Talk:πΏπ»π±π°π½π³πΏπ
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFV[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Neologism? -- Prince Kassad 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- This word is attested a few times, you can see it on Wikisource: [1] The dative ulbandau is attested twice and the genitive ulbandaus once. βCodeCat 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it consensus that if the infinitive is never attested, it is not used as the lemma form? Of course the dative and genitive forms should have entries though. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unless there's some reason to doubt that this is the nominative singular, I don't see why it shouldn't host the entry (though we should probably indicate exactly which forms are and are not attested). βRuakhTALK 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- My uncertain take is the following. The lemma, which for this Gothic word happens to be the infinitive form, does not really stand for the infinitive form but for the whole word as a pack of inflected forms. If enough inflected forms are attested, it should be the infinitive that hosts the word, per its being the lemma. I once had a talk with Atelaes on Ancient Greek, in which I understood he way saying the same thing. --Dan Polansky 09:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The nominative singular is not attested, but the two forms that are attested are such that there is no other possible nominative singular form according to Gothic grammar. There is only one declension in Gothic where the dative has -au and the genitive has -aus, and that is the u-stem declension which has a nominative singular in -us. βCodeCat 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have any access to the original Gothic script? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking. [2] is virtually the entire set of Gothic text in existence. [3] has a couple pages that aren't part of the Bible. It's Latin script, as everything besides the original manuscripts and Wiktionary is Latin script; I don't believe the texts have ever been printed in the Gothic script.--Prosfilaes 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have any access to the original Gothic script? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The nominative singular is not attested, but the two forms that are attested are such that there is no other possible nominative singular form according to Gothic grammar. There is only one declension in Gothic where the dative has -au and the genitive has -aus, and that is the u-stem declension which has a nominative singular in -us. βCodeCat 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it consensus that if the infinitive is never attested, it is not used as the lemma form? Of course the dative and genitive forms should have entries though. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it already passes (as there are three citations, linked above). If not, it should pass if Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 2 passes. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)