Talk:๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: FebruaryโApril 2017
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.
Fairly sure both are unattested. โ Kleio (t ยท c) 04:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ should just be deleted outright; I'll move ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ to *๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ (*hrลรพs) since it's mentioned as a reconstruction in ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ด๐น๐ฒ๐. โAษดษขส (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- The proper noun ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ is mentioned in Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrลรพirฤซks, so shoudn't it be moved for the same reason why the common noun ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ got moved? If there are doubts about the etymology of the Romance Rodrigo, then shouldn't ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ also be removed from Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrลรพirฤซks, and shouldn't the removal require a proper WT:RFD discussion? -84.161.57.67 09:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- It shouldn't have been mentioned on that reconstruction page, because it's a very unlikely reconstruction; since the first element of the compound is an i-stem, one would expect *๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐น๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ (*hrลรพireiks) instead. If such an entry is to be created (an ancestor of Rodrigo - if the Spanish name is indeed of Visigothic origin - did apparently exist in some form in Gothic) it should be in the Reconstruction namespace. There's not much precedent for reconstructed Gothic names so far (I see now that recently someone did create *๐ฐ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ (*alareiks)) but I don't see a problem with them in theory, as long as they're attested somehow in Latin/Greek transliterations and their reconstruction is unambiguous. โ Kleio (t ยท c) 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Angr, CodeCat I just noticed Kรถbler has *hroรพ[s] (and its PGmc. etymon) as an a-stem noun, which would make *๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ (*hrลรพareiks) correct here. However, that does not make sense to me, since the derived adjective ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ด๐น๐ฒ๐ (hrลรพeigs) has -๐ด๐น๐ฒ๐ (-eigs) (which is usually from i-stem nouns) and not the equivalent a-stem suffix -๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ (-ags), plus we have the PGmc. term as an i-stem noun. Am I missing something here? What do y'all think? โ Kleio (t ยท c) 18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Koebler is grasping at straws just as much as we are here, having to go off the attestations in other languages. I wouldn't put too much importance to it. โCodeCat 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough I suppose. The -eigs suffix seems like a pretty clear indication of an i-stem, though. Made me wonder how Kรถbler (and his sources, presumably -- I haven't checked Holthausen yet, not sure if my library even has it) missed that. (And hroรพareiks is all over Google too - but then, the internet is generally embarrassingly bad at Gothic, so I'm not taking that as an indication of anything) โ Kleio (t ยท c) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Koebler is grasping at straws just as much as we are here, having to go off the attestations in other languages. I wouldn't put too much importance to it. โCodeCat 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Angr, CodeCat I just noticed Kรถbler has *hroรพ[s] (and its PGmc. etymon) as an a-stem noun, which would make *๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ (*hrลรพareiks) correct here. However, that does not make sense to me, since the derived adjective ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ด๐น๐ฒ๐ (hrลรพeigs) has -๐ด๐น๐ฒ๐ (-eigs) (which is usually from i-stem nouns) and not the equivalent a-stem suffix -๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ (-ags), plus we have the PGmc. term as an i-stem noun. Am I missing something here? What do y'all think? โ Kleio (t ยท c) 18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- It shouldn't have been mentioned on that reconstruction page, because it's a very unlikely reconstruction; since the first element of the compound is an i-stem, one would expect *๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐น๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ (*hrลรพireiks) instead. If such an entry is to be created (an ancestor of Rodrigo - if the Spanish name is indeed of Visigothic origin - did apparently exist in some form in Gothic) it should be in the Reconstruction namespace. There's not much precedent for reconstructed Gothic names so far (I see now that recently someone did create *๐ฐ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ (*alareiks)) but I don't see a problem with them in theory, as long as they're attested somehow in Latin/Greek transliterations and their reconstruction is unambiguous. โ Kleio (t ยท c) 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- The proper noun ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ is mentioned in Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrลรพirฤซks, so shoudn't it be moved for the same reason why the common noun ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ got moved? If there are doubts about the etymology of the Romance Rodrigo, then shouldn't ๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐ also be removed from Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrลรพirฤซks, and shouldn't the removal require a proper WT:RFD discussion? -84.161.57.67 09:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Both RFV failed. Angr has moved the second one to *๐ท๐๐๐ธ๐ (*hrลรพs). โฮฮตฯฮฌknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)