Talk:di
Page contents not supported in other languages.
The plural ofdeus may bedii ordi in Latin, but in English the regular Latin pluraldei is used (see Wiktionary's definition ofdeus ex machina where it says the plural isdei ex machinis.) On the other hand, Wikipedia has an article ondi where it shows it as alternate plural fordeus besidesdei anddii. I just wonder where ever the noundi has been used in English literature.
Headword is actually dí, is that a stress mark like a macron in Latin or Old English, or actually part of the spelling?Mglovesfun (talk)10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
@TagaSanPedroAko Hey, I saw you transferred 'di to di, which I understand, as diksiyonaryo.ph has an entry on "di". But, I would say it is correct that "di" is a contraction of "hindi", and let me explain. Etymologically, yes, it looks like the original proto-Philippine form of the word is *di, but in Tagalog, it seems like "hindi" (with the prefix) gained popularity and supplanted an older "di" word, and that's why the word "hindi" covers all the sense of "no" and "not", including interjections, and people even forgot that "hindi" had a prefix in the first place,just like how people forgot that the word "katawan" is actually a circumfix of "tao" with "ka- -an". So after that, it seems like the word "hindi" was shortened again by Tagalog people speaking it into "ndi", and then "di", going back to the original root. And that would explain why dictionaries like Leo English describe "di" as a shortened form of "hindi" because that's how people thought of it, since people already forgot the original root in Tagalog. I guess the question now here is that, how does KWF rule here? I'm ok with either way, to be honest. I just want there to be a clear orthographic rule. Because based on how KWF makes its spelling rules, I don't think they would approve of "di ba", or "di nga" without the gitling. Do you know of any other mention from KWF of writing it "di" without a gitling? --Mar vin kaiser (talk)05:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)