Talk:𐌱𐌰𐌿𐌲

Is this form attested? I can't find it on wulfila.be or in Koebler's dictionary. Note that only attested verb forms get entries for Gothic (which is why verbs often don't have all blue links in their conjugation tables).

I have the same question regarding, which I was also unable to find. (If participle entries are not attested in their uninflected form but are attested in inflected form, the uninflected base form does get an entry as well, but if neither the uninflected base nor an inflected form is attested, no entry is created for a participle at all) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, I only added a link mainly because the Romanised word lead to another page that was unrelated to the verb, but deleting the link might be the right thing to do, therefore I will delete the unattested words right now. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 17:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Remember that in the future, as the creator of an entry you can nominate an entry for speedy deletion by adding the template to the top of the page. (Short note -- WT:Requests for cleanup is not for deletion requests, it's for messy or dubious entries; also, there's WT:Requests for deletion which exists to discuss the possible deletion of entries that don't meet our WT:Criteria for inclusion)


 * I was wondering if you could have a look at my last post at Talk:-𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 as well: while even non-productive suffixes in Gothic can be included in the main namespace where regular entries are located (especially since often it's not actually possible to tell if an attested suffix was productive), if there aren't at the very least some attested inherited terms (let alone evidence of productive Gothic formations) with the -iggs suffix, it should not receive an entry in mainspace. There may then still be grounds for a reconstruction namespace entry though, e.g. if there are latinisations/transliterations or borrowings or other derivations of Gothic words in other languages which can only be explained by positing a Gothic etymon with the -iggs suffix.


 * These points aside (which aren't really a very big deal) your contributions are really quite good, keep it up. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks!. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 21:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)