Template talk:etyl:gmq North

Template:etyl:gmq North
Is this a mistake by Conrad.Bot? It displays Germanic which we already have as. It's also unused, and listed as an ISO 639-5 template, which of course it isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it was intended to be, which we already have. It's gone now. -- Prince Kassad 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that really a proper etymology? I would think that for specifically North Germanic etymologies, one would use 'Proto-Norse', i.e. . —CodeCat 19:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno, but it's in ISO 639-5. I guess it's good for words in other Germanic tongues (or perhaps Finnish?) which are loaned from an unknown Nordic language. -- Prince Kassad 09:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no 'unknown Nordic language'. All North Germanic languages were still one single language until at the end of the runic period (around the year 1000), when the dialects of Old Norse began to drift apart. Proto-Norse (aka the northern dialect of Proto-Germanic) is anything before the year 700, after that it's considered Old Norse. Hence, for borrowings before about 1000, the only consideration here is the time of borrowing (which can be easily confirmed through analysis of sound changes), not the language. —CodeCat 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the template is currently used on some pages. I'm not sure if all uses are correct, but there should be some valid uses. -- Prince Kassad 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)