Talk:gad

gad
For the sake of cleanup, bear with me: The normal form of this word is /ɣɔd/, [ɣɔt] whose standard spelling is ⟨got⟩. The inflected forms have the stem [ɣɔːð-]. This /ɔ/, [ɔː] merges with /ɑː/, [ɒː] around 1400, giving a new phoneme /ɒː/, [ɒː~ɔː], spelled ⟨a⟩. The new stem-alternation of ⟨got⟩ vs. ⟨gad-⟩ sometimes lead to a wrong regularisation in spelling, but it was never spoken anywhere. There is only one region which exhibits a regularisation by stem-lengthening /ɣɔd/ > /ɣɔːd/ and that region's reflex would be [ɣʊɔt], which would not be spelled ⟨gad⟩. So even if this form was attestable, it doesn't belong in a dictionary as it's basically a scrivener's error, as far as that term is applicable in the middle ages' spelling. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Technical note, please don't use or  in headers as the hash anchors won't work. I've inserted  which should fix it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I will give you a modern analogy to show my point: We would most probably not fail an RFD for an entry listing 'striit' as an alternative spelling of 'street' just because very rarely non-natives use that spelling in an internet-comment section or chatrooms now and then. And spare me the 'we would if it was in common use'. We all know that already. That is exactly the type of situation we have here. This is for all intents and purposes a typo of a speaker of A trying to write language B. Middle Low German was a pretty strictly standardised written language, and contemporary writers had a clear idea of right and wrong. While it has some variety in glyphs (i vs. y, u vs. v, the usual for medieval Europe), it is strictly phonetic. The spelling at hand would come to be because a writer erroneously guesses the pronunciation /ɣɒːd/ exists on the western Baltic coast, but it doesn't. We cannot go for a descriptivist argument, since this word does not actually exist in spoken language anywhere. It is an error in the clearly defined proscriptive system of internationally standardised written Eastalbian, usually called 'Middle Low German'. And had some scribe used it, it would have been struck and corrected by his colleagues, if checked. I don't think we should start accepting low- to no-frequency typos/scannos (RFV yet to be done) just because they're 500 years old. If this passes, we basically have to accept any spelling of any word ever. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For dead languages, shouldn't spelling be more important than pronunciation? (I don't know about Middle Low German, but most Middle X languages had spelling rules varying from "very irregular" to "totally ad hoc") No-one is ever going to come across /ɣɔd/ (barring phenomenal advances in archaeoacoustics), but they may well encounter on a manuscript somewhere. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's similar to my question: will a reader encounter the spelling gad in a manuscript, an edition with normalized spellings, or a MLG grammar book/dictionary? If so, we should include it at the very least as an alternative spelling of. If not, we can get rid of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking insufficient evidence to delete. I mean, how can we delete something on the basis its spelling doesn't match its pronunciation. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we did that, that would be half of Category:English lemmas gone right there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But we do, and should, have different standards of inclusion for English and for MLG. I repeat my question: is a student of MLG ever going to encounter this spelling, whether in a manuscript, a normalized text, or a grammar book/dictionary? If so, we should include it—even if just to label it got. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pretty hypothetical at this point; no evidence has been provided for or against it being used. I'd be interested as to how you'd evidence a claim like 'since this word does not actually exist in spoken language anywhere'. Per Angr if it's used in a textbook somewhere even if we conclude it's an error it might be worth keeping as (or something) and deal with it in usage notes. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to put out a reminder what the general rule on burden of proof is, with the whole bit about how to evidence the nonexistence of flying spaghetti monsters. I somewhat expect to kill this form via RFV if this RFD fails. But I thought I'd go for the systematic argument first. For indulgence: There've been about 200 years of Low German research and the only area that has a recorded lengthening of stems is the extreme fringe of southern South-Westphalia, which has never known the change [ɔ] > [ɒː], which is what this is about. To repeat myself: This form should be somewhere between low-frequency and only-theoretical, and any usage of it you'd find would be a handwritten piece from a medieval author not speaking the language which the written MLG represents. As for Angr's point, I already reacted to that before you made it: Yes, we could keep it as a misspelling, but to me that seems like the creation of a precedent where we have to accept an entry any misspelling ever made anywhere. That is one option, I'm not very fond of it. Also, don't forget to drop the usual 'keep' for overview. (Or preferably 'delete', but I gotta be realistic.) Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'd just like to put out a reminder what the general rule on burden of proof is" there isn't a formal rule on this. However I think the balance of probability is a good one. So far you've produced no evidence backing you up. I'm not saying there isn't any evidence, just that you haven't produced any. So ergo with no evidence presented, it's not 'more likely that not' that this isn't includable. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think accepting "any misspelling ever made anywhere" is a much better idea for an extinct language with a relatively small corpus, like MLG, than it is for a modern language with an enormous corpus, like English or German. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. If I understand it correctly, the RFD-relevant reason for nomination of this Middle Low German form is that this is a rare misspelling (WT:CFI). However, no frequency data was provided. I cannot empirically verify the reason given. If the form is not attested at all, it can be deleted via WT:RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we're being asked to delete this on blind faith, and my request for evidence has so far met with no response at all from Korn. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I did inform you that there is no record of any geographical coincidence between the two necessary sound changes {V > Vː} and {ɔː > ɒː}. Do you want me to link you every single piece of Low German ever recorded so you can see that for yourself? What exactly is, en detail, the revolutionary process by which you want me to evidence the nonexistence of something, since apparently Hitchen's razor just doesn't cut it here? Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I said evidence, not logic. Something that's logically true may not actually be true. If you want to move to RFV and go down that route, be my guest. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where you say "logic", you probably mean "speculation". The statement "Something that's logically true may not actually be true" is untrue. You probably mean "logical" in the sense "appealing on the speaker's intuition, and rather often wrong". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Something that's 'true' according to logic, since logic cat lead to false as well as truthful conclusions. If you add inverted commas to my sentence it's ok. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV per majority decision. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. CFI allows all terms in extinct languages with even one attestation, and Angr also makes a convincing argument for keeping. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, lack of evidence to delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

gad (Middle Low German)
Previously survived this RFD. Please note that the inflected forms 'gade', 'gades' etc. do not verify the form in question. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And why's that? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the nominative of an inflected stem ⟨gad-⟩ would be one of about a dozen possible forms, and eleven of them are not ⟨gad⟩. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The inflected forms gade, gades, etc., could also come from a lemma form spelled got, for example, or several other forms. What he's looking for is verification of the spelling gad as the nominative singular. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Closed and archived 31st of January 2016.Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2021
rfv-sense: A spike on a gauntlet; a gadling. And thus concludes the verification process of all those English entries in Category:Requests for quotation by source Notusbutthem (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cited. I also combined two senses which both referred to a rod used for driving cattle et al. Some dictionaries say the rod sometimes terminated in a whip (whereas goads, and some gads, are sharp-pointed instead); whether it is possible to attest those two kinds of goading-road as separate senses of gad I am unsure. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)