Reconstruction talk:Gothic/𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰

Attested

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Pietroassa#Inscription, where the first word is universally agreed to be the genitive plural ᚷᚢᛏᚨᚾᛁ (gutanī) for *gutanē. Kwékwlos (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(Notifying Mnemosientje, Holodwig21, Mahagaja): Pinged users who edit Gothic entries because I am not informed in Gothic to know whether it should be moved to mainspace. J3133 (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this spelling isn't attested, since the Pietroassa inscription is in runes, not the Gothic alphabet. We could have an entry for ᚷᚢᛏᚨᚾᛁ (gutanī) and gloss it as {{infl of|got|*𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰||gen|p}}. That's what we do (mutatis mutandis) with ᚺᚨᛁᛚᚨᚷ (hailag). —Mahāgaja · talk 17:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja, Kwékwlos I agree that the attestation is convincing enough for the word to be taken out of the reconstruction namespace, regardless of the script form the main entry is created. On that issue - I don't think it's bad to have the main entry at the Gothic alphabet form; that's what was done at 𐌷𐌰𐌹𐌻𐌰𐌲𐍃 (hailags), which is also a hapax only attested in a runic inscription. I also think (considering 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰 (gutþiuda) for example which is a derived term of this lemma) it would be a bit weird to mix scripts for lemmas, and it may be more consistent to just have the main forms in the Wulfilan alphabet all the time as with hailags - and in mainspace - while noting on the entry that the attested form is runic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)