Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Lingua Paniabica" differant

penjabicus, panjabicus, punjabicus, pengabensis...
(Paginam instituit, scribens '== Orthographia == Si "Penjabica" (vide citationem) est verbum Latinum, sine dubio "Panjabica" taliter. Igitur (Sacreum mihi in mentem ponit) nobis oportet, more Vi...')
 
(penjabicus, panjabicus, punjabicus, pengabensis...)
== Orthographia ==
Si "Penjabica" (vide citationem) est verbum Latinum, sine dubio "Panjabica" taliter. Igitur (Sacreum mihi in mentem ponit) nobis oportet, more Vicipaediae, "Paniabica" scribere. An recte dixi? <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 15:22, 27 Martii 2014 (UTC)
:There are some taxonomic attestations for [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=panjabicus&tbm=bks panjabicus] and also [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=penjabicus&tbm=bks penjabicus], though the most are for [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=punjabicus&tbm=bks punjabicus], doubtless because of English influence. I agree that if it has a Latin ending, we might as well stick with our "i, not j" convention. But using ''g'' is also an option: Hofmann calls the region [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof3/s0649a.html Pengabum] (also [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof2/s0735b.html Lahoria]). And here's a source for [http://books.google.com/books?id=L3ZYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA609 Pengabensis ditio]. [[Usor:Lesgles|Lesgles]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles|disputatio]]) 21:22, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
23 824

recensiones