Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:onomatopoeïa. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:onomatopoeïa, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:onomatopoeïa in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:onomatopoeïa you have here. The definition of the word Talk:onomatopoeïa will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:onomatopoeïa, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
That's not "bad", that's a trema. Also, though it should be common sense, the use of trema is not limited to dictionaries, but does also appear in normal texts. -IP, 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That should be limited to macrons (and breves), which aren't part of usual Latin writing. Trema (as in onomatopoeïa or poëtica) and circumflex (as in deûm, short for deorum) should be treated differently. In poëtica (that does even exists here in wt: poëtica) oe is not a diphthong, but two vowels, which is indicated by the dots above e. In case of poetica one could get the false impression that oe is a diphthong. (poetica most likely was also used, most likely because some printers didn't have tremas and umlauts and because with some knowledge one knows that the word doesn't have a diphthong.) -IP, 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not. It's a tough one because I know that diacritics are often added when typing manuscripts up. s:fr:La Chanson de Roland is a particularly good example because it has the original manuscripts and the typed-up versions. Not only are the typed-up version not all the same, they don't match the manuscripts verbatim. The de jure ruling is that if WT:ALA says to exclude them, we can, as WT:CFI recognises language-specific instructions. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
WT:ALA is a think tank so I am surprised to hear de jure in connection with WT:ALA. The editors of Latin and other interested editors have to make the determination; WT:ALA cannot do it for them. To me, the argument that macron should be excluded because it does not appear in the actual printed text whereas trema (¨) should be included as long as it appears in the actual text sounds convincing. But there may be good counterarguments. I checked google books:"onomatopoeïa" and it may be borderline attested, or not; it has to be in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that the mentioned part of CFI makes these think tanks automatically into policies; that would be outrageous, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Isn't the common practice to include diacritica in the page name when their absence constitutes an orthographical error and otherwise link as alternate spelling? _Korn (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Closed as keep: per -sche and Dan's noting that this entry now conforms to ALA, and because there isn't enough support and/or policy for deleting it. Purplebackpack8921:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
WT:ALA is not a policy. I updated WT:ALA (diff) only to accurately reflect the state of discussion and point to this particular RFD discussion. My update of WT:ALA cannot be used as the basis for closing this RFD in any way. Nonetheless, this RFD can remain closed since it shows no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply