Talk:𐌰𐌱𐌱𐌰

RFC discussion: September–October 2016
Tagged but not listed. DTLHS (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For comparision: Latin has six cases (sometimes seven with locative). While modern grammar books often omit the fifth case, the vocative, and the seventh case, the locative, the templates here always mention the vocative even when it's the same as the nominative (e.g. puella) and also mention the locative even when it's the same as the genitive (1st and 2nd declension singular, e.g. Roma) or dative or ablative (1st and 2nd declension plural, e.g. Athenae, and 3rd declension, e.g. Carthago, Gades). So while Gothic grammar books might omit the vocative too when it is the same as the nominative, the templates should always mention it as is done in Latin entries. Then readers can see when it's the same as the nominative and when it's different from the nominative (e.g. 𐌰𐌽𐍃𐍄𐍃, 𐍃𐌿𐌽𐌿𐍃, 𐌷𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃). Otherwise one must expect that readers already have some knowledge of the language's declension, but that expectation would be so wrong. -16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem with 𐌰𐌽𐍃𐍄𐍃, 𐍃𐌿𐌽𐌿𐍃, 𐌷𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃 is that Gothic has five cases but the template just mentions four and misses the vocative.


 * Oh hey, Gothic! I like Gothic. Should probably check this page more often, too. Anyhow, I've fixed the entry for abba; the truth is that that word was most likely not even used in Gothic: the language, after all, had not one but two Germanic words for father found in the Bible, and . More importantly, it appears exactly once in the entire corpus, where both the original Greek and all translations I know of have merely a transliteration of the Aramaic word. The word, then, would obviously not have a declination: it probably was a transliteration, because the Greek original text also had a transliteration.


 * As for the missing vocatives: this is indeed an issue., since you created a lot (if not all?) of the Gothic inflection templates in the first place; what's your view on vocatives? I would personally be in favour of adding them to the templates, at the very least to those inflection templates where there is a difference in form with the nominative. — Kleio (t · c) 17:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a vocative row, but I'll leave it to you to edit the module to include the forms themselves. I'd suggest including them regardless of whether they're the same as the nominative or not, just like we do already for Proto-Germanic. —CodeCat 17:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll give it a shot soon (don't have much time this eve). Never really done much module editing, so should be fun ;) — Kleio (t · c) 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All the RFC'd entries have now been dealt with, I don't have much time left now before I leave but I will try to get as many of the new vocatives done for the other declensions too. — Kleio (t · c) 18:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Borrowing or transliteration?

 * After the BP discussion, I've taken it upon myself to retire . But I'm actually running in a few fringe cases, where I'm reluctant to simply replace with . This is one of them (and 🇨🇬 is another). Are these borrowings, or really transliterations? In the latter case, the entries should maybe be formatted like our Romanisation entries, shouldn't they?

too --Per utramque cavernam 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, one possibility is " Transliteration of ... ", for a language like this where we tend to include anything attested in the limited corpus. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , 🇨🇬 is a borrowing. What I wanted to say with "transliteration" is that it is a modern scholarly rendering of a name attested in a written corpus of another dead language. --Vahag (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)