Reconstruction talk:Old Dutch/buti

, do you think the Middle Low German and Old Norse forms are borrowings, or native inheritances from a PG form? -- 08:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to say, but at least for Old Norse the gender differs, which may be evidence. —Rua (mew) 08:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Move from PWG
, I have to again disagree with this page being moved to Old Dutch. You can't have the entry at Old Dutch but still borrowed from Gaulish -- the timeline doesn't work, and the term as an intra-Dutch construction to an unattested verb seems extremely unlikely. -- 04:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's at Old Dutch because that's the latest possible stage. Reconstructing it for Old Dutch doesn't imply it couldn't have been borrowed from Gaulish at an earlier stage, just that there's no evidence it existed in any other branch of West Germanic. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , if it could "have been borrowed from Gaulish at an earlier stage", that would have been PWG. CAT:Old Dutch terms borrowed from Gaulish should not exit. -- 17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but moving this to RC:Proto-West-Germanic/buti would introduce a reconstruction page with only one descendant, something that is generally discouraged. As for CAT:Old Dutch terms borrowed from Gaulish, changing bor to der is the easy way to fix that. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have no policy with PWG that doesn't allow for single descendant entries, so using that as an argument is a red herring.
 * No, the actual fix would be to make an intermediate step of, which reintroduces the PWG reconstruction.
 * I also haven't seen any explanation of how, whence OF , would have been borrowed from Old Dutch, which would also mean a CAT:Vulgar Latin terms borrowed from Old Dutch, another category which shouldn't exist. -- 18:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)