Talk:List of English words that may be spelled with a ligature

...

I think the ae section is not far from complete! If someone would help with the etimology... you know you want to... --68.13.122.35 04:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think it's not far from complete? Almost half of the boxes are currently empty, many of the entries seem to be very dubious and will need sourcing (like nymphæ, personæ, algæ, formulæ), and I'm sure there are hundreds of words not yet added to the list. -Silence 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Formulæ, algæ, confirmed via OED. It gives personae but not personæ, and nymphæa (a genus name) but no nymphæ, giving instead nymphae. It is possible that the ligatures have just been lost/not entered yet in the analogue->digital conversion... thoughts? porges 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Personæ can be found on dictionary.com and even some articles on Wikipedia. For example, De re publica. Also, I think it would seem appropriate if the hundreds of thousands of classification branches (such as genera, families, etc) were not included on this list. --68.13.122.35 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"and even some articles on Wikipedia."

SURELY you jest. Wikipedia overuses and misuses ligatures more than any other reference book I have ever seen in my entire life. Wikipedia is the worst example of any Internet site I've ever been to to use as a guide for ligature usage, and Internet sites aren't generally renowned or famed for their reliability or accuracy in academic matters. -Silence 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but there is almost always listed on the subject of operas/plays: "Dramatis personæ" (which you may notice to be the same example I gave in De re publica), thus the question arises: Should "personae(æ)" be listed, or "dramatis personæ"? Regards (and quit being such a sourpuss acting like you are the sole contributor to this article when in fact I have been adding to it frequently near October and made the article receive more attention by expanding it so vastly)-68.13.122.35 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, note how the term personae comes directly from Latin which is almost the equivalent of the word saying, "it is acceptable to use the ligature here.".

Does anyone want to give an opinion of whether or not the immense number of classification branches should be listed?68.13.122.35 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No!porges 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No as in, "No, we should not list them," or as in, "No! I won't give you an opinion."?

Incorrect title

A ligature is the typographic joining of two letters—a presentational form. Almost any two letters can be drawn as a ligature, and different metal or digital fonts contain different sets of ligatures, the most common in English being of ff, fi, ffi, ffl, ſs, st (ligature forms: ff, fi, fl, ffi, ffl, ſt, st). But since these and other ligatures may or may not be used in laying out type in a particular font, it makes no sense to write about words spelled with ligatures.

Words are spelled with letters, whether they are a ligature form or not. The forms of the letters ash and ethel (æ and œ) happen to originate from ligatures of a–e and a–o, but they are just letters, used to spell these words, not ligatures in and of themselves.

Maybe List of words that may be spelled with ash and ethel is a more accurate title. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 00:43 Z

I have started the fi section of this list. This will, of course, be impractically long. Then there are the fl words... Is this article really a good idea? --Ds13 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that at best, this list should have a different title. I suppose any two-letter or longer word in the dictionary can theoretically be spelt with a presentational ligature, so I think adding more sections is pointless. I hope you don't mind if I remove the fi section. —Michael Z. 2006-11-22 03:29 Z

To clarify: technically æon can be said to be spelled differently than aeon or eon, since it has the (ligature) letter ash. Words containing the letter sequence fi are not spelt any differently when they are typeset with the ligature form, so they definitely don't belong here. —Michael Z. 2006-11-22 03:35 Z

I understand your point and mostly agree. This article can avoid disputes over "spelling" with ligature in a presentational sense (e.g. final, flock, and office) with the new name as you suggest. It could also be very reasonably broken into multiple articles: List of words that may be spelled with ash and List of words that may be spelled with ethel. --Ds13 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a good if incredibly pedantic point. 95.144.169.113 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fairies

Can't fairy be spelled with a ligature?Cameron Nedland 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Færy Queen" (or "The Færie Queen" - both spellings are known) is a classic - but the spelling is obsolescent (if not actually obsolete), surely? Hair Commodore 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

œconomics, œconomy?

Can economy be spelled with a ligature if œconomics can?

Yes, so can all other derivatives.Cameron Nedland 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The works of Gilbert White are full of the "œconomy", etc., spelling. Recall, however, that these were 18th century, so the matter of obsolescence arises. However, to be pedantic, should not the "can" be "may" (in the original question)? Hair Commodore 18:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can ethel be œthel?

Since ethel literally means œ can it be spelled that way? and what about ash? Can it be æsh?

It turns out that æsc is Old English for ash (the tree) and œðel is OE for estate or native land. OED does not seem to attest modern spellings with ligatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Gaelic

Can Gaelic be used with ash "Gælic"?

I do not know, I will check it out.Cameron Nedland 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I doubt that you would use the ash, because it makes the diphthong sound (IPA) [eɪ] (see the notes on the Æ section of the page), and it probably derives from a Goidelic language (for example, the Irish word for Irish is Gaeilge. Deaþe gecweald 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks.Cameron Nedland 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Curriculum Vitae

Can Curriculm Vitae be spelt Curriculum Vitæ?

Yes it can.Cameron Nedland 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-25 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 14:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) tf5c, tr

novae

what about nova and/or novæ (not to mention supernova and/or supernovæ)

I've been asking myself the same question. Does anyone know?
L1nuxH4ck 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This site seems to agree with our position. Brandonrush (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Common form

What is meant by the term "common form"? Is the listing of a spelling in the "common form" column meant to imply that it is acceptable in BrE? In many cases this isn't the case. The following are all regarded as US spellings by the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "estrogen", "maneuver", "diarrhea". ("Anesthesia", listed as a BrE spelling in the cart, is also a US spelling according to COD.) On the other hand, the list is wrong to regard "encyclopedia" and "demon" as AmE spellings. "Encyclopedia" has long been accepted and is the headword spelling in COD, "encyclopaedia" being just a variant. "Demon" and "daemon" are both used in BrE, one spelling being more common for one set of meanings and the other spelling for another set of meanings, but both being accepted for both. "Daemon" is the more common BrE spelling for a supernatural being, divinity, attendant spirit, or for a computer background process; "demon" is the more common BrE spelling for an evil spirit or devil or destructive person or thing. 86.155.66.63 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Faerie and praemium also seem odd choices for the "common form". I also think some words, such as tragoedy, need to be labelled as "archaic" or at least "rare".--Ferox117 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Πas Plural Ending?

The footnote in the article seems to indicate that -æ as well as -œ may represent a plural ending. Not only are there no such examples on the list, but I don't think there ever would be. Let's get it out of the way that the Latin language doesn't use -oe for any case endings; the only time it occurs as a case ending in Greek is the masculine 2nd declension nominative plural -οι. In all instances I've seen of Greek 2nd declension nouns transliterated into Latin -- and many other Greek words, for that matter -- the Greek is not merely transliterated but translated into Latin spelling conventions (e.g. pre-final αι and οι becoming ae and oe, as in "Æther" or "œconomics"), which includes case endings. Sure, a lot of Greek words are given Greek declensions in Latin (particularly 1st declension masculines), but I've never seen 2nd declension Latin nouns that come directly from 2nd declension Greek nouns using Greek case endings. Does anybody know of such a phænomenon? If not, I think that -œ should be excluded from the abovementioned footnote. Tsunomaru (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Diæresis

Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.154.48 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're suggesting additions, how about Cæsarean?--Ferox117 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Æroplane

Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.210.16 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe it was once spelt aëroplane but never æroplane (wrong Greek root)--Ferox117 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Name change proposal

Shouldn't this be called "list of English words that may be spelled with a ligature"? I doubt anyone would expect non-English words on the English Wikipedia, but it is still better to make that distinction. GSMR (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even that. It only considers AE and OE, and it imposes some added restrictions that not everyone may agree on. Remember that there is regulatory body for English spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.90.173 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, obviously. Right now if someone adds a lot of French words they are right to do so because they are words and spelled with a ligature. 95.144.169.113 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

The lead says "words which have letters that may, in modern usage, either be rendered as two distinct letters or as a single, combined letter". What do we mean by "modern usage"?: many of the entries are never written with a ligature in modern English. For example, fœderal (and foederal) became vanishingly rare after about 1850. Similarly for præmium. æternal is slightly more common after 1800, but still many orders of magnitude (about 200,000x) rarer than eternal. On the other hand, fœtus (which was recently removed as "nonstandard") is "only" about 1,000x less common than fetus. --Macrakis (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Although many terms here included are very rare, those not otherwise regarded as 'nonstandard' can still be considered acceptable in modern English, as their rarity comes as a result of a use of spelling that is in itself recognized as archaic, as opposed to nonstandard; the individual terms' rarity should thus arguably not be considered when determining what is acceptable, but rather a judgement made in consistence with the archaic conventions that dictated when to use a ligature in the first place. My assumption would be that fœtus is more commonly-occurring than æternal because it is terminology likely to be used in medical circles; the difference between them with regard to 'standardness' is that æternal is indeed descendant from a Latin lemma containing ae, whereas 'fetus' was not 'supposed' to contain oe in standard Latin, as earlier reconstructed terms whence it derives do not indicate that it should so have done, nor are related lemmata in Latin expected to contain it, and it is accordingly marked as hypercorrect on Wiktionary. Spelling of fetus as foetus is attested in Latin (from what I know as a result of a later misspelling), which is why the spelling with an o is common in British English, and this anomalous situation might be justification to continue to include this form, though I do not believe that the other terms I removed are subject to the same special circumstances, and so with consensus would still seek to remove those. BenYaMan (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

By "nonstandard", you apparently mean "not etymologically grounded". The English vocabulary (and for that matter Latin vocabulary) has lots of non-etymologically grounded spellings, such as trophy from Classical Latin tropaeum and Greek τρόπαιον (the ph was invented in later Latin); acne, which was a 6th-century scribal error for ακμή (acme); belfry from earlier beffroi; island from īgland; serviceberry from sorbus; etc., etc.

In any case, Wikipedia is not a prescriptive dictionary that declares some usage "acceptable" and other usage "unacceptable" (cf. WP:NPOV, WP:NOTMANUAL). We record reality; we don't try to create it.

It seems to me that the right approach to all this is to mention the non-etymological cases in the Etymology column, not to suppress them. --Macrakis (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This article does, however, make assertions to prescribe what 'may' and 'may not' use a ligature, and whilst fœmale and fœminine are marginally attested, they are extremely rare and understood to be affected, and as such I question whether they are suitable for inclusion; we don't include æroplane regardless of whether it's been written in the history of English, because its having once been spelt with a ligature is not alone enough to say that it may be spelt with a ligature and as such to list it here.

I used the word nonstandard as the classification of 'fœtus' suggested it to be so, and I do believe some of these other entries are too; indeed, Wikipedia is not a prescriptive dictionary – though, equally, it's not a dictionary at all; if there are marginal—but attested—forms of words that are liable to be considered as being hypercorrect, nonstandard or affected, perhaps their documentation and explanations should be confined to Wiktionary, as its scope certainly encompasses their inclusion, but this article doesn't necessarily seem to. BenYaMan (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The article should not be prescriptive. It should report actual common usage (not isolated mistakes), but also the opinions of prescriptive grammarians, and even the etymological basis or non-basis of the usage.

I agree that this article is not a dictionary, and should not aim to be exhaustive, but it should include the most common (or least rare) examples, whether they are etymologically well-founded or not.

The whole article is, of course, rather antiquarian, since the use of the digraph has become quite rare -- are there any words where it is found more than 1% of the time? In 1926, already, Fowler (who is generally a traditionalist) prefers e to ae and ae to æ.... --Macrakis (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The understanding that it should only include more common examples was the basis for my belief that fœmale and fœminine should not be included BenYaMan (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not try to be comprehensive, and should only include relatively common cases. But common cases aren't necessarily etymologically founded. --Macrakis (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hephaestus

Wiktionary lists 8 different spellings for Hephaestus (here), including ones with the æ ligature. I would put this in the article myself but I don't know how to deal with 8 alternate spellings of it. 2601:19A:27F:A076:713A:C35:8C4B:52B9 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Larvæ and antennæ?

Isn't there such thingas larvæ & antennæ, the form of larvae instead of antennae? 136.158.59.110 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)