I removed it because technically it isn't even an etymology. It only said "cf" (whatever that means) and some words in other languages, but that doesn't actually tell me anything about the origin of the word that "Unknown" didn't. Is the implication that they are cognates? If so, why not just say so? And why not actually list the ancestor *swaltaz, and the related verb *sweltanan that the other two are descended from to make the relationship more clear?
As for mycha, I don't know if it is related. It's possible. It's hard to determine any relationship when there is so little that is known about the language and the spelling is inconsistent.
Yes, the format was bad, agreed. But I felt the reversal implied that the word lacked cognates and proposed relationships in other languages, which doesn't seem to be the case. I felt that there were stronger criteria required than for other Germanic languages. Wakuran (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Are we still agreed that this words needs some cognates listed? I think so, at least. It seems to be definitely related to *sweltanan.
- swaltaz seems like the most likely origin, because it fits with how verbal nouns of strong verbs were usually formed in Proto-Germanic. Can you find any other descendants of it?
I think sult is the West Norse form, Modern Swedish has svält. It's also possible that it's not a direct descendant of the original nominal form, but and independent creation from the verb, I guess. Thank you for your reply, anyway.
@Wakuran: Modern Swedish does have svält (Old Swedish svælter), which is indeed probably influenced by the verb form svälta (Old Swedish svælta); but older Swedish also has sylt (Old Swedish sulter, sylt and sylter) and Danish has sult. I have now discovered, however, that Swedish also has an obsolete svalt (Old Swedish svalter), which does seem to be < *swaltaz.