Talk:wilweorthunga

RFV discussion: December 2019
Looks like total garbage. The th in it gives it away. Not in Bosworth-Toller or any other dictionary I can find. Also RFVN the mechanically generated ƿilƿeorthunga. Benwing2 (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The word occurs in the spelling well-weorthunga here. And Beowulf contains the term ƿīg‐ƿeorðunga (see here, line 176 of Grendel’s visit). --Lambiam 09:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The book in your first link never uses ⟨þ⟩ or ⟨ð⟩ at all, but has made the editorial decision to replace them with ⟨th⟩ and ⟨ṭḥ⟩ instead. That doesn't make it a genuine Old English spelling, and it doesn't correspond to our normalization standards or the manuscript tradition. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is a rendering of a manuscript that does use ⟨ƿ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ (and many (half-)uncial glyphs such as ⟨ꞃ⟩ and ⟨ꞇ⟩ that we here too replace by more modern type faces). --Lambiam 18:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, those are the normalization rules we follow. But we don't follow the normalization rule of replacing ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ with ⟨th⟩ and ⟨ṭḥ⟩ the way Analecta Anglo-Saxonica does. So if the manuscript doesn't say ⟨weorthunga⟩ and most modern editions of Old English texts don't say ⟨weorthunga⟩ and our own rules at WT:AANG don't call for ⟨weorthunga⟩, then I see no reason for us to include it. That's different from the case of ⟨ƿ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩, where our rule is to have the main entry use ⟨w⟩ and ⟨þ⟩ and use soft-redirect "alternative form of" entries for ⟨ƿ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩, and from the case of ⟨ꞃ⟩, ⟨ꞇ⟩, and the other Insular letters, where our rule is to use the user-friendly roman forms only. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The excerpt with well-weorthunga looks to be genuine Old English other than its rendering of þ as th, so I have no problem retracting my RFV and putting the form under wellweorþung (well-weorthunga is an inflected form). But I'd like to know the spelling in the original manuscript. Benwing2 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's genuine Old English rather than its rendering of þ as th? The entire book never uses ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ at all, but only ⟨th⟩ and the obviously non-manuscriptal ⟨ṭḥ⟩. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the passage in the Old English Latin alphabet here, paragraph XVI, and, guess what, the spelling is ƿil-ƿeorðunga. Shouldn’t we also have a lemma ? --Lambiam 12:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we standardize wynn to w, so guess the lemma should be weorþung, but yes. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RFV passed. Spelling corrected to wilweorþung; ƿilƿeorthunga likewise corrected to ƿilƿeorþung. Benwing2 (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)