Talk:ll

Tea room discussion
I've got a bit of a conundrum with the Catalan entry. I don't want to include this in Category:ca:Latin letters since it isn't the name of that digraph. Category:Catalan digraphs would make sense save there is no parent Category:Digraphs. So what to do with it? Carolina wren 01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced this deserves an entry, actually. Would we make one for the ph digraph in English? It has a surprising pronunciation and a consistent etymology and appears in many words, but it's still just a pair of letters. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The case is certainly stronger for a digraph entry for  than for  .  If the English ph were treated equivalent to the Catalan ll it would have a name of its own (perhaps *Greek ef) and when the digraph occurred as a result of /p/ + /h/ instead of /f/ it would be marked so that mophead  would instead be *mop·head.  Catalan treats ll differently from l·l.  In any case, I can't see any justification for deleting   and not also deleting ,  , and a number of other language specific orthographic entries.  Not that I am arguing for doing so.  Quite the reverse.  However, if consensus is that non-translingual orthographic units don't get entries of their own, I can live with it. Carolina wren 07:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this would go fine in Category:ca:Latin letters. On the other hand, based on the other children of Category:Latin letters, things like i grega should not be there (it would be nice to have a category for letter names, but it would need to be called something else). -- Visviva 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2007
It's not clear to me whether the abbreviation section refers to the abbreviation ll or the abbreviation li. Rod (A. Smith) 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the lowercase of "LL". The doubling of the l indicates the plural in the same way that pp = pages, or LL.D. = Doctor of Laws. —Stephen 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)