Talk:𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺

RFV discussion: August–November 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺

Unattested, AFAIK. — Kleio (t · c) 21:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@ User:KIeio So wait, you mean to tell me that the word for the Gothic language itself appears not to be attested in Gothic? There should be some kind of exception here for terms like this... Philmonte101 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For instance, only needing to find 1 citation instead of 3. These can be hard to come by, so it would make sense. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's literally unattested. (And probably should've been *𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺𐍃 (*gutisks) or *𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺𐌰 𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳𐌰 (*gutiska razda) anyway.) In fact even *𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰 (*guta), the word for Goth, is unattested, but that one can at least be gleaned from the -just once- attested compound 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰 (gutþiuda). Also, dead languages already require only one attestation. But yeah, unless I'm missing something, this one shouldn't be here. — Kleio (t · c) 00:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed, now it just needs to be deleted by someone. — Kleio (t · c) 12:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)