Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/dōmahūsą

RFD discussion: September 2019–March 2020
I created the entry, however after checking some dictionaries about Old English and Old Norse I notice that the terms is also attested as two seperate words. Essentially this term, being SOP, doesn't merit an entry. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ha, an Old English/Old/Norse/Proto-Germanic COALMINE (*kuląmīną). Is it wrong then to analyze *dōmahūsą as *dōmaz + *hūsą? Should it be *dōma + *hūsą? We do have but no entry ; instead, we have  of which dóm, I think, is an oblique form.  --Lambiam 04:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that it is apparently primarily attested as a compound (as the dictionaries I checked just now have it as a single word and not two separate words) and that at least one reputable source reconstructs the PGmc, I'll vote to keep the entry. The word sometimes being written with a space is probably just a scribal oddity, as it is clearly a compound. (The etymology seems fine, too: we don't link to the combining form of a noun (such as *dōma-) in the etymologies of compound words, we just link to the lemma.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, based on the above Leasnam (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Are were sure we aren't dealing with an Old English-Old Norse medieval construction? Orel seems to reconstruct many PGmc words with attestation only on those two languages. Some don't even share a meaning, e.x. reconstructing 🇨🇬 for 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We can probably never be sure of whether this word was inherited or a parallel creation. It's very plausible that early Germanic peoples had the concept of a "doom-house", and if they had the concept then crafting the word is not rocket science. OHG has and  (modern ), so x (judgement, council, assembly, meeting) + *hūsą is not out of  realm of possibility. And what's more judgementaceous than *dōmaz the actual word for it ? Do we have any dates as to when each word is first attested ? That's not necessarily proof, but it would be interesting to know Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know if these are the first attestation but, 🇨🇬 is attested in, Pétrs saga postula (c1350-1375) and Lunaria : Tunglfrǿði: Lun435 (c.1500); 🇨🇬 in , the rest (Dictionarium Saxonico-Latino-Anglicum, A Volume of Vocabularies) are late dictionary and vocabularies, from the 17th century and 19th century, respectively. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes those are late indeed, except for the Old English, maybe. Borrowing cannot be ruled out either. Hard call to make, since the word could have nonetheless existed in PGmc. But I completely understand your rationale to remove the entry. Leasnam (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we will leave it for the Wiktionary community to decide, until now there are two votes to keep it; if the majority vote to keep it shall be kept. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)