Talk:π°πΉπ½π°π·π
Latest comment: 7 years ago by KIeio
@Angr Hey, where is this form attested? Neither wulfila.be nor Koebler seem to mention it. β Kleio (t Β· c) 16:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @KIeio: It isn't attested in this form; only the misspelling π°πΉπ½ππ·π (ainΕhΕ) is attested (see quotation there). βAΙ΄Ι’Κ (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Angr Ah, I see, thanks. I've added a little note to the main entry. β Kleio (t Β· c) 16:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Should it be a reconstruction then? DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose technically it could be, but it seems a little pedantic to move one nonlemma form to Reconstruction namespace when other inflected forms of the same word are attested (spelled correctly). βAΙ΄Ι’Κ (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it's just a nonlemma form, and a fairly predictable one at that. I think the little note at the lemma suffices. β Kleio (t Β· c) 16:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose technically it could be, but it seems a little pedantic to move one nonlemma form to Reconstruction namespace when other inflected forms of the same word are attested (spelled correctly). βAΙ΄Ι’Κ (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)