Talk:phœnomenon

Return to "phœnomenon" page.
Keep tidy.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


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 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 phænomena: [12], [13], [14], [15] — the caveat attached to *phœnomena also applies here; moreover, I didn’t find any undoubtedly verifiable instances of *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
RuakhTALK 05:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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


Last modified on 27 July 2010, at 09:07