Talk:zmūni

RFV discussion: October 2021–February 2024
Prussian. Nesselmann's Thesaurus linguae prussicae has: "smûni, Person, Ench. 62: niaina endirisna steison smûni, kein Ansehen der Person, wo smûni wohl Drckf. für smûnin, Accusativform hinter dem Gen. des Pronomens steison, ist [...]". --Myrelia (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mažiulis also has smūni, no mention of a form with a Z other than normalized/reconstructed forms. 70.175.192.217 02:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Normalized ≠ reconstructed. You just quoted the word. But the page should continue to be and bear, perhaps soft-redirecting to the manuscript form, so people find something in the dictionary when searching either. Fay Freak (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except there's no unique normalization of Old Prussian. Every author has their own system and orthography (e.g., the related word has various normalized forms: "zmōi", "zmōi̯", "zmūi" .  has variously "abazs", "abazzus" . And so on.
 * The fact remains that there is no form of this word starting with 'z' that ever appeared in a manuscript. Should every normalized form that any linguist has written be considered valid? To be honest, I personally wouldn't mind listing normalized forms somehow, or reconstructions even (in the case where e.g. the nominative is not attested), as long as it was handled in a clear and consistent manner, but the current situation is a real mess. 70.175.192.217 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RfV failed. --2003:DE:3730:F428:A061:1BF8:AC91:9DAB 01:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)