Talk:wealhstod

"wealstadel"
I can't find any attestations at all of this apparent Middle English term on the Quiet Quentin function, nor on Google Books nor regular Google. Where is this from? you added this, please help.--Sigehelmus (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

pls respond ;~; - - Sigehelmus (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I curently don't remember but I'll see if I can find the Middle English term. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * found it, it seems to be from a 12th century manuscript, Early English Homilies: From the Twelfth Century Ms. Vesp. D. XIV. In manuscript, however, weallstaðel is attested. Judging from the text, it looks more like Old English instead of Middle English. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a really lovely surprise to rediscover, I appreciate the rekindling very much, and your research too. :) Wouldn't 1100s be Early Middle English though? I don't know - and that literary attestation implies it must have survived a bit in colloquial speech or at least understanding into the main Middle English period, at least from its individual particles? Anyway, thank you, love to see this.--Sigehelmus (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :). It could be Early Middle English; sead is attested as seað, and sead is Early Middle English and from just a longe glance at page 41, although many words are Anglo-Saxon, they don't seem inflected at all, altough I´m not sure. Here's the page where the word is attested, bottom right. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's how I read the text: "He (St. Jerome) is the foremost wealstadel/translator betwixt Hebrew, and Greek, and Ledenwaren(?)." That's a fascinating cool book anyway, but now that you found this attestation, should the mainpage text just be replaced with weallstaðel, or another form? I'm not familiar with how this site handles variable attestations, especially a fringe case(?) like this. I honestly find it hard to believe the word totally died out anyway, with translator first being attested in the mid-1300s borrowed via Old French or Latin. For such an inherent term to community life, you'd think some dialect especially Northern/Scottish would preserve a descendant.--Sigehelmus (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably should since it is attested in such a way. Although my guess for weallstaðel, is that it is a standardization by the dictionary since the geminated "l" is unlikely to be the natural outcome of wealhstod. For dead languages normally a single attestation is sufficient to warrant an entry; despite the attested form not being the regular outcome. In the case of weallstaðel, the etymology should specify that the second element of the compound isn't stod but staþol. I'll create the entry to give an idea of what I reffering. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up and the entry! and the reference point to go off of too. Do you have any recommendations for books to read on this subject, or even the particular period? Also funny, if the word survived today it seems it would be like *wal(l)staddle ~ *wal(e)sta(d)dle (from my very amateur knowledge at comparative reconstruction). Again, I'm surprised a technical term like translator/interpreter trickled down so quickly, especially in borderlands like England/Wales where a *walstaddle would seem inherent and customary in many villages.--Sigehelmus (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately; I have only for Old English. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)