Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/sahsô

RFV discussion: April–July 2020
I have no doubt of its existence in Proto-West Germanic, but not even the dubious 2nd-century attestation in Ptolemy is early enough to count as Proto-Germanic; the first certain attestations are fourth-century. I think the ON and Latin should be counted as borrowings from WGmc. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 100%, PWG should be deleted (or merged) and  be made a PWG entry. --  05:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PWGmc already exists, so the ON and Lat descendants from  just need moving, and the PGmc entry deleted. Leasnam (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Always keep the older entry, but like I mentioned, you can just merge them. -- 06:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the off-topic, but I've only just noticed the appearance of this gmw-pro language, what do we do now with terms like which only have West Germanic descendants and aren't strong verbs? Ain92 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say move it to Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/grindil. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Via RFV, as this entry, or via RFM? Ain92 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RFV-deleted. I also took the liberty of moving the entry Ain92 mentioned. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)