This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph seems to have been vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.201.33 ( talk) 12:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
By "stressed word" do we mean "non-clitic"? Or "free morpheme"? Or something else? — Ruakh TALK 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Tuvalkin ( talk) 05:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph seems to have been vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.201.33 ( talk) 12:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
By "stressed word" do we mean "non-clitic"? Or "free morpheme"? Or something else? — Ruakh TALK 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Tuvalkin ( talk) 05:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)