This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
The first paragraph seems to have been vandalised. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
14.200.201.33 (
talk) 12:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
New article
This stub was adapted from the entry
crase, which is a misspelling of "crasis", and from a paragraph on Portuguese in the entry for the
grave accent, which linked to
crase. I don't know how to delete the old entry. 15 Nov. 2005, S.V.
Stressed word
By "stressed word" do we mean "non-clitic"? Or "free morpheme"? Or something else? —
RuakhTALK 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"Non-clitic".
FilipeS 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Synaeresis example
I removed γένεϊ → γένει as an example because in classical (Attic) pronunciation the change would have been /gene.i/ → /geneː/ (or in Boiotian /gene.i/ → /geniː/), thus it's an example only valid in pre-classical / Homeric Greek, not in Greek in general!
Servus Triviae (
talk) 09:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I have
deleted and
moved said section to the
Synaeresis article. While one can find ancient or "ancient" grammar books reading crasis but talking about (modern)synaeresis+(modern)crasis (plus whatever), this is no longer the case; this more like a terminological issue; crasis - at least as far as I know - has long crystallised -including in Greek- into the sense of the phaenomenon concerning two joining words etc.. So talking about synaeresis (in the modern sense) in the article about crasis (in the modern sense) is misleading. If the article were about contraction in general, then with some elaboration on terminology, history thereof etc., there wouldn't be a problem; but it isn't. Hence the deletion and move...
Thanatos|
talk|
contributions 18:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Error in the Portuguese section
The article states:
* O autor dedicou o livro a sua esposa: without a grave accent in Brazilian Portuguese because it is equivalent to "The author dedicated the book 'to' his wife". A consistent use, according to the rules in
Brazil would not allow para a sua esposa be used instead. In
European Portuguese, nevertheless, rules are different, and it is O autor dedicou o livro à sua esposa, but in English, both sentences have the same meaning.
This is not a matter of different rules, but of slightly different sentences:
O autor dedicou o livro a sua esposa
(a: to) this is usual form in Brazil; it sounds extremly pretentious in Portugal;
O autor dedicou o livro à sua esposa
(à = *a a: to the) this is usual form in Portugal (cf. use of the definite article in proper nouns etc); sounds probably strange in Brazil, but the difference is almost indetectable in most dialects.
As for «para a sua esposa» being against the rules in Brazil, well no, it's just pig-Portuguese on either side of the pond: It is writeable and understandable, but it’s seen as a misuse of the preposition. This, however, has nothing to do with crasis.
Tuvalkin (
talk) 06:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)reply
French needs cleaning up
à le → au, à les → aux -- These are at best misleading phonologically, as à le can't produce au as long as the vowel represented by -e is present (i.e. ... al > au). Ditto aux, which clearly evolves from als.
Barefoot through the chollas (
talk) 23:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Crasis vs contraction
It is still unclear to me why all the contractions of Portuguese are never talked about in the pages about crasis. I don't see any difference between the French "à + le → au", "de + le → du", and the Portuguese "a + o → ao", "de + o → do", "em + um → num", "por + la → pela", etc. What exactly is the difference between contraction and crasis? The article defines it as "two vowels or diphthongs merge into one new vowel or diphthong", this seems to match Portuguese article contractions? It feels to me that Portuguese started to call the accent on the à by the name "crase", and after some time the term became exclusively associated with this specific contraction, but in other languages it has a broader meaning.
Joancharmant (
talk) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
French au developed phonologically from /a/ + /l/, then vocalization of /l/, i.e. it passed through a stage similar to Modern Portuguese ao on its way to becoming what it is now, [o] (perhaps clearer in principle comparing Italian or Spanish al [al] to French au [o], with the spelling au a fossil of an intermediate stage phonologically). Assuming that Portuguese ao is normally [aw], French and Portuguese 'to the (m.sg.)' are quite distinct. Part of the misunderstanding may be that orthography and phonology are not clearly distinguished in the article (or worse, hopelessly tangled). But if crasis is defined as resulting in not just a single vowel, but also possibly a diphthong, your question stands: how/why is [aw] not a result of crasis?
Barefoot through the chollas (
talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The terminology note is also adding confusion I think: "Crasis, in English, usually refers to merging of words". This is very broad. If I understand what you are saying, crasis is specifically the merging of two vowels into one or into a diphthong. So for example in "por + o → pelo" there is a change in vowel and a change in consonant, but no merging of the vowels, so not technically crasis? But then "de + um → dum", "de + a → da", etc. should work. I checked the articles in other languages and they look all over the place. Some give examples in English like "will not → won’t", or "Madam → Ma'am", if they qualify they could be interesting additions. Some give the "de + o → do" as crasis in Galician but not in Portuguese… I still feel that Portuguese usage over time has somehow narrowed its definition to that specific "a + a → à", some sources even use "crase" to refer to the diacritic itself instead of the phenomenon.--
Joancharmant (
talk) 09:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
dum and da are pretty clearly contractions of the usual Romance de → d before vowel, plus whatever follows, i.e. d + um, d + a. Crasis is not an issue in those cases. I don't know the development of pelo, but on the face of it, it looks like a straightforward case of per + lo > *pello > pelo. If it is, the modern interpretation that it's por + o is of interest, but it doesn't make it crasis.
Barefoot through the chollas (
talk) 20:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Enclictization?
Is enclictization the correct spelling of the word, when the base word is clitic? Should possibly be encliticization? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.41.202.108 (
talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply