Talk:wardon

RFV discussion
Seems that the only attestation of the Frankish language is the, and this doesn't appear in it. Not sure if any Frankish words/terms can meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I proposed an exception of CFI for ancient languages sometime ago. It's simply stupid to delete a word in an ancient language because it does not get three citations when only one or two sources of the language exist to begin with. -- Prince Kassad 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) addendum: since Wikipedia shows this word with a leading star, i. e. notes it as a reconstructed form, I vote delete, knowing you can't vote in a RfV discussion.


 * Speedily deleted. Incidentally, I think we should include all four words in the Bergakker inscription if/when Unicode has assigned codepoints to the runes they contain. As the sole surviving attestation of Old Frankish, I think we should treat it as a well-known work. (At least, if there's scientific consensus that it is Old Frankish. The Wikipedia articles leave me unclear on that.) —Ruakh TALK 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows the precise meaning, either. But in theory, I'd support it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to write a definition without knowing the precise meaning, but we can at least try to document the major theories. —Ruakh TALK 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I started with ᚨᚾᚾ. Feel free to do any of the other three words. -- Prince Kassad 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the form ann is a 1st and 3rd person singular form (infinitive is unnan). So the definition should probably reflect that, not an infinitive like it is now. —CodeCat 08:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it's a wiki. It should probably use . -- Prince Kassad 09:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)