Ẹṣù versus the internet
Court is in session. In the matter of Ẹṣù, the register hears the evidence — the attestation, the marks, and the forms that stand accused.
At a Glance
- Canonical form: Ẹṣù
- Original script: Ẹ̀ṣù
- Pantheon: Yoruba
- Convention: modern Yoruba orthography — underdotted vowels and ṣ preserved
- False forms on record: 2
- Contested forms: 2
- Series: The Canonical Register, No. 84 of 287
The Charge
That the name Ẹṣù is routinely written in forms that move, drop, or invent its marks — and that each such form teaches the reader a different, lesser name. The register's task is to separate the honest fallback from the outright false.
The Defense of the Canonical Form
The attested form is Ẹ̀ṣù, from the tradition's own record. The canonical transliteration is Ẹṣù.
Every mark is evidence, and every piece of evidence is checkable:
- u → ù — Grave: low tone: the stress position, as the sources give it.
The Character Witness
The plain form eshu is not false — it is a fallback, and the register is exact about what that means. In systems that cannot carry diacritics (legacy databases, older tooling, parts of the address-bar pipeline) the flattened form is the accepted vehicle, and the rulebook names it explicitly as the final rung of the fallback hierarchy: full restoration first, circumflex where attested, macron-only by the academic standard, an attested variant, and only then plain ASCII.
What the fallback status forbids is promotion: eshu may carry the name where marks are impossible, but it may not represent the name where marks are possible. Every mark it drops — u → ù — is a fact the sources recorded. A fallback is a vehicle, never the primary.
Cross-Examination
The witness Ẹsù
Where it comes from: the publisher compromise — older books and hurried websites that print the "English equivalent" as if it were the name itself. Why it cannot stand: every substitution here (ṣ→s) is a romanization of convenience, not an attested spelling — it teaches the reader to guess, not to read.
The witness Ẹsù
Where it comes from: the near-miss — a form that looks right at a glance and circulates on wikis and forums. Why it cannot stand: a plain sibilant for a retroflex ṣ — the distinction carries meaning.
Mitigating Circumstances
Not every non-canonical form is false. These forms carry real scholarly support — they are recorded in the lexicon as variants, with their sources, and the register presents them honestly rather than pretending unanimity:
- Ẹ̀ṣù — Fully tone-marked dictionary form (Abraham). Written Yoruba routinely omits tone marks; the underdots are the obligatory phonemic marks.. Support: Abraham.
- Èṣù — English/Wikipedia convention: tone-marked without underdots. Support: Abraham.
The canonical form stands above the contested ones here by weight of evidence, not by decree. If the scholarship shifts, the register shifts with it — that is what "canonical" means when it is honest.
The Convention's Own History
Every tradition in this register has its own scholarly transliteration standard, built by its own specialists over decades or centuries, and the register follows each on its own terms: modern Yoruba orthography — underdotted vowels and ṣ preserved. The principle that unifies them is the one the whole project stands on: a name is evidence, and evidence is not negotiable — not for keyboards, not for convenience, not for anyone.
Registration, Honestly
Three facts govern every domain this project registers. One: IDNA 2008 welcomes the marks — punycode encodes them legally and browsers show them faithfully. Two: welcome is not availability — registrars hold partial inventory, so the ideal form of a name may exist in the protocol yet not in the shop window today. Three: typeability is a separate virtue — a form no one can type on a phone is a form no one will visit, however canonical.
Hence the hierarchy the rulebook enforces: take the most complete form that is both attested and actually registrable, and never accept a wrong mark for the sake of availability. The wrong accent is not a rung on that ladder; it is off the ladder entirely.
The Verdict
So the register finds: Ẹṣù, canonical; eshu, a sanctioned fallback; the contested forms, recorded with their support; the false forms, ruled against with their violations named. Every line of that finding cites its evidence, and the evidence is open to any reader — the register asks to be checked, not trusted. The temple keeps the canonical form at /sites/eshu/.
The docket for this ruling: 2 false forms ruled against, Ẹsù first on the docket; 1 preserved mark verified: u → ù; 2 contested forms recorded with their support; the attestation rests on 6 cited sources — Bascom, Ifa Divination, Gates, The Signifying Monkey, Idowu, Olódùmarè: God in Yoruba Belief.
The Register Continues
Entry 84 of 287 in the Canonical Register. Around it: the temple's founding dispatch, the Restoration File on the marks themselves, the Resonance File on the archetype at work, and the Rulebook behind all of it.
Continue the register — previous entry: Érōs (read it) · next entry: Eurṓpē (read it).
The Canonical Register is written from the same canonical record as the lexicon itself. If a false form is missing from this page, it is because the evidence does not support calling it false — or because we have not seen it yet. Show us, with a citation, and the register will answer.