Talk:poem

italian translation
I think the italian translation 'poema' for poem is incorrect, because while 'poema' is mainly used for ancient and epic poems 'poesia' is used for every composition wich contains rhymes(for istance, you can call Dante Alighieri`s work 'poema' but non 'poesia' while you will never call a child`s poem 'poema'). Ricky91

poem
User:Doremítzwr is back again with his spellings dowdied up with Christmas decorations. He claims that pœem and poëm are valid alternative spellings of poem. —Stephen 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * has three (book) citations. Is that still enough for verification, or have things changed? I’ve tagged undefined: and as “rare or archaic” and “chiefly archaic”, respectively, both in the entries themselves and in the alternative spellings sections of the entries which link to them, so their validity is much qualified. Is there some other (legitimate) objection of which I am unaware? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now undefined: has six book citations; that’s enough, surely… †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * poëm is fine. But I have serious doubts about pœem.  The two cites listed just seem like misprints to me.  For reference, the OED lists the followed attested spellings: poeme, poëme, poëm, poemme, poyeme, poyam (the last two properly Scots).  Ƿidsiþ 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added a citation that shows an explicitly intentional use of by Keats. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not "explicitly intentional" at all. Keats is notorious for his misspellings, especially in the letters to his brother.  In the same letter in which this famous quote appears, he also writes "whch" for which, "abov" for above, and "chrystain" for Christian.  It is a mistake.  Have you read any of Keats's correspondence?  He spells this word time and time again as "poem"; this is the only occasion where he accidentally uses two Es, and it indicates nothing more than a momentary lapse of attention.  Incidentally, the  is not written as a ligature, so this isn't even a citation of the form under consideration.  Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not read any of Keats’ correspondence. I saw that quotation and assumed that the [sic] was to indicate the intentional use of that spelling. My mistake. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it! But if you want to work on alternative forms you'd be better off going after some of the redlinks above than bizarre misprints...  Ƿidsiþ 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I may just do that. However, it was the etymology ( — which would traditionally be Romanised as undefined: or undefined:), not a misprint, which suggested pœem: to me (after a discussion in which a friend erroneously spelt poem: as undefined:). Thanks. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there other English cases of &lt;-œe-&gt;, or of &lt;œ&gt; pronounced ? —Ruakh TALK 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm… None that I can think of. is sometimes pronounced as, but that’s not really the same (and neither is it standard). Can you think of any other examples where an etymological <-œe-> has been reduced to an <-oë->? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess this was two RFVs: —Ruakh TALK 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * poëm: : RFV passed.
 * pœem: : RFV failed, enty deleted. (Or, more accurately: moved redirectlessly to Citations:pœem.)

RFV discussion: August 2018
(Scots) Probably trickier to verify. DonnanZ (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cited, but one magazine has a cover image of Scottish Affairs on Google Books, so it could be misidentified. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I will accept that. Struck. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)