Thread:User talk:CodeCat/*źambas, *zǫbъ/reply (11)

For several reconstructed languages we have a standard notation that is based on common practice (but never all; there will always be some that use another notation). That notation is described on the "about" pages, like WT:AGEM or WT:ASLA. There have been a few occasions where our standard notation has changed. The most notable is probably the use of ogoneks for Proto-Germanic. If etymologies use another spelling, I usually change them to reflect our standards. So far, I haven't had any that were sourced, but if they are, we should still use our own notation, and use the source's own notation when quoting it. Our etymology sections never directly quote sources, they are always paraphrasings, so converting the notation can just be part of that. I suppose it's assumed as understood that varying notations don't imply different reconstructions.