Talk:fyvor

RFV discussion: September 2017–May 2018
George Low and Joseph Anderson (1879) as well as Barry & Headrick (1808) citing George Low (1774) have "fy vor" which probably is translated as "our father" in Chimeri. So it seems more likely that fy is father and that fyvor is a misspelling of fy vor. George Low's word list doesn't have the word, and his ballad or song doesn't seem to have it too. -84.161.45.112 03:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC) BTW: The 1808 print has a misprint inside, but that's another term: "Halagt" instead of "Halaght". This does also show that Hægstad's "Barry" is in fact Barry & Headrick as he mentions "Halagt" which Barry & Headrick have but not Barry. Torfæus & Pope (1866) seem to copy Barry (1805) but have one difference: "gem do sinda" instead of "gem ao sinda". In the other Norn pater-noster Torfæus & Pope have more differences compared to Northern Antiquities (1770; 1809) and Barry and Barry & Headrick, and maybe Torfæus & Pope thought to correct some errors, cp. with the statement in Northern Antiquities: "I suspect the above Copy [1770; 1809: copy] to be incorrectly printed by Wallace: that "Helleur" should be "Helleut," &c. &c.". However the other pater-noster with "Favor" is irrelevant for this. -84.161.59.140 10:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Searching for "Fyvor o er i" with google, the only results I get were a wrong OCR by google of Barry (1805) which has "Fy vor o er i", and this page: dbvaughn.fortunecity.ws/Religious_Musings/lords.htm (not durably archived, unreliable). en:w:Norn language has "Fyvor" too, but is unreliable. The source given is a website, so it's not durably archived, but is somewhat reliable as it mentions reliable and also durably archived sources. But the website has "Fy vor" too: www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-norn-shet.html. My assumption is that wikipedia contains an error or (hyper)correction which was copied to the other website and into wiktionary. -84.161.59.140 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it means "our father" and not just "father", but I don't think it's a misspelling. Certainly the Orcadian Our Father spells as one word, so it's quite plausible that the Shetlandic Our Father would spell  as one word too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you perhaps mean Our Father? Or does it mean "the person who sired me and at least one other person"?__Gamren (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's only attested in the Our Father, but it does seem to mean simply "our father". To be fair, the other possessive determiners in the Lord's Prayer are written separately:, , , , . I don't know why they're written together here; maybe just because is such a short word? Incidentally,  is attested by itself as "father" in "". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The pater-noster preserved by George Low and printed in books by Barry (1805 GB), Barry & Headrick (1808 GB), Torfæus & Pope (1866 GB), Low & Anderson (1879 GB), Jakobsen (1897 GB), Hægstad (1900), probably also in the manuscript by Low (17XX), has "fy vor". If "fyvor" does appear in any print, then it's probably a misprint and misspelling.
 * If every place where the Shetlandic Lord's Prayer is cited spells as two words, then yes,  should be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't now about every place, just about the ones above. There might be a print somewhere which misprints or (hyper)corrects it to "fyvor". But if there is such a print, then it should be named and then the form should be mentioned too.


 * There's this "Fyvor or er i" but printed after Wikipedia had fy vor changed to fyvor for some reason, so you might be right.


 * But why are these words treated as nouns to begin with? Isn't just a contraction of  and, just like  or ? — Knyȝt 14:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Syntactically, our father is still a noun: it's a syntactic constituent that can function as the subject of a sentence, the direct object of a verb, etc., while isn't a constituent at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By that definition "the big dog" is also a noun that deserves its own article, isn't it? — Knyȝt 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because that's written as three separate words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like . Is there any actual grammatical reason to consider something different from  ? Is it found in different positions? Does it decline differently? Does it have any different meaning whatsoever? — Knyȝt 19:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * is an idiom that means more than the sum of its parts. We always include things that are written together, no matter how SOPpy. A is a house for birds, but it's written together, so we include it. And  is just  +, but it's written together, so we include it. And Norn is a very sparsely attested language anyway, so it's not as if including  is going to open the door for an entry for every Norn noun with -vor encliticized onto it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether it's included or not. What I care about is how contractions of two or more words belonging to different lexical categories are treated. In English, a contraction is called a contraction and refers to its parts; you don't call a pronoun or a verb, you call it a contraction. You could argue that  "he is" is a verb form just like Elfdalian  "we are" is, but you don't, because it's just a contraction of  and, not an actual inflexion. In Norn, you on the other hand call  a noun even though it is not a noun or an inflexion of a noun but a contraction of  and , a noun and a pronoun. So different reasoning is used for Norn. Why? — Knyȝt 11:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the PoS matter: Contraction seems better than Noun. 'twas (= it was) or German nimms (= nimm's, nimm es) isn't verb or pronoun either, and nunya isn't pronoun or for syntactical reasons determiner either. Well, maybe it could argued that terms with -vor are similar to Latin terms with or, that is, there should only be entries  and ? (uncommon form of ) but no entries like ?. Then the PoS problem shouldn't arise: fy is a noun, -vor an enclitic pronoun. -84.161.40.68 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the RFV and the given reference (Lost Britain. An A-Z of Forgotten Landmarks and Lost Traditions from 2015 with link to google books): According to the book version at google books it appeared in print and has an ISBN which should be sufficient for WT:RFV (usage, durably archived). So all that would be missing would be to give the source in the entry. Personally however I don't think that it is a reliable source and that it should be used to attest anything Norn. In case anybody does add it, the only solutions I could think of would be to add the good sources, so everybody could judge for his own what's more correct, or trying to use WT:RFD with the reason that the given source isn't reliable (which is no criterium of WT:CFI).


 * RFV-failed; there are no citations in the entry, copies of the Lord's Prayer cited above spell this as two words, and it's suggested that any copy that spells it as one word would be a misspelling or misprint. - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)