Talk:𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃

RFV discussion: February–April 2017
Fairly sure both are unattested. — Kleio (t · c) 04:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 should just be deleted outright; I'll move 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 to since it's mentioned as a reconstruction in 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌴𐌹𐌲𐍃. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The proper noun 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 is mentioned in Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrōþirīks, so shoudn't it be moved for the same reason why the common noun 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 got moved? If there are doubts about the etymology of the Romance Rodrigo, then shouldn't 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 also be removed from Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrōþirīks, and shouldn't the removal require a proper WT:RFD discussion? -84.161.57.67 09:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't have been mentioned on that reconstruction page, because it's a very unlikely reconstruction; since the first element of the compound is an i-stem, one would expect instead. If such an entry is to be created (an ancestor of Rodrigo - if the Spanish name is indeed of Visigothic origin - did apparently exist in some form in Gothic) it should be in the Reconstruction namespace. There's not much precedent for reconstructed Gothic names so far (I see now that recently someone did create ) but I don't see a problem with them in theory, as long as they're attested somehow in Latin/Greek transliterations and their reconstruction is unambiguous. — Kleio (t · c) 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Köbler has *hroþ[s] (and its PGmc. etymon) as an a-stem noun, which would make correct here. However, that does not make sense to me, since the derived adjective  has  (which is usually from i-stem nouns) and not the equivalent a-stem suffix, plus we have the PGmc. term as an i-stem noun. Am I missing something here? What do y'all think? — Kleio (t · c) 18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Koebler is grasping at straws just as much as we are here, having to go off the attestations in other languages. I wouldn't put too much importance to it. —CodeCat 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I suppose. The -eigs suffix seems like a pretty clear indication of an i-stem, though. Made me wonder how Köbler (and his sources, presumably -- I haven't checked Holthausen yet, not sure if my library even has it) missed that. (And hroþareiks is all over Google too - but then, the internet is generally embarrassingly bad at Gothic, so I'm not taking that as an indication of anything) — Kleio (t · c) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Both RFV failed. Angr has moved the second one to . —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)