yvie, either. I'm not convinced entries for vniust and heauen and auec are really necessary, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to vote delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Talk:vp, Talk:euery, and my points in (later to be Talk:giuen) below. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No clear consensus to delete. bd2412 T 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)