Talk:𐌲𐌰𐍃𐌹𐌲𐌲𐌵𐌰𐌽

Don't you reckon we ought to lemmatize at gasigqan for consistency, considering sigqan and dissigqan? We could then add a note to the effect of the two attested verb forms being spelled with a double . There is alternation between  and  in the differently prefixed cousins of this verb (and the unprefixed lemma) too, such as with dissigqan (Ephesians 4:26), but we lemmatize them all at the single- form. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still in doubt about this. There's so much variation, and it seems the -gg- spellings are actually the only attested spellings for quite a few words of the same root. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. seems to be the only attested form in, and ; both and  are attested in  and ; and is only attested as such. On the top of my mind, it seems to me most reasonable to place each entry at the only attested stems (if non-alternating) to make them easier to find for users reading a Gothic text (that is, to have alongside ). That would free us from the problem of placing an entry under a spelling that is nowhere attested, such as.
 * In cases where the forms alternate ( and ), I agree that we should place it under , which is closer to the rules of Greek and is almost thrice as common in the manuscripts (Wulfila has 39 vs. 106 tokens). In either case, we would add a note note to all entries (alternating as well as non-alternating) to the effect of "This root is attested with  in certain lemmata,  in others" etc.
 * Whether should be placed under anyway for the sake of standardization is, of course, largely a question of how inclined one is to correct spelling variation, but as Gothic is poorly attested, I tend to find it problematic to make the only attested forms variant forms, especially as the variation between ggq/k and gq/k seems to be very widespread in the manuscripts. Hence, I would argue for a solution that is as close to the attested forms as possible, with clarification at the entries in the form of notes if relevant (perhaps under the headline of "related terms").
 * Hope that makes sense. --Glésan (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, yes. A usage note on the affected lemma pages, mainly the ones with / (the "unexpected" forms), would probably do. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Or somewhere else, I'm not entirely sure. Etymology is a bit of a stretch, and we usually don't have free text under "related terms", so I guess it's kind of a toss-up.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried my hand at a usage note at the entry page which may perhaps serve as a model (if it is sufficiently clear). I too am somewhat in doubt whether "usage notes" is the proper place, but at it may, perhaps, be at least a temporary solution. --Glésan (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, might as well mention it somewhere, and usage notes happens to be a convenient dumping ground for relevant info that doesn't have another clear home in the standard Wiktionary entry layout. So yeah, as good a stop-gap solution as any. (Not that many entries are affected anyway.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)