Talk:Crasis

message: The first paragraph seems to have been vandalised.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.201.33 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting 

message: By "stressed word" do we mean "non-clitic"? Or "free morpheme"? Or something else? —RuakhTALK 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-clitic". FilipeS 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stressed word

message: 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)
thread_title:  Synaeresis example 

message: En español, existen formas, mal llamadas contracciones, que son auténticas crasis:
a el > al
este otro > estotro
Doña Ana > Doñana;
de el > del;
ese otro > esotro;
De: http://atriumlibertatis.com/~aulos/GRIEGO/fenomenos_foneticos_griegos.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.151.14 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion and move of  "Greek contraction" section 

message: 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.
Tuvalkin (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the Portuguese section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  French needs cleaning up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crasis vs contraction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. (en)cliticize - (en)cliticization Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - In the future, please be bold and correct the typo yourself. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enclictization?