Talk:𐍃𐍄𐌿𐌱𐌾𐌿𐍃

Is there really a plural, and really with jj spelled like tht? Also, is there not a Proto Germanic root reconstructed?
 * I don't think Proto-Germanic had roots anymore, they were more of an Indo-European thing. And yes, that jj does look a bit weird, but what's really weird is the combination -ju- in the stem of a noun. Proto-Germanic probably didn't have such words, or at least not very many of them. But if it had existed, the plural would have been something like, which would have simplified to because the combination -ji- was disallowed by Proto-Germanic phonology. Based on that, I think that the Gothic plural would have been the same as the singular. In this particular case, though, I'm not sure there ever would have been a plural, because it's an uncountable noun.  do you have anything to add? —Rua (mew) 18:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same problem as with (see this discussion as well): there aren't any attested Gothic nouns in -jus attested in the nominative plural, but the template just adds the -j- anyway to mark the u-stem nominative plural as if it would've behaved like other u-stems, which yields the weird -jj- combination which is likely wrong. As to what it would have been: I have thought about this before and I think your analysis is probably correct and that the plural would look like the singular (possibly giving rise to a similarly unattested dissimilated form?), but I have no certainty. There should in any case be a special inflection table template for these -jus nouns noting the problem with the nominative plural form (and excluding it from the table?), but I haven't gotten around to that yet. Until such time I think it's better to have a table with one probably wrong form than to have no table at all, which is why I left it at the -waddjus pages as well. Anyway, I've changed this entry to be singular only, which seems to make sense given the meaning of the word and how it's used in the corpus. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)