Talk:háček

Pronunciation
Is correct, or should it be  or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DAVilla (talk • contribs) 03:09–03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The was the truly incorrect part of that pronunciatory transcription. I’ve fixed it now, giving both the Czech and the RP pronunciations. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another use each of haček and háček
— Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1978, Hans H. Wellisch, The Conversion of Scripts, Its Nature, History, and Utilization (Wiley; ISBN 0471016209, 9780471016205), pages 125 and 342

Terms that rhyme with háček…
…can be found on page 112 of Merriam-Webster’s Rhyming Dictionary (2002). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the pronunciation given in this entry, the emphasis for this word is on the first syllable, so the contents of Rhymes:English:-ɛk do not, in fact, rhyme with háček. --Yair rand (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the stress criterion for inclusion on rhymes pages when I created this section. As implied by these two self-reversions, pretty much nothing rhymes with undefined:. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms
In my efforts to attest and antedate undefined: in its various forms, I have come across fourteen synonyms in use or which are mentioned as being in use; they are, in alphabetical order:, , , , , , , , , , , , , and. More may exist. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added and attested all except undefined: (which is attested, but not in the sense of “háček”). Given the attestability in English of undefined:, which is the Romani name for the diacritic and whose use is restricted to referring to the diacritic's use in Romani, I shall see if any of these nine names for the háček in other languages:, , , , , , , , are attestable as names for it in English. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured entry?
With ninety-five supporting quotations for its various forms, undefined: is very probably this project's best-attested lexeme. I've never seen an entry with pronunciatory transcriptions for as many accents and/or speech standards, as many attested synonyms, or as many supporting references. It has a full etymology, going back to Proto forms, and includes parallel formations and cognates; moreover, it has fourteen attested variant spellings, an illustrative image, three derived terms, two lists of coördinate terms, translations into twenty-one languages, two external links, and a fair few exegetic notes. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have "featured articles" (though our equivalents here would be "featured entries"), but I think we should, because this would allow us to draw attention to our lexicographically best entries, which would in turn function as beaux idéals to inspire more entries of such calibre. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous inclusion of ѯ
The image and its caption list ѯ (Cyrillic ksi) as an example of the occurrence of a háček, but this is incorrect; the v-shaped mark atop the ksi is a remnant of the upper loop of the original Greek uncial ksi from which the Cyrillic letter developed, and in correctly-designed fonts, it is always connected to the rest of the letter, and not a diacritic. Forms with a disconnected háček-like mark are nowhere to be found before the 20th century and seem to have arisen by error among font designers unfamiliar with the original manuscripts. Vorziblix (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that. I've updated the picture. - -sche (discuss) 07:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)