Talk:n'avais

n&
Per a previous discussion (if I can find it) do we really want every contracted form in French? Any word starting with a vowel can contract this way. If we do want them, best idea is to get a bot to make them - probably tens of thousands of them, or more. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-sense. Immediate deletion. --Actarus (Prince d&#39;Euphor) 13:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a French-specific policy issue (WT:AFR), possibly with all-site interest (WT:BP)? DCDuring TALK 13:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * there's some similar, albeit shorter, ones in Category:French contractions. I don't mind if this one's deleted, but short ones like s'a, n'y, j'y, l'as might be worth keeping because they could be confused with sa, ny, jy, las etc. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All these forms (unlike presqu'île) are always considered as 2 words in French (e.g. n'avais = ne (contracted in n') + avais.) Note that s'a is a mistake, I don't find any possible use (but m'a and t'a are used). ny and sy don't exist. Normally, n'avais and other such examples should be deleted. If they are kept, this should be the result of a new policy to be discussed, because they're less justified than mother's . Lmaltier 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They are two words for the French, and for those who know French. For those of us who know virtually nothing of French, they are one word. We should keep at least the most common ones, such as n'a, n'est, etc. They are MORE justified than mother's, because many native English speakers do not know French, but all native English speakers do know enough English to deal with mother's. —Stephen 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are less justified from a strict acceptability point of view, according to current policies, but they are probably more useful. This is why a new policy might be defined. For example, accepting redirects in such cases (n'avais redirecting to avais). Accepting complete pages for all pages such as l'île, j'absorberais or n'opérasse would be absurd. Lmaltier 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. —Ruakh TALK 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * keep--Pierpao 08:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose that wherever foreign contraction f'ubar could be confused with real word fubar, we include the contraction, but where there is no fubarangina with which f'ubarangina could be confused, we redirect f'ubarangina to ubarangina. The reason is that someone seeing the contracted form might look up the word (e.g. fubar) sans internal punctuation, and come to the wrong word by mistake; whereas, someone looking up the word sans punctuation for which no such word exists (e.g. fubarangina) will merely get a results list with the redirect to ubarangina on top. bd2412 T 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is no word. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)