Talk:dɑnau

RFV discussion: August 2019–March 2021
Supposedly a Bavarian noun - but not defined as one. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of speech was incorrect, but entry is properly attest. Bavarian is a WT:LDL and hence a single quote is enough to attest it and there is a quote. --Apauge (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The article (Bavarian Orthography) on the Bavarian Wikipedia does not show any uses of the symbol “ɑ”. It does state that there is no standard orthography and that in literary use no special symbols are used, but that “ɑ̃” is used – as one might expect for a nasalized vowel – in an orthography used in dictionaries and grammar books. (There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.)  --Lambiam 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood that article. "It does state ... that in literary use no special symbols are used" is not correct. bar.WP: "Fia d Boarische Schreibweis gibd's no koa Konvenzion. Af da oan Seitn gibd's de Schreibweisn fia de Dichtung und fian Oidog .., wo nua weng oda goa koane Sondazeichn vawendd wean, af da ondan Seitn Weatabiachl, Grammatikn und Sprochatlantn, wo moasd a Lautschreibung mid Sondazeichn gnuzd wead." That's: "... On the one side there are spellings used in poetry and for every day .., which use few or none special characters, ...". (Few or none is more than no special characters.)
 * Even if the article would state that no special characters are used in literary use, it wouldn't matter as it's only WP and as it's obviously not correct. One example is given in and there are many others.
 * As for "There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.": That's obviously not correct. Krauß' and Dümml's orthography uses it and is an orthography. It's not a standard orthography, but that doesn't matter as there is no Bavarian standard orthography and not a single Bavarian dialect, but many different subdialects.
 * And again: Bavarian is a WT:LDL, hence a single quote is enough (WT:CFI, WT:LDL), hence both terms ( & ) are properly attested. --Agaupe (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering the outcome recorded at Talk:Aɑ(n)schei(n), which concerned similar issues of non-standard and ultimately non-lemmatic orthography, I believe this RFV is dead in the water and the entry should be deleted as unverified.
 * Any other opinions? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * After reading that discussion and reviewing the source: this spelling is not verified; the book uses somthing which visually looks like (but should not be represented by the Unicode characters of) "𝔡𝔞𝔫a𝔲" where the first a is the usual a and it's the second a which is set in Latin amid the Fraktur. If this word can be presented in some normalized form (danau?), we could normalize it; compare Talk:Äken. But the creation of it at this title was misguided / mistaken and is incorrect. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV-deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)