Talk:ich

RFV
Rfv-sense: English, "(obsolete) I." -- Prince Kassad 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certain this exists, but it must be very old; maybe Widsith can help. It is British and related to the old dialect che: (which we are missing), e.g. "che vor ye" (I warn you) in King Lear. Chambers has related forms like chave (I have) and cham (I am). Equinox ◑ 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * B.g.c. abounds in Middle English cites — see e.g. and  — but Modern English and Early Modern English cites are harder. (I know that Widsith doesn't support our making that distinction, but some editors are rather insistent upon it.) —Ruakh TALK 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as English, made Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

High German dialectal forms - Middle High German descendants
As pointed out in this edit and here, the given forms were wrong.

As for the remark in this edit:

1. The pfälzische Wörterbuch and the lothringische Wörterbuch do not state that χ is velar ch. Pfälzische Wörterbuch states:
 * "χ = stimmloser Vordergaumenreibelaut wie in schd. ich, Recht, reich." and "x = stimmloser Hintergaumenreibelaut (ach-Laut) wie in schd. ach, Joch, Buch."

That is, χ is the, IPA [⁠ç⁠], and not the ach-laut, IPA [x] (or maybe [x] or [χ] as it does not necessarily differ between velar and uvular ch).

2. The ch-sound ([⁠ç⁠] vs. [x] or [x]/[χ]) isn't the only problem, and the remark doesn't address the other problems, namely: --Berliner 586 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources don't give IPA but use other transcription systems, and somebody at Wiktionary tried to transcribe the other transcriptions into the IPA transcription. At least it has to be noted that there was a transcription from one transcription system into another (compare German Wiktionary).
 * In the pfälzische Wörterbuch it's not [ʃ].
 * Instead of, for example, [aix] it's probably rather [aɪ̯ç], as instead of, for example, IPA's [​i], [iː], [ɪ​], [ɪ​ː], the sources might use ī for [iː] and i for [ɪ​], and as ai probably is a.

Deletion debate (Yiddish)
Was deleted out of process, i.e. without WT:RFDN or WT:RFVN (maybe out of prescriptivism, or anti-Judaism or anti-Germanism?);

and whatever WT:About Yiddish might state or not, it is - quote - "not policy".

Yiddish is (or was historically) also written in the Latin script, i.e. it was really written in the Latin script and not just transcribed like in YIVO transcription for learners or for mentionings in non-Yiddish works;

and is attestable, it even is attestable if Yiddish were - subjunctive - treated as a WT:WDL requiring 3 usages.

Some reasons why Yiddish speakers use (or used) Latin letters: -93.221.60.158 01:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Intelligibility, or even internationality: Most people in Germany, Europe and even together in Europe, Australia, America, Africa are familiar with the Latin script but not with Hebrew
 * With the Latin script, the Yiddish language can better be represented, especially for dialectal differences or vowels (example: the Yiddish word for to come contains an /u/ or /i/ depending on the dialect where the cognate English has an ).