Talk:Arθognọw

RFV discussion: November 2016
Is this attested with this spelling? —CodeCat 14:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's in the main namespace as well. Is Proto-Brythonic attested at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because (s)he does not always notice these discussions, I shall ping Uther that (s)he might defend this change in light of this discussion. — JohnC5 14:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Victar quoted the Vulgar Latin (British dialect) Artognou found on the eponymous stone. Artognou would be Brythonic Arθognọw, which was already present before I moved the page. Thanks for the ping. If I'm wrong, I'd be quite interested in our rules for attesting, since it's from a Latin-language stone.

As to being attested, Artognou i, but it's Latin. Arthognow isn't but is the PB form. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* Don't convert unreconstructed entries into reconstructed form. See discussion here on here: Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Brythonic. --Victar (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* Don't add the reconstructed PB form as a header then. Or quote a Latin source for a Latin name that you've filed under PB names. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)