Talk:ⰲⱏⰴⱁⰲⰰ
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: February–March 2017
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Is this attested as Glagolitic? —CodeCat 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can and should Glagolitic texts be atttestable? The digitised texts are probably very few. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- I thought it was agreed that Glagolitic variants of attested Cyrillic words didn't need to be attested. Furthermore, many of the OCS words given in standard sources in Cyrllic were actually attested in Glagolitic, so things are all muddled up. (In any case, it seems highly likely this word is in fact attested in Glagolitic; the word "widow" occurs repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments, see [1]. Benwing2 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, this is trivially attestable, as any Google search will reveal, see e.g. [2] (Codex Zographensis). Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I thought it was agreed that Glagolitic variants of attested Cyrillic words didn't need to be attested. Furthermore, many of the OCS words given in standard sources in Cyrllic were actually attested in Glagolitic, so things are all muddled up. (In any case, it seems highly likely this word is in fact attested in Glagolitic; the word "widow" occurs repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments, see [1]. Benwing2 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- RFV passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)