Talk:subpœnæd

RFV discussion: April–May 2022

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

subpœnæd

Is this spelling right? I came across the spelling subpœnaed, which I included in a quote under the verb subpœna. DonnanZ (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz It already has cites at Citations:subpœnæd. Probably should just be marked as an alternative/obsolete spelling. There are some hits on Google books from the past 5 years, but I wonder if the Wiktionary entry could've affected that. AG202 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: Oh, I didn't spot those. But we still need to incorporate subpœnaed, surely? DonnanZ (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@AG202 Only the 1800 cite shows the ligature when you click through to the source. The 1921 one shows unlinked "a" and "e", and 1948 one has "subpnaed". It looks like it's text generated by OCR, not the original, and the missing "œ" is what one would expect from OCR software that doesn't know about ligatures.

The problem with citing a ligature is that it's strictly a matter of typography, so you have have to have visual confirmation- people don't pay attention to such details when transcribing texts, and OCR does all kinds of conversions (or just gets things completely wrong). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm the 1921 one from all five of these Google Books results. I can't find any corroborating evidence in Google Books for the ligatured version of the 1948 cite. This, that and the other (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that theyre all misspellings? From what I know, æ cannot cross a morpheme boundary. The scan of the book from 1800 is surely not the original, right? Maybe someone overcompensated for the style of the day by substituting æ for every ae. —Soap— 05:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fully supportive of deleting this entry as a rare misspelling. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Surely æ can't do that. Thanks Soap for saying "cross a morpheme boundary", as I don't have the terminology, I'm just wondering why my Chomsky's weevil (that's part of the brain that deals with language) is screaming and screaming. Equinox ◑ 05:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Does "not crossing a morpheme boundary" apply to plurals too? Witness subpœnæ. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

But -ae is the Latin feminine plural ending ... it's not two morphemes, because there is no "-e" that can be separated out from this as a plural marker. I've always seen Latin feminine plural -ae analyzed as a single morpheme, so a spelling with an æ would be valid, and not a hypercorrection. —Soap— 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If subpœnaed can be further attested, can the entry in question be moved there, lock, stock, barrel and citations? DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Which is “the entry” you wish to see moved? And aren’t the current three citations enough attestation?  --Lambiam 11:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If subpœnæd is deprecrated, move all to subpœnaed, which can be verified by quotes such as this one. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)