Talk:togi

RFV discussion: February–April 2021

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.

---

togi

@Rich Farmbrough – Per w:Tongan language#Alphabet, Tongan doesn't use the letter ⟨g⟩ by itself, but only in the digraph ⟨ng⟩. However, before 1943, ⟨g⟩ was used to stand for /ŋ/ as ⟨ng⟩ is now. So is this actually a {{superseded spelling of}} tongi (for which have no entry yet)? —Mahāgaja · talk 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect togi with a g is an unorthographic transcription: This dictionary gives toki as the main form for axe, and although both forms are given by POLLEX, the g-form comes from a source from 1827 - . Thadh (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if it's in an 1827 dictionary, we could call it an {{obsolete spelling of}} toki, right? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That is unless the spelling handled by the dictionary was never used by the speakers, which could very well be, since 1827 is the very beginning of written Tokelauan Tongan. Thadh (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is Tongan, not Tokelauan, but a single dictionary entry is sufficient for an LDL, isn't it? I'm not invested in keeping the entry at togi, though; I have no objection to its being moved to toki. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I meant Tongan. Even though this is an LDL, a dictionary entry is only sufficient if the orthographic rules of the language have been followed. Otherwise, entries in phonetic alphabets would be accepted as they are citeable by some dictionary which didn't care to check how the language is written down. Thadh (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is a standard Wiktionary rule, by all means do whatever is necessary. I would ask a few questions for my own understanding:

1. What constitutes orthography sensu Wiktionary? How does this interact with prescriptive vs descriptive practices?
2. If there was no (or very loose) orthography at the time would we then not include substantially all spellings?
3. Do we, should we, document hapax legomena?
4. What would be the problem with listing this as a "superseded/obsolete spelling of"?
5. How do we interpret differences between language writers and language speakers? There are many languages which have only been written by, and probably a few which have only been read by, linguists.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: I think you're overcomplexifying this a bit. Tongan has plenty of attestation and good dictionaries. If this is an orthographic choice made only in one old dictionary of questionable quality, nobody is going to run across it and look it up here. In theory, WT:About Tongan should list dictionaries it includes or excludes for the purposes of attestation, but in practice, we can make the choice not to include this spelling if Tongan writers have never used this orthography in running text. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)