|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|PGmc keluz Etym 2||1||08:55, 3 July 2020|
|ghenoeghen||2||08:43, 30 June 2020|
|Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/*kāsijaz||7||18:35, 18 June 2020|
|Vulgar latin verbs||1||20:34, 16 June 2020|
|hwalbą||0||10:30, 9 June 2020|
|Hellenic daughters||3||21:00, 3 June 2020|
|Zeeuws||0||09:46, 21 May 2020|
|Template:prefixsee||1||09:12, 28 April 2020|
|My change to *gʷelbʰ-||0||18:57, 26 April 2020|
|Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bō-||1||09:02, 25 April 2020|
|van||0||06:57, 25 April 2020|
|werpijan||2||18:21, 24 April 2020|
|Synonyms for aiskōną||1||10:25, 23 April 2020|
|Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/masgás||3||10:42, 20 April 2020|
|Mistake with rollback on Reconstructed Terms||1||08:18, 19 April 2020|
|User Talkpage Vandal||0||16:07, 18 April 2020|
|Borre/brenje||2||11:50, 18 April 2020|
|Kumyk noun declension template||2||21:42, 4 April 2020|
|lammas||0||08:48, 28 March 2020|
|Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/kafl||3||18:02, 23 March 2020|
I think you are wrong here https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ganugan%C4%85&diff=prev&oldid=53853693 It is a quirk of Dutch orthography that [u] is written as "oe"..
Cf. en: good nl: goed de: gut
Please don't tell me they are from different origin just because of the spelling.
Rua knows that <oe> is /u/. It's that (Middle) Dutch /u/ comes from PGem *ō, not PGem *u.
The entry for *kāsijaz was originally placed under Proto-Germanic since I found descendants for this word in the North Germanic languages. Here is an article by Guus Kroonen where the author discusses a reflexes of Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz existing in North Germanic languages on page 21. (https://web.archive.org/web/20171110004825/http://nors.ku.dk/ansatte/?pure=files/35220983/elfdalian.pdf). The original entry for *kāsijaz included these descendants in the entry so I have no idea why you decided to move the entry to West Germanic.
Additionally, I have just looked through Kroonen 2013 right now and as I originally suspected, the author cites North Germanic descendants of Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz on page 275 
I suggest checking the two sources I have mentioned to see whether they are worth including in the Proto-Germanic entry. If the sources are valid, then it may be prudent to restore the original entry for *kāsijaz under Proto-Germanic. Because of the large number of redirects and page edits that were necessary after transferring the entry to West Germanic, it might be easier for you to use MewBot to change the links than to manually change them individually.
It's not so much the sources, but the question of whether the Norse forms are inherited or borrowed. Ringe thinks they're borrowed, Kroonen thinks inherited. What does Wiktionary think?
I reviewed Ringe 2014 and the author did not address the descendants of the term in North Germanic. They are not brough up anywhere in the book.
Um, caseus is listed as Latin borrowing into PWG, so of course that means the Norse word was borrowed.
I do not deny that a Proto-Germanic term *kāsijaz would have been borrowed from Latin cāseus. I'm simply stating that the term may have been borrowed earlier that the West Germanic period since at least one author lists reflexes for the term in North Germanic languages.
I don't want this discussion to drag on too long, but Don Ringe makes no mention of West Germanic *kāsī being borrowed into North Germanic yielding Old Norse kæsir. Before assuming that Don Ringe implies that the term was borrowed into North Germanic through West Germanic at a relatively late date, keep in mind that it could also be possible that he simply does not consider Old Norse kæsir an inherited term from a Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz since there is a significant semantic shift between the Old Norse term and the West Germanic terms. The Old Norse word, kæsir, means "rennet, abomasum" rather than specifically "cheese". There is also a possibility that Don Ringe simply wasn't aware of the Old Norse term so he didn't include it in his 2014 book.
1. Do you know any vulgar latin verb pages? So far I have only managed to find danciare (reconstruction;latin/dancio), but im looking for other verbs (like say verbs in -ire, -ēre, -ere) 2. You removed the vulgar latin essere page, why? Maybe I overlooked but I saw no reason. Is there a way I could see this page? I wasn't able to find the logs.
regarding the change of hwalbą's descendents, it is likely that Middle English wholve derives from the Norse form hválfr/hvolfr, rather than Anglo-Saxon hwealf, which would have become *whalve (split vowel ea reforms back to a). However, while it is equally likely that it was influenced by both forms, and the O could be a dialectical form of A (as was common in Anglo-Saxon, cf: mann/monn, þanne/þonne, þancan/þoncan etc.), as well as the common sound development into Modern English of eal- to become ol- (cf: eald > old, weald > wold, healdan > hold, ceald > cold, etc.), there is no sign of the intermediary al- of Middle English (cf: ald, wald, halden, cald), nor any other examples that suggest this sound change occurs without D dental stop in words with eald, where it often remains as al (cf: wealt > walt, heals > halse, sceal > shall, heall > hall) without further development into O.
My source is from the Michigan Middle English dictionary which suggests wholve to derive mainly from Old Norse rather than Old English: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED52642/
You will also find that the examples there, even into late southern (i.e. less direct Old Norse influence) dialects are spelled with U (whulve), suggesting that O is the primary form, and there is no sign of an Anglian *whalve spelled with A, which must certainly have been replaced by the Norse form, rather than develop alongside it.
Consequently I conclude that Middle English wholve derives from Old Norse and not from Old English.
I notice you refuse to provide any argument in favour of your edits, preferring instead to edit war, and then have the audacity to block me for edit warring. I have provided my argument repeatedly: there are different opinions on what the accentuation of the Proto-Indo-European word for "daughter" was before the Hellenic branch split off from Proto-Indo-European, as explained in detail on the linked Proto-Indo-European page. Therefore, our readers are best served by an unaccented Proto-Indo-European form with a link to the page that explains the two different reconstructions of the accent placement.
The page for the Proto-Indo-European word has the accent, so that is the Wiktionary consensus form of the word. The link should not display one form and then link to another. If you want to change the form, you'll need to discuss it with other editors to reach a new consensus.
The page for the Proto-Indo-European word gives three different forms corresponding to three different stages of Proto-Indo-European. Obviously only one of them can be the page title, so the fact that the page title is what it is does not mean that that is the Wiktionary consensus form of the word.
It makes no sense to ban piped links, but even if it did, the link does not go to another form. The link is to the Wiktionary page for the reconstructed forms *dʰwégh₂-tr̥, *dʰúgh₂tēr and *dʰugh₂tḗr, which happens to be located at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰugh₂tḗr because it has to be located somewhere, and this is as good a choice as any as it is the last PIE form that existed before most branches split off. According to that page, opinions differ as to whether *dʰúgh₂tēr or dʰugh₂tḗr is the form the Hellenic forms descend from. In order to maintain a neutral point of view in the Hellenic articles, I propose to just write *dʰugh₂tēr, which covers both *dʰúgh₂tēr or *dʰugh₂tḗr without giving precedence to either. The form *dʰugh₂tēr isn't a different form from *dʰugh₂tḗr, just the same form unspecified for accent.
The consensus Wiktionary needs to reflect is that of the sources, and they differ on the accentuation of this form at the time when Hellenic split off from Proto-Indo-European. On the individual Hellenic pages, we should give *dʰugh₂tēr, unspecified as to accent, since that is the consensus pre-Hellenic-split form and there is no scientific consensus on the placement of the accent. We have no basis for electing one accent placement over the other, so the only neutral alternativeto my suggestion would be to give both *dʰúgh₂tēr and *dʰugh₂tḗr. Everyone agrees that *dʰugh₂tḗr is the parent form of all non-Anatolian and non-Hellenic Indo-European languages, but there is actual scientific disagreement, which we need to reflect, as to whether this form is also ancestral to Anatolian and Hellenic.
Dag Rua, ik zie dat je vorig jaar wat basaal werk aan het Zeeuws hebt gedaan. Aangezien het lijkt voort te bouwen op het beginnetje dat ik twee maanden eerder heb gemaakt, wil ik je daar even voor bedanken. Overigens ga ik er graag nog een keer mee verder, maar ik kan weinig beloven aangezien ik offline dringender bezigheden heb.
You seem to be the chief creator of this template. I wish to let you know that it does not, at least not always, arrange the prefixed terms in a correct alphabetic order, see uudis-.
Hi Rua, I was wondering if you could help sort the descendants (in the "unsorted" group) at *bō-; I'm not familiar enough with the sound change laws. Thanks!
I've always observed the same, that the vowel should be 'i'. Due to the by-forms (worpio, gurpio, etc) I wonder if this is actually from *wurpijan, which I had added a few days ago. Do you think this might have been the case ?
Why do you? And why do you make edits that you know are disputed?
I believe the rollback you made on the link Reconstructed terms was a mistake. Romanian is also a romance language related to the other four, thus the words in that language are cognates with one another.
Blocking a single IP for a year site-wide is rather pointless: this is the second IP they've used, and the range they're in is too wide to block all of it. I've started doing range blocks specific to the User talk namespace wherever they edit from, but I suspect they'll be able to get around it for a while.
Their whole game is to goad people into action and then laugh at the frustration when it doesn't work. The best response is to calmly stop up any hole they pop out of until they run out of holes. Maybe it will require an abuse filter eventually, but I'm not going to go out of my way.
I get a lot less of this kind of abuse than some of the others, and that's mostly because I don't get upset. Being insulted or pranked on a wiki talk page is not high on the list of things that bother me. I just clean it up and ignore it until the pathetic waste of their time takes its toll. I find boredom is my best weapon.
Thank you for adding them correctly! :) I do see one issue. In the current form, it is not specified that the verb "borre" (intransitive) derives from od. "brinnan" < "brinnana", while "brenje" (transitive) derives from od. "brennan" < "brannijana". Is there a way to fix this? --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There is only a single entry for them in Middle Dutch, because they were no longer distinguished by that time. Presumably, one of the Limburgish words was loaned from High German.
@Rua The 'thanks' was for correcting the lua. Fortunately, the Estonian etymology would not be run through by many people. I was unpleasantly surprised that its author seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Proto-Finnic, or at least, Finn-Ugric has far more franchise as a single language than Proto-Germanic, since the latter is simply formed (as you know) from its core of mezzo-Indo-European (if you like) and the borrowed forms from the substrate language (and dialects) in Scandinavia. Before Celtic had any influence there, it is obvious to most who have studied the ancient languages of Europe that Proto-Finnic was that substrate language and, therefore all the Germanic forms for 'lamb' were in fact derivatives from the substrate root borrowed into Proto-Germanic; whereas the English term is clearly a derivative from the PG form later. Therefore an etymologist can safely assume that: Proto-Germanic *lambaz is borrowed from Proto-Finnic *lambas. The same applies, incidentally to Finnish 'flikka' cognate with Swedish 'flicka' ultimately form the root of Old Cornish 'flogh' (child) - not found in the other Celtic dialects. In both of these cases the words are so basic to everyday farm life that borrowing from a more recent cosmopolitan language is inadmissible. Kind regards. 08:47,28th March Andrew (talk)
Geez, Rua, you can't wait until I move things around to start a discussion about it? You have to do it while I'm in the process, breaking the things I'm working on?