Talk:E caudata

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

E caudata

There seems to be some confusion as to whether e caudata has an ogonek or a cedilla. It could be the result of some people not knowing how to tell the two diacritics apart, or it could be genuine variation in the way e caudata was drawn. It might be better to split it into a separate e caudata page if more info is gotten. --Ptcamn 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ę vs æ

æ is the ligature of "a" + "e". In old Gaelic literature ę is the ligature of "e" (regular letter) + "a" (subscript) making it's closer meaning to "ea" instead of "ae". See A. G. van Hamel Foundation for Celtic Studies discussion on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4201:4BF0:6458:9363:DD0:3096 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Ę merge proposal

If there is to be further discussion of this (it was discussed previously at Talk:Ogonek, let's have it at Talk:Ę. Wareh (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

I think there is a serious error here. "As early as the twelfth century"? Let me quote from Bischoff (Latin Palaeography, Cambridge, 1990, p. 122):

The e caudata...which is very frequent even in pre-carolingian times for the diphthong ae, replaces the latter more and more in the tenth and eleventh centuries; the result is an uncertainty as to where ae should rightly be used and where not...In the twelfth century simple e replaces the [e caudata].

Mjhrynick (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In further evidence that the article as it stands is in substantial error, let me point to a facsimile in Battelli (Lezioni di Paleografia, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999, p. 116), in which an e caudata appears in a manuscript ascribed to the VIIIth-IXth century.

I propose replacing this:

was used in Latin from as early as the twelfth century to represent the vowel also written ae or æ.

with this:

was sometimes used in medieval Latin to represent the diphthong classically represented as ae; by late-medieval times the tail was generally omitted, and a plain e used.

perhaps followed by this:

These orthographic changes were paralleled in the pronunciation-- at some point the classical diphthong seems to have "collapsed" to a sound virtually indistinguishable from that of a long Latin e.

Mjhrynick (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse tailed e

Since someone has asked for verification of what I wrote about e caudata in Old Norse, I need to explain that I have no source saying that Old Norse /e/ and /æ/ merged in pronunciation during the language's history, or that e caudata always represents umlaut of a, but I assume this because modern Icelandic writes /æ/ as /e/, and most examples of e caudata in Sweet's Icelandic Primer have a cognate with non-umlauted a. Therefore, I think my claims are fairly sound, but they would do well with official verification from a historical grammar. Erutuon (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]