User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 25

slashes for square brackets in Swadesh lists

Hi. It appears that you added slashes to some Swadesh lists, as if pronunciations were phonemic, in instances where the pronunciations had been intended to be phonetic by whoever entered them, that is, with implied square brackets. I just fixed the Spanish page, which had things like /b/ vs. /β/ (now corrected), and will be fixing others I see...--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 16:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

croch derivation

*kroxs should not yield any of the s-final descendants, because the normal outcome of -xs is not -s; compare *swexs to sé and *esoxs to eó. I have thus deleted your statement that cros came from the Proto-Celtic nom sg. I believe that a direct borrowing of the Latin nominative singular by Old Irish etc. is more likely, but even then I have trouble trying to get the /k/ to disappear and keep the final /s/. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: Now that you mention it, *swexs > Welsh chwech shows that croes can't come from a nominative *kroxs either. It's starting to look like Proto-Insular Celtic just tacked the feminine ending *-ā directly onto crux, as both Old Irish cros and Welsh croes can come from *kruxsā. Welsh also has crwys, which could come from something with any vowel other than ā in the final syllable; I suppose *kruxsi- is most likely. Then there's Old Irish croch and Welsh crog, which seem to come from *krukā. I actually prefer this because of the vocalism, too, since Celtic loanwords from Latin usually don't show the Western Romance change of /ʊ/ to /o/. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! This isn't unprecedented by any means, either: Spanish dios borrowed the Latin nominative singular deus for a religious term and tacked the plural and feminine endings right onto the nominative singular. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

French decauville

Do you think you'd be able to add French to this? I don't really feel confident in trying to make an entry even after looking through the fr.wikt entry. I've decided to spend some time fulfilling requests from the French requested entries page and am initially focusing on terms which have pages but no French sections. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 15:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't either. We need someone who knows a little bit about trains, or at least an English entry for Decauville or Decauville railway. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

pied-d'alouette

Can you add the IPA to this and fix the plural? I couldn't figure out how to get the correct plural. Thanks. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for -έω

Thank you so much, for fixing all the -έω monosyllable ancient greek verbs! and compounds! A lot of work. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 12:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a lot of work, and not very satisfying because it requires so much brute force to get all the forms to appear correctly. But it's better than nothing. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

{{der2}}

Hey Mahagaja, I can't say I'm really a fan of using {{der2}} everywhere carte blanche. It seems really like overkill for two entries, making it harder to read. --{{victar|talk}} 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing babysit and babysitter

PaulTanenbaum (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Tonal Marker in Pronunciation for mewnblyg?

Hi Mahagaja, I just noticed that the pronunciation listed on the page for mewnblyg is /ˈmɛuꜛnblɪɡ/. I'm not an IPA expert, but it looks like that ꜛ symbol before the n is a tonal marker, which I was surprised by. Can you confirm that that is the intended pronunciation? Thanks! – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 13:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guitarmankev1: Nope, just an artifact of a typo: I wrote {{subst:x2IPA|cy|/"mEu^nblIg/}} instead of {{subst:x2IPA|cy|/"mEu_^nblIg/}}. Thanks for catching it! —Mahāgaja · talk 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Transliteration of ᚹᚨᛚᚺᚨᚲᚢᚱᚾᛖ at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/walhaz?

Why did you remove it? It is an a-stem dative, which changes from *-ai in Proto-Germanic to -ē in North-West Germanic (> -i in Old Norse), and thus it is transliterated as -kurnē. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Wiktionary's most active Proto-Norse editor ᛭ Ask me anything 17:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's just a question of whether we want the transliteration to include phonological information not actually included in the spelling. Since ᛖ is ambiguous between long and short e, I think it makes sense for the transliteration to reflect no more than the original spelling does, but maybe we have a different convention for Proto-Norse. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We do the same with Gothic (𐍂𐌿𐌼𐍃), so I do it here too. There really are not any specific conventions for Proto-Norse since there are so few active editors of it. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Wiktionary's most active Proto-Norse editor ᛭ Ask me anything 17:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

OK then, feel free to revert. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good call

The twit that added "garlish" has a long history of practical-joke edits from IPs in the Massachusetts area, generally associated with one university or another. They seem to have a strong thinly-veiled sadistic streak, judging by the edits that make embarrassing statements about private individuals referred to by full names. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about Template my personal pronouns edit

Hello@Mahagaja:, Have you ever learned Burmese language? ကျွန်နုပ် spelling error why do you think spelling is correct? do you have strong evidence? you can read this ကျွန်ုပ် term written by wiktionary Burmese language thanks.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Italian pronunciation

I use dipi Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

*h₂melǵ-

I rolled back your inclusion of Skt. roots at *h₂melǵ-, because they would seem to share an origin with ὀμόργνῡμῐ instead. Happy to discuss if you think I'm in error. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

cúraid

I edited your edit at cúraid: [[1]]. It's a small detail, but I don't think {{cog}} is the appropriate template, because the words cúraid and curo don't share a common ancestor, they were simply coincidentally formed the same way in the respective languages. I changed it to {{noncog}}. Is that better than {{m}}? —caoimhinoc (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: they're both derived from Latin cūra, how is that not having a common ancestor? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, I see, I've been going by a stricter definition of cognacy, which is that terms are only cognate if they descend from a term in the common ancestor of both languages, Proto-Celtic in this case. That's the usual definition in historical linguistics (see eg Benjamin Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture, p.4). But it's true that cognacy is a broad spectrum and there is no consensus on the use of the template. You were also involved in the relevant discussion. I guess I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, just trying to be consistent. Do you use the broadest interpretation of cognate? In this case I just wanted to avoid giving the impression that they derive from Proto-Celtic. —caoimhinoc (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was never even aware of that narrow definition. It seems absurdly pedantic to me to say that English compliment and German Kompliment aren't cognates just because they're both borrowed from French rather than inherited from Proto-West Germanic. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say 'they're related'. I wouldn't call it absurdly pedantic to distinguish between different types of relationship. Also, it's more like English now coins complimentity and German coins Komplimentität. Are they still cognate? Using the broadest definition of 'cognate' the answer is still yes. But the distance has definitely grown. The spectrum of relatedness is awfully broad and it's nice to be able to make distinctions.

The above definition of 'cognate' isn't even the strictest. Some don't allow any kind of non-regular sound change (morphological, folk-etymological), so English water and Icelandic vatn aren't cognate. But most people would call this strictest type 'exact cognate' or something like that. —caoimhinoc (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: The more I think about, the more likely it seems that the Irish is actually a loanword from Brythonic anyway. The vast majority of Latin loanwords in Old Irish were borrowed from Brythonic, not directly from Latin. Also, while Brythonic has a noun borrowed from cūra to build the verb from, Irish doesn't have any such noun, only the verb. So where did the Irish verb come from? It can only have come from the Brythonic verb or directly from the Latin verb, and the semantics show it was the Brythonic verb. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly possible, the only problem is that Welsh curo seems to have a short vowel. If that was always the case, that makes direct borrowing from Latin more likely. And Irish monks worked with Latin texts, so it's not implausible. The semantics of -aid, which was very productive, doesn't hinder it either, compare marb 'death' → marbaid 'to cause death > to kill'. —caoimhinoc (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: Welsh vowel length is entirely secondary. It's vowel quality that reflects the Latin vowels: Latin ū and ō give Welsh u (or rather, they give PBr *ʉ, which in turn gives Welsh u), while Latin short u gives PBr *u > Welsh w. And my point is that since Irish didn't borrow the noun, it didn't have a noun *cúr from which to build the verb cúraid. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a problem. Hungarian has szörfözik (from surf), szervál (from serve), lincsel (from linch), csencsel (from change), but it doesn't have szörf, szerv (“≠ organ”), lincs, or csencs. -aid is just how Old Irish built verbs. It's enough if they were exposed to the Latin word cūra. Besides, *cúr may have existed and just isn't attested by chance. If curo was [kʉro], that's a problem, because borrowing goes by pronunciation. —caoimhinoc (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Surf, serve, lynch, and change are all verbs to begin with, to which Hungarian has added its own suffixes, rather like Irish suffixes -áil to anything it wants to borrow as a verb. Cúraid can hardly have come from cūrō. The fronting of ū probably happened relatively late in PBr, after the loan happened, but even if the sound change had already happened, O.Ir. ú would have been the closest available phoneme. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Then take óbégat from German auweh (an exclamation) or strichel from Strich (“Prostitution”). Could cúraid have been the go-to rendering of a periphrasis cūram ponere or cūram gerere 'bestow grief upon'? The later borrowing cúram from the accusative shows they had contact with cúra. Concerning the Welsh, it's not the quality of the vowel I'm concerned with, but the length. Phonetic [ʉ] should have been rendered in Irish as /u/. —caoimhinoc (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources of PBr. *ʉ are the PC diphthongs *oi and *ou as well as the Latin long vowels *ō and *ū, so it was probably phonetically [ʉː]. We just leave the long mark out of the reconstruction because there was no short [ʉ] for it to contrast with. Ultimately, a path from Latin cūra to Old Irish cúraid that doesn't involve a stop at Proto-Brythonic *kʉrad sounds far more complicated than one that does. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Some edit requests for Module:la-pronunc

Hello, I have a request about Module:la-pronunc. When the module was protected to stop the edit warring, it was simply locked on the latest hasty revision that had been made. This means that in addition to the various controversial or under-discussed elements that remain in the module, there are some that seem to simply be errors. Would you be willing to edit it to fix at least the following points?

• The unconditional transcription of /r/ as [ɾ]: this was added intentionally, but the user who added it, The Nicodene, agrees with me that the generation of transcriptions like [ɾː] for geminate /rr/ is an unintended result. Aside from that, the general value of Latin /r/ is more commonly reconstructed as [r] than [ɾ], so a transcription using unconditional [r] (which is also a reasonable broad transcription of [ɾ]) is preferable. The fix would be removing or commenting out line 124: {"r", "ɾ"}

• The indication of optional elision of /t/ in the context of complex onset clusters like word-initial /str/ or word-medial /s.tr/. This appears to be an unintended result of code intended to show optional elision of coda /t/ preceded by /s/ and followed by a heterosyllabic consonant in contexts like post.quam. The fix would be editing line 139, {"st([.ˈ]?)([^aeɛiɪoɔuʊyʏe̯u̯])", "s(t)%1%2"}, to require a syllable break after the t: {"st([.ˈ])([^aeɛiɪoɔuʊyʏe̯u̯])", "s(t)%1%2"})

I don't know whether you feel changes like replacing [ɑ] in Ecclesiastical transcriptions should have more time for discussion. In any case, thanks for your attention!--Urszag (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about editing modules or all the fine details to participate further. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Etymologies in Tagalog entries

Hi! I noticed you edited the way the etymologies of pseudo-Hispanisms in Tagalog are written. I was just wondering if it's ok to put it as "derivative" if it was just a minor influence, like in dayalekto. Also if it was mainly borrowed from English, just the ending was changed to sound more Spanish, is it considered a Spanish derivative? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: "Derived from" is pretty vague, I think. I'd say these terms can still be considered Tagalog terms derived from Spanish. At any rate, the important thing for me is simply that we don't use the {{etyl}} template, which is deprecated and which I am slowly trying to remove from Wiktionary so it can finally be deleted. If you want to use {{cog}} or {{noncog}} to mention the language name without categorizing the terms as derivatives, that's fine too. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We do have a template that handles these cases {{tl-siyokoy word}}. These words are basically English-Spanish hybrids, but what can be said is they're still English-derived, the resulting word being basically the English blended with the Spanish. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Greek and (Old) Irish FWOTDs

Do you happen to know any Greek and (Old) Irish words that would be interesting FWOTDs? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo:, well some Old Irish words already nominated at WT:FWOTDN or WT:FWOTD/FW are cathair (“city”), caur (“hero”), eclais (“church”), and comṡuidigud (“compounding”). —Mahāgaja · talk 19:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am no longer running FWOTD, but if I were, I would prefer not to use words like these which have no inherently interesting quality to them. The best nominations are words with unusual semantics or usage, and I believe Lingo was specifically asking for interesting words. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think all of them could be acceptable in the context of a focus week. Cathair is sort of interesting on its own, but it is from FWOTD/FW. And I'm certainly not going to knowingly use nominations for focus weeks as regular FWOTDs. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

See, the ones that have been nominated at FWOTDN are truth be told not terribly interesting. So if you'd knew a word for a very specific concept or with an entertaining semantic range, that would be helpful. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

eo-IPA and rhymes

I do a bit of work on Esperanto entries, adding {{eo-IPA}}, and sometimes creating rhyme pages or adding entries to existing ones. When I add rhymes, it automatically adds {{rhymes}} to the entries, which is redundant because that's part of the IPA template. I tend to automatically undo the edit. I suppose it would make sense to exempt pages that already have that template, but that's frankly beyond my abilities. I've noticed that {{rhymes}} now links specific categories based on number of syllables, though, and I'm thinking that a better solution needs to be figured out. Would it be possible to add this feature to {{eo-IPA}}? Should {{eo-IPA}} no longer automatically include rhymes? Could the template be updated so it includes this same feature based on the number of syllables in the hyphenation section? embryomystic (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the better solution would be for the {{rhymes}} template not to be added automatically to any page that already has {{eo-IPA}} on it, but I don't know how to go about achieving that. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your removal of German rhymes here and here

Was there something wrong with them? Fytcha (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Rhymes are from the primary stressed vowel to the end of the word. Fürstentum and Erzherzogtum aren't rhymes on /uːm/, they're rhymes on /ʏʁstəntuːm/ and /ɛʁtsoːktuːm/ respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry in that case. I'll remove them from the other articles too in a moment. Fytcha (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, removed all my wrong rhymes. Good thing I've learned this now. --Fytcha (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Sorry to bother you with this again, I'm still a bit confused. Following what you've said above, isn't the rhyme in Handy wrong (should be /-ɛndi/)? There's more such cases to be found in Rhymes:German/iː. Fytcha (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Any word at Rhymes:German/iː that isn't stressed on the final syllable, such as Handy, is indeed in the wrong place. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

w

Thanks for reverting me on gwneud, my bad on not factchecking thisǃ I'll be more careful in the future. Cheers, --Eowyn Cwper (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/rēfaz

I reverted your deletion of the etymology because *rep- is a real, documented IE root, although I suppose the reconstruction may be outdated; there is probably a missing laryngeal or something, so if you can figure out the proper form of the root, by all means change it. The same root is referenced in our English entry at raft. – Krun (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

RPD

Hey, I was wondering if you could teach me how to take words to RFD. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You just put {{rfd|xx}} (replacing xx with the language code) directly under the language heading, and then click the little superscript "(+)" that follows the words "nominated for deletion" to create the discussion thread on the RFD page. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ထမ်းပိုး

Hi,

How do you read the pronunciation note on ထမ်းပိုး (htam:pui:) in MED, a sub-entry for ထမ်း (htam:)? Is /tʰáɴpó/ applicable for the verb and /dəbó/ for the noun ("shoulder-yoke")? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In the online version at SEAlang, it looks like it's the verb that's /dəbó/, but in the dead-tree edition it looks more like it's the noun, especially since it's followed by a bunch of entries for compounds, all of which are pronounced with /dəbó/ and all of which appear to be compounds using the noun. Maybe @Hintha can help us further. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I went ahead and created the entry with {{rfp|my}}. @Hintha:, please review. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ဂိုယံသီး

Hi @Mahagaja:, I want to ask you four questions.

1. Do you understand Rakhine language?
2. Have you ever seen the real Rakhine alphabet?
3. Do you know the true history of Rakhine?
4. Have you ever been in contact with Rakhine?

Answer the four questions I asked, if you do not understand the language, it is best to do nothing. I am a multi-lingual committee executive in Burma, if you do not understand what I mean, feel free to ask. To put it bluntly, Rakhine and Mon are high peoples in the literary history of Burma. If you have never seen the Rakhine alphabet, you can learn it on the Arakanese language page. The ကခဂဃင you see now is not a real Rakhine alphabet and has no font, it is used as it is convenient, there are still many languages in Burma that do not have fonts, I hope you understand what I mean, thanks.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither my personal experience with Rakhine nor your personal experience with Rakhine is relevant. The article Arakanese language you pointed to says that Arakanese uses the Burmese script, and used a historical writing system (the infobox of the article says it's called Rakhawunna) from the 4th to the 9th century AD. If Rakhine has been written in the Burmese script for the past 12 centuries, then it makes sense for us to use Burmese script in the page name and for the headword line to match the page name. Since Rakhawunna hasn't been encoded in Unicode, we can't create entries in that script (yet), but I can see it's interesting to include it in Rakhine entries somehow. That's why I put it in an image on the right hand side of the page. I don't mind including the info like that, but it shouldn't replace the headword in the headword line. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am using Egyptian page form for Rakhine page, View this msꜣḏt page in sample form, what I am changing now is doing what the Rakhine people want, you can ask this Facebook user Sawmya Sandar Aung, I had to change according to their request, thanks. Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you & Happy 2022

Mahagaja! Thank you for all your help with ancient greek, and best wises for a Happy -and healthy- 2022! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 16:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

m̥

Thank you for your brilliant contributions to the Welsh lemmas: they are infinitely tidier and more correct thanks to your work! :)

One helpful tip, however: in words such as ‘amharu’, the m is unvoiced (it has undergone a nasal mutation), and is therefore ‘m̥’. The same unvoicing is true of the ‘n’ in words such as ‘annhebyg’ also.

Cofion cynnes 2A00:23C6:7C14:9801:5CBB:135C:84C0:A63D 14:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Re:rgn-IPA

Ok, I've understood.--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of angiotenic

Wondering why the reference to the prefix angio- should have been changed from [[angio-#French]] to [[angio-#English]]. Was it merely to get angiotenic plopped into Category:English words prefixed with angio-? If so, then that feels somewhat punky because the context in which you used {{af}} is the specification of the etymology of angioténique, which of course is not English.―PaulTanenbaum (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. Previously it was in CAT:French words prefixed with angio-, which makes no sense as it isn't a French word at all. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Attested forms" and "Inflection"

The reason I prefer "attested forms" over "inflection" for Proto-Norse lemmas is because most Proto-Norse terms are taken from inscriptions that date from different centuries, and often have entirely different spelling norms. For example, ᛋᛡᛏᛖ (500s-600s) is not equivalent to ᛊᚨᛏᛁᛞᛟ (200s-400s), since many orthographic and linguistic changes have happened between them. The 600s equivalent of ᛊᚨᛏᛁᛞᛟ would be *ᛋᛡᛏᛟ, and the 200s-400s equivalent of ᛋᛡᛏᛖ would be *ᛊᚨᛏᛁᛞᛖ.

The term "inflection", then, might make people with less Germanic philological experience equate this with a normal inflection table, like that for Old Norse or Latin, where all forms are in the same orthography, and can be used to produce new texts (say you want to say 'we are', you just look up the first plural indicative present in the table)—which is not at all the case for this language. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 12:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that "Attested forms" isn't one of the headers listed at Wiktionary:Entry layout or User:Erutuon/mainspace headers/whitelist, and we do try to keep our headers as consistent across languages as possible. It would probably be better to put a disclaimer under the ===Inflection=== header saying something along the lines of "The following are the attested forms, which may belong to different stages of the language and are thus not necessarily contemporary with each other." —Mahāgaja · talk 12:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)