vroom (nl)
Greetings. Would I be right to add OE fruma (“prince, beginning”) to P-Germ. *frumô alongside OE first? I added fruma to vroom because it wasn't in the P-Germ. list, and I'm not quite comfortable enough with the P-Germ. derivational morphology to want to edit the reconstruction pages. Thanks for your help on my recent edits.
As far as I can tell, the noun fruma is the same as the adjective, it's just a substantivised form of it. Kinda like how Dutch has oudere or gevangene. The question is mainly whether this substantivised form can be reconstructed for Proto-Germanic already, or whether it was a purely Old English invention. I think it's the latter.
I'm not sure how to include an intra-OE derivation in the P-Germ. reconstruction page tree; is the sensible thing to omit it?
Thanks. I also noticed you deleted the category Dutch Terms Borrowed from Old French, but you did not alter my {{bor}}
template in singel. Would I be more correct to use the {{bor}}
in a dum entry, but to use a more general {{der}}
template in the nl entry? Finally, is there a preferred source or normalisation scheme for Middle Dutch spellings?
{{bor|xx}}
means that the term was borrowed into language xx. If the word was borrowed into Middle Dutch, then {{bor|dum}}
would be ok. But of course it can only be borrowed once in a language's history, so any subsequent languages would use {{der}}
.
Yes, there is a normalisation scheme for Middle Dutch, it's at WT:ADUM. In general, you can find a lot of information on practices and rules for individual languages on these "About..." pages.