Talk:𐌾𐌿𐍄

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
If this term is "not attested", why do we have it? -- Liliana • 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost every grammar of Gothic lists the form, so even if it's not attested in Gothic corpus as such it's still mentioned a lot. And if we don't have it, what should its inflected forms have as their definitions? 'Accusative of...'? —CodeCat 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's unattested, let's deal with it the way we would any unattested form, in an appendix. This one wouldn't be too tough to handle. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @CodeCat: Comment. Personal pronouns are so irregular and oddly-behaved in so many languages that it often doesn't make sense to treat any of them as "inflected forms". With nouns and verbs, we postulate an abstract lexeme and choose a lemma form (e.g., there exists an English noun whose singular is human and whose plural is humans, and we choose human as the lemma form), but with pronouns I'm not sure how useful that is. You are apparently postulating an abstract "second-person dual pronoun" lexeme and choosing its unattested nominative as the lemma; but one could just as well postulate, say, an abstract "second-person pronoun" lexeme and choose its singular nominative as the lemma. I don't know Gothic, but it seems like it makes just as much sense to just treat each pronoun as a separate word;, for example, could be something like ": of you two." (And that's already more or less how it is currently defined.) —Ruakh TALK 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit dangerous to use the possessive forms as examples in this case. Possessives in the Germanic languages (as in Latin) are special and don't behave the way other genitives do. They inflect for gender and number based on the noun they modify, like adjectives do. So, the genitive of a personal pronoun is arguably more an independent lemma than the genitive of any other word. —CodeCat 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh. Kept. Ausnahmsweise (as an exception to our usual policy). If you disagree... well, we'll have the problem CodeCat describes. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Postscript: this arguably passes regularly, because its inflected forms are attested, and inflected forms count (AFAICT) towards attestation of other forms, and we only require one citation for extinct languages. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)