Talk:reënter

--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Delete and establish a rule English does not have diacritics. While New Yorker style is still around, just about no native-speaker can speak intelligently about diaresis. It is done with hyphens, period, end of discussion. --Allamakee Democrat 07:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 839 is a reasonable number of google print hits: although doesn't compare to the 33300 for "reenter" .  Kappa 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Validity of one term doesn't negate validity of another. Davilla 13:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. reenter is a native English word and native English words don't take diacritics. Fark 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no.
 * 1) ASCII doesn't take diacritics, sure; but while diacritics on native English words are on their way out, and seen as old-fashioned, they havnt entirely disappeared yet.  (French diacritics are still en vogue though, with spellings like façade and naïve, etc.  See Everson, The Alphabets of Europe s.v. English.
 * 2) In any case, this is RFV. Votes for deletion, as described above, are entirely meaningless; this is a place for words to stand on their own evidence.  If the word fails RFV and goes to RFD, then you can vote.  —Muke Tever 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The diaeresis is not seeing much use any more, but since print sticks around, it's worth documenting uses that are not necessarily still common. And, in the Google Books search (see prec.), while the most modern usage in the first page is 1922, on the second set of 10 matches there are usages post-2000. --Dajagr 06:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I personally dislike the usage, it is now sufficiently uncommon that people are likely to look up the first few English words they find containing diacritics, to find out what they mean. Even 40 years ago, noone taught me that a diacritic indicated a new syllable in English, only that umlauts altered vowels in German.  Therefore, we should keep the entries for them to look up.  And it seems (see above) that some are still using them --Enginear 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. It might be obsolete, but that does not negate it's validity as a word. Andrew massyn 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

reënter

 * Title was: reënter, reënters, reëntering, reëntered.

There are no such words in the English language; as per Oxford, Webster, and Princeton. The only legitimate spellings are reenter and re-enter (and their forms).

Apologies for any mistakes in form – 1st ever round of Wiktionary requests. Wikipedia Editor: Who R you? (Talk) 08:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Oxford, Webster and Princeton explicitly say that these aren't words? That's unusal. Dictionaries usually say what is a word, not what isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no mistakes in the nomination. It's a bit of a useless one though; all four forms are easily attestable (much to my surprise!) so I'd move to close this nomination as it's simply a matter of copying up the citations; finding them was easy. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Legitimate" implies a value judgment, which is something that falls under the purview of prescriptive: as opposed to descriptive:. As far as I've been given to understand, Wiktionary strives for the latter rather than the former, so provided we can find sufficient citations, "legitimate" or not is apparently beside the question.
 * As an addendum, some style authorities insist on using the diaresis (i.e. umlaut) on the second instance of a double vowel if that second vowel denotes a separate syllable rather than a digraph. If memory servers, The New Yorker magazine uses this style: c.f. google:site:neworker.com+"reënter", for instance.  Similarly, some people of the name Chloe prefer to spell it Chloë to make it clear that the E here is not silent.  -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, upon seeing reënter my first thought was “New Yorker umlaut diæresis”, like they use on words like coöperate:. Thoreau also used them. ~ Robin 16:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hyphens, please come back -- all is forgiven!   D b f  i  r  s   19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Readily cited, but little value in doing so for an alternative spelling. (Actually, I did add one cite, and I believe it's from a well-known work; but keep even if not.) If there were any doubt about this spelling's existence, I'd say we should cite it, but it's obvious that the Wikipedian who listed this spelling here simply doesn't know what we mean by "verification". (It's an understandable confusion: Wikipedia, being a tertiary source, means something quite different by that term.) —Ruakh TALK 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Added two more quotes. Cleared RFV. Attested. ~ Robin 17:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it to WT:WWIN to clarify it a little. —CodeCat 18:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)