Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/skuldiz

Can this have been ? The Old High German form clearly has -d- (not just -lt- revoiced). I'm not sure if forms with "t" (that are not due to final devoicing) are attested at all, but if so, these are clearly exceptional and secondary. The same situation exists in Old High German "meldôn", which also has a single "gimeltoto", but where clearly the -d- is original. Accordingly, wiktionary now has, even though all dictionaries give it as. I'm not an expert on Verner's law, so my question: Is there a way to actually explain these forms (*skulþiz, *melþōną), rather than just construing them to circumvent the problem? Thank you.
 * You bring up a good point. Old High German does seem to have the rare scult (> 🇨🇬 ?), but a PGmc *skulþiz is still very possible. Yet, since most trustworthy sources reconstruct the word as *skuldi- I wouldn't be hasty to make a move. I have added the alternative form *skulþiz to the entry though. Leasnam (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Old Norse is usually better for distinguishing lþ from ld because the former assimilates to ll. It has ld here, which suggests that it's original. However, a borrowing from West Germanic has to be ruled out too. —Rua (mew) 15:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

English shild
The page reads that Middle English shuld, shild gave English "shild" but the link brings only to an eye dialect word for "child", unrelated (apparently) with "shild". I sometimes see, in PGmc entries, English descendants without semantic rapport with their Middle English etymon. What should I do: removing the English word from the PGmc entry or add a definition to match semantically, even if I ignored the word in question some minutes earlier? Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That discussion page mentions that it's unattested. I figured it might be a rare form found in some rural Northern English dialects or something, but maybe it has just disappeared... Wakuran (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)