Talk:poem

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

User:Doremítzwr is back again with his spellings dowdied up with Christmas decorations. He claims that pœem and poëm are valid alternative spellings of poem. —Stephen 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poëm has three (book) citations. Is that still enough for verification, or have things changed? I’ve tagged (deprecated template usage) poëm and pœem as “rare or archaic” and “chiefly archaic”, respectively, both in the entries themselves and in the alternative spellings sections of the entries which link to them, so their validity is much qualified. Is there some other (legitimate) objection of which I am unaware? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now (deprecated template usage) poëm has six book citations; that’s enough, surely… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• poëm is fine. But I have serious doubts about pœem. The two cites listed just seem like misprints to me. For reference, the OED lists the followed attested spellings: poeme, poëme, poëm, poemme, poyeme, poyam (the last two properly Scots). Ƿidsiþ 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just added a citation that shows an explicitly intentional use of pœem by Keats. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is not "explicitly intentional" at all. Keats is notorious for his misspellings, especially in the letters to his brother. In the same letter in which this famous quote appears, he also writes "whch" for which, "abov" for above, and "chrystain" for Christian. It is a mistake. Have you read any of Keats's correspondence? He spells this word time and time again as "poem"; this is the only occasion where he accidentally uses two Es, and it indicates nothing more than a momentary lapse of attention. Incidentally, the <oe> is not written as a ligature, so this isn't even a citation of the form under consideration. Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have not read any of Keats’ correspondence. I saw that quotation and assumed that the [sic] was to indicate the intentional use of that spelling. My mistake. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it! But if you want to work on alternative forms you'd be better off going after some of the redlinks above than bizarre misprints... Ƿidsiþ 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I may just do that. However, it was the etymology (ποίημα (poíēma) — which would traditionally be Romanised as (deprecated template usage) poeëma or (deprecated template usage) pœema), not a misprint, which suggested (deprecated template usage) pœem to me (after a discussion in which a friend erroneously spelt (deprecated template usage) poem as (deprecated template usage) pœm). Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there other English cases of <-œe->, or of <œ> pronounced /o/? —Ruakh_TALK 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm… None that I can think of. Œsophagus is sometimes pronounced as /oiˈsɒfægəs/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g), but that’s not really the same (and neither is it standard). Can you think of any other examples where an etymological <-œe-> has been reduced to an <-oë->? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess this was two RFVs:

(deprecated template usage) poëm

RFV passed.

(deprecated template usage) pœem

RFV failed, enty deleted. (Or, more accurately: moved redirectlessly to Citations:pœem.)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

(Scots) Probably trickier to verify. DonnanZ (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cited, but one magazine has a cover image of Scottish Affairs on Google Books, so it could be misidentified. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will accept that. Struck. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply