Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:honᵇˡᵉ. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:honᵇˡᵉ, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:honᵇˡᵉ in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:honᵇˡᵉ you have here. The definition of the word Talk:honᵇˡᵉ will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:honᵇˡᵉ, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Has to be cited from Usenet, because books are assumed to use letters, whereas this entry uses modifier characters: but if Usenet posts can be found which use these exact characters, this will pass and be kept as attested. - -sche(discuss)04:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
What -sche is saying (and I agree) is that that's a valid citation for "honble" (hon followed by superscript ble), but not a valid citation for "honᵇˡᵉ" (hon followed by three Unicode modifier letters, which look very much like superscript letters but are actually special Unicode characters intended for use chiefly in phonetic transcription; for example, the "ˡ" in "honᵇˡᵉ" is intended for use in, for example, IPA transcriptions to indicate lateral release). That is, the current entry honᵇˡᵉ is not actually hon plus superscript ble, as it appears, but hon followed by some misused Unicode phonetic symbols. Rather than delete the entry straightaway, -sche has created this RFV to see if this spelling of "honᵇˡᵉ" as hon followed by some misused Unicode phonetic symbols is actually attestable. —Caesura(t)01:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
And so we're saying that the manner in which functionally identical characters were entered ought to be something that Wiktionary distinguishes? What a mess. Why not send 'em all to RFD/BP/whatever and make redirects? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what you mean by functionally identical characters. ˡ, for example, is not functionally identical to l: l is a superscript letter (its function is to be a letter in the spelling of words), ˡ is a lateral release diacritic (its function is to indicate articulation in a pronunciation transcription). Books use letters, unless they're books that contain IPA transcriptions of laterally-released consonants, so that old book gets typed up using l, while we might use ˡ in a narrow IPA transcription of spotless. - -sche(discuss)02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(I'm posting this after an edit conflict, in case it explains anything Caesura didn't.) I can't actually see the book you link to, but I assume it looks about like this, that is, it's got normal-sized letters hon followed (without a space) by small, raised letters ble. Right? Those are all regular letters, though some of them are raised. Thus, that citation proves that "honble" exists, and if there are, as I trust there are, two other similar citations, we'll have an entry at honble (with <sup> tags) or a subpage of Appendix:Unsupported titles. ᵇˡᵉ, meanwhile, are Unicode modifiers (ˡ, for example, is used in IPA transcriptions to represent lateral release). The opinion, expressed more vehemently by some than by others, in the discussions I linked to, is that it would be wrong of us to use them to stand in for superscripts in books : but, if there are citations on Usenet that use those exact characters, that supports having the entry honᵇˡᵉ. - -sche(discuss)02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(after edit conflict- twice!) A good analogy showing the issues involved would be an English entry for рорру (transliterated "rorru") using Cyrillic. Yes, it looks right, but no one is going to search for it with those characters, and anyone who searches for poppy isn't going to find this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I reread that old vote, and all your ec'd explanations. Thanks. I had totally forgotten this problem and the whole discussion surrounding it (FWIW, I voted in favor of regular letters). I am tempted to rerun the vote, just to see if we can gain consensus this time and nullify the need for all this. Do you think that it could work? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree that no one is going to search with those characters. If рорру shows up on Usenet and elsewhere on the net, it's entirely possible that someone is going to copy-and-paste it into a Wiktionary search box.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
How could it ever show up anywhere? As far as I know, no one uses Cyrillic for English. There are very few English words that can be spelled with lookalike Cyrillic characters, especially lowercase ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I take that back. There are a few hits from bad OCR, but most of the tens of thousands of Google hits are for creations of people playing games with characters. If we accommodate OCR errors, do we need alt-form entries for rnorn (mom), clacl (dad), etc.? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Then it's not a good analogy. The argument is that as long as people are using these strings of Unicode code-points, we should record that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
All of these misuse Unicode modifier letters as superscripts. The proper entries (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th) already exist. And at least in the font my computer is displaying the page in, the letters of 2ⁿᵈ don't line up as they aren't the same size. - -sche(discuss)02:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'd prefer to move these to RFV. It is misuse of Unicode modifier letters, but if that spelling is citable from Usenet sources, then we should keep it with a usage note.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
