Reconstruction talk:Gothic/𐍅𐌹𐌽𐍃

Hey, I've removed the note stating it's an a-stem and changed the table to be that of an i-stem, also over at the Batwins entry. I'm not sure why I added Batwins as an a-stem, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been an i-stem like the Proto-Germanic (compare also the Gothic given name *Winigilds, attested in Latin texts as Winigildus, which shows an -i- in the stem). Was wondering if you knew of any reasons to suppose an a-stem, since you put a note on this entry specifying that it wasn't an i-stem in Gothic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not really. I know that Gothic has some noticeable irregular inflection and seeing Batwins as an a-stem, I simply assumed that it was the case.
 * Another thing I would like to ask is about my reconstruction of Bats as the first part of Batwins. Do you think that it's creditable or that there isn’t much knowledge to conclude such reconstruction?. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 14:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. As for - I doubt it existed in Gothic as a simple adjective. Obviously the suppletive forms based on it (batiza, batists) exist, but those exist in other Gmc. languages as well which similarly do not have the base adjective, only the suppletive forms. There is in fact a note over at  which calls its use even in Proto-Germanic into doubt. In light of that, it's quite a leap to suggest it was still in use in Gothic. However, I do not know what source the note on the Proto-Germanic entry is based on, it may be wrong, but I am not sure.


 * Anyway, while the Bat- in Batwins is obviously from the same general root as the other bat- terms mentioned before (Lehmann's etymological dictionary also confirms this), it doesn't need to be a Gothic formation in the first place, it may as well be the inherited form of a Proto-Germanic formation (*Bat[a]winiz?), and even then *bat- may still only have been in use as a "base for word derivation" (not as an adjective in itself), as the Proto-Germanic entry suggests.


 * By and large, I think the basis for supposing a Gothic adjective is pretty weak. But if it did exist, the proposed form *bats (a-stem) would indeed be correct. So if the reconstructed Gothic entry is to be kept, the entry needs not be changed, but I am not sure it should be kept. Pinging some editors who know more about Proto-Germanic:, , . — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , should we be reconstructing this entry as well? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–June 2019
Per the talk page, another element reconstructed solely on the basis on being in a name. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)