Talk:dies Iouis

RFD discussion: February–March 2014
AFAIK, Iovis is never trisyllabic. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a question of syllables, but of orthography. "u" is a variant of "v". --Fsojic (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, the spelling dies Iouis as a Latin entry title is disallowed by WT:ALA; this entry should be deleted in accordance with that policy page. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually some information is missing in this paragraph. In uppercase (the sole to have existed in Classical times), there was only the letter V (not U), that's true. But in lowercase (which was created in Medieval times), that's the contrary: there was only u, and not v (which was created in the Renaissance). So equus never existed in Classical times, but eqvvs never existed either: it's EQVVS. Since v was created after u, equus is the older form in lowercase. --Fsojic (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And j isn't really Post-Classical either... --Fsojic (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong to say that only uppercase letters existed in Classical times. In classical times, there was just no concept of uppercase and lowercase letters. Yes, it is true that the "font" they used for engravings was similar to what we call uppercase letters today, but the handwriting at the time was more similar to what we call lowercase letters today. Saying that "V" existed and "U" did not exist is also wrong. It's more correct to say that there was one letter that was the ancestor of both "V" and "U". The engraving variant was shaped more like "V", but the handwriting variant was shaped more like "u". So when you read an inscription of Classical Latin that looks like "DIES LOVIS", it is wrong to say that the correct electronic encoding for it must use capital letters or must use V and not U or vice versa. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, but in any case our page about all this has to be completed. --Fsojic (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - just because we prefer one form does not mean that the other form is not allowed as an "alternative form of". Keeping it is best for our users. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should keep it if it's attested. As far as I know, we often normalise spellings but we never have any rule against unnormalised spellings. 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as an "alternative form of" entry, per Semper and CodeCat. By my ken, WT:ALA suggests only to lemmatize consonantal 'v' and vowel 'u' (and prefer them as lemmata), not to delete/forbid vowel 'v' or consonantal 'u'. But Wikitiki also has a good point: 'v' and 'u' weren't quite separate/distinguishable letters, or comparable to modern 'V' and 'u', for much of Latin's history. Compare Talk:vp. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm persuaded by the foregoing arguments and accordingly withdraw my nomination. What do others think about distinguishing between Latin's true alternative forms and its mere orthographic variants? For example, to do so would mean that, in the case of, and  would be listed as alternative forms, whereas the J-initial forms (, , and ) would be listed as orthographic variants of the corresponding I-initial forms. The same distinction would be applied to U vs. V, diacritics, etc. What do you all think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I support such a distinction. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is Template:obsolete typography of, which could either be used or serve as a model for whatever template does get used on variant typography. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've created and  (the latter is just a compact, Latin-specific form of the former) to handle these variants. You can see it put into action in this edit. What do you all think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with ? 01:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See ISMETA's comment of 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC). Like Wikitiki, I think such a distinction is worthwhile. In fact, I may adapt Template:obsolete typography of to use or be more similar to the "orthography" template/wording. 02:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by.


 * I don't understand. Orthography and spelling are treated as the same thing here. And "alternative" is also treated as an "equivalent variant". So an "alternative spelling" is the same as an "orthographic variant". 02:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The variation in names doesn't mean much, but I can see what they're referring to: the orthographic variant has more to do with a difference in the way a given grapheme is realized because of a systematic difference in the letters that are used throughout the orthography, while the other is more individual and arbitrary. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See what I've done with, , , and ; as well as , , , and . Do those examples clarify the distinction for you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fond of the "orthographic variant" template (I'm surprised there wasn't one already), and this particular orthographic variant looks like it's used (very roughly) about 20% of the time (in an "English" corpus). It is a can of worms though, as there must be a huge number of Latin I/J and U/V words waiting for "orthographic variant" entries. Perhaps we could at least create some categories for them? Also About_Latin needs updating. —Pengo (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The template currently adds the entry to Category:Latin orthographic variant forms; is that the sort of thing you meant? And yes, WT:ALA will most likely need to be overhauled once this issue's been settled. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the current template. There isn't enough of a difference between "alternative spelling" and "orthographic variant" to establish which is which. It should be renamed. 14:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * About Latin prescribes the spelling that is to be used for Latin lemmata; it would allow lemma pages for poena and pena, and would disallow them for pœna and pęna. Since, , , and are all the same word, under this proposal,  would be the lemma,  would be an  that, and  and  would be 2 ×  . Does that distinction make sense now? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that saying "orthographic variant" is not different enough from "alternative spelling" to warrant a separate template. The name and the message shown should describe more clearly what is actually meant, so that people don't confuse the two. 14:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Aah, OK. What would you suggest? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Kept per the above discussion. Discussion of how to label its relationship to dies Iovis (what to name the form-of template it uses, etc) can continue here (as far as I’m concerned, anyway) or in the Grease Pit or at WT:T:ALA. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, -sche, but I added in the hope that it would prompt the resolution of the "[d]iscussion of how to label its relationship to dies Iovis", rather than the closure of this RFD (which request I withdrew above, anyway).  /  seems to enjoy some support (in this discussion); I'd like to be able to answer CodeCat's concerns, so that the template's use can be implemented more widely. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The current name and message "orthographic variant" doesn't seem notionally different from "alternative spelling". So either we should decide that there really is no difference, and delete the new template, or find a better name and description for whatever it is we do intend to use it for. 19:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you said above that you understand the intended difference, so I ask you: What "better name and description" should we use for this template, if not ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone mentioned, which seems like a better name. Typography is inherently concerned only with the superficial appearance of characters, not with their underlying identity and the rules that govern their use, which is the domain of orthography/spelling. 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Related discussions
See list on Talk:vp. - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)