Talk:phœnomenon

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

phœnomenon

phœnomena

These spellings are etymologically inconsistent; let’s see if they’re actually used. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems they are valid archaic spellings. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it seems they it exists (not that they’re valid by dint thereof). The following can explain why I doubted it, however:

1. ¹¹⁄₃₀ of the first hits for "phœnomenon" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) phænomenon: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] — many more are inaccessible, in another language, or are in some other way erroneous.
2. ⁴⁄₃₀ of the first hits for "phœnomena" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) phænomena: [12], [13], [14], [15] — the caveat attached to *(deprecated template usage) phœnomena also applies here; moreover, I didn’t find any undoubtedly verifiable instances of *(deprecated template usage) phœnomena in the first thirty hits, so I maintain my request for the verification of the plural form.

Heaven only knows why this error occurs (at least in the singular); still less explicable would be if only the singular saw such use, and the plural were unattestable. Quotations with links to visible scans of the source texts’ pages, please. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've cited phœnomenon, can someone copyedit that for me, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve done what I can; please check them to make sure what I’ve done is correct. (I didn’t know how to present the one that looks like it was written in 1785.) No offence, but these citations are of a very poor quality; they need page numbers, links, &c. — see WT:QUOTE. Please fix in them what I cannot.

I’ve written usage notes for phenomenon that explain the situation with these spellings and with the term’s plural use. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

phœnomena failed, deleted.
phœnomenon not acceptably cited as far as I can tell; I can't confirm that the sources actually used the O-E ligature, but I do find evidence that they didn't. Please find citations that can be confirmed; Google's "No Preview Available" is just a euphemism for "probably a scanno". :-P
—Ruakh_TALK 05:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

phœnomenon failed, moved redirectlessly to Citations:phœnomenon, with a warning-box explaining the issue. —Ruakh_TALK 23:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)