Talk:nomen

The long ō (and spurious g in compounds) is from false association with gnōscō (…) – excuse me? What about Slavic znamę and Greek γνῶμα then? Are we imagining them?

It makes more sense to assume that the original cognate of όνομα was so similar in form to nōmen that it got absorbed by it in usage. 195.187.108.4 20:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV discussion: October 2023–January 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

nuemne

Allegedly, an Old Spanish descendant of Latin nōmen (listed in the descendants). All the results I see on Google are a speculative reading of a kharja (or jarcha), which is thought to be Romance but not, as far as I know, categorized as Old Spanish: it also isn't in the Latin alphabet. Furthermore, the helpful Appendix:Mozarabic kharjas assembled by @Nicodene questions the identification of the word: "Corriente's nuemne 'name' is implausible from a Romance perspective; diphthongization would hardly be expected for Latin nōmen, and no such form as *nuemne or *nuembre appears to be attested in medieval Ibero-Romance." I have however seen it alleged elsewhere online that "nuemne" is an attested Old Spanish form, so I wanted to bring it to RFV in case that is somehow the case. Urszag (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

A negative cannot be proved of course but I will say that I searched far and wide, both in English and Spanish, before coming to the conclusion that it is unattested. Every apparent mention points back to the kharja in question, as you describe. Nicodene (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I still couldn't find attestation of nuemne. We'll see if anyone else can find it. I searched for "nuembre" instead and found some interesting results: as a verb (an analogically altered form of the verb nombrar?) ("No lo nuembre", "Ni me los nuembre", "Ni me lo numbre") and one example that seems to be a noun: "y la Ciudad, que fue llamado tu nuembre sobre ella, que no sobre Nuestras justedades" but likely a typo, since "nuembre" only occurs once while "nombre" seems to be used everywhere else. I also found a document that alleges that "nuembre" for "nombre" can be found in Rioplatenese/"gaucho" speech, though it presents this as a replacement of o with ue. I think "nuembre" as noun may not be citable yet, but along with other verb forms it might be citable as a variant inflection of "nombrar".--Urszag (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd come across the (tenuous) occurrences of a noun nuembre, but they are all modern (hence the specification 'in medieval Ibero-Romance'). A first attestation in 1746, for such a common word, doesn't support the existence of an Old Spanish *nuemne/nuembre or a diphthongal Mozarabic form. Nicodene (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, I didn't mean to suggest that there was any connection between those modern examples of "nuembre" and the alleged Old Spanish *"nuemne".--Urszag (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed. I will remove the form from the Latin entry.--Urszag (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply