User talk:Hazarasp/Leasnam

bapteme
Hi ! What may be confusing about is that the pronunciations of the Alternative forms are found on this page. I think they might be better served at each individual entry. Also, the form that directly leads to Modern English is, not. So from a Descendants perspective, that is also a bit confusing...would you consider moving the entry to, and list as an Alternative form instead ? Leasnam (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've generally been in the habit of putting all pronunciations on the main page; it's definitely possible that a person could write, but say or vice versa, or move between multiple pronunciations and/or spellings depending on social climate, regional accent, or even just randomly; additionally I see alternate forms as basically glorified redirects.  --Hazarasp (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this really true ? it has always been my understanding that the differences in ME spelling were reflective of variations in pronunciation, with words being spelt almost phonetically Leasnam (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While ME spelling was a lot more phonetic than ModE spelling, it wasn't perfectly so. For example, I don't think anyone actually pronounced the  in, and in Late ME the system was already starting to break down to the state we see in ModE. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can actually see someone pronouncing autumpne or stempne with a slight intrusive p sound,...but point taken ;) Leasnam (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example would be ; I doubt many said . --Hazarasp (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That could be due to the fact that th was not yet solely dedicated for use as /θ/ and /ð/, but could still also represent t + h (especially in foreign words), because þ (and ð) were still in use. Interestingly, we still pronounce thyme, Thames, and Thomas like t :)
 * Yes, though thyme and Thames were actually and  in ME. --Hazarasp (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I put the main page on as that was the most prevalent form in ME; there are plenty of other pages where the form listed as a descendant is actually a development from some other form. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cornered
You've created the Middle English past participle form and assigned it to the noun ? It ends in -ed Leasnam (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake; the correct version of the page will be up in a few minutes. --Hazarasp (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries Thanks :) Leasnam (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

geþeon
Hi ! There is a Conjugation template already in use at which you may want to take a look at Leasnam (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to replace that manual conjugation with a templated one ;) Leasnam (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Hazarasp (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

grounde
Hi Hazarasp ! I see that you've created a Middle English entry at. I would suggest moving the headword term to Middle English, as grounde is usually an inflected form--it's actually dative (coming after propositions like in, to, etc.) Leasnam (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just followed what was already there; it was a move of the probable typo groude (though I made additions to it while I was there). I know about ME inflection (though I usually don't bother much with it since in Later ME the system had broken down). I might as well move it (again) though. --Hazarasp (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see, no worries...I can move it if you'd like...I'll keep it the same as you've done some good work on it Leasnam (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true about the inflections, in later ME we begin to see dative forms (or at least the dative form spellings) being used as nominatives...I see that the MED chooses just for the lemma, prob a good idea if we follow suit :) Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed, I've moved the lemma to ; I think everything should be sorted now. --Hazarasp (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you !! Leasnam (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT I've added a sense to it...it would be a good idea to keep something here at for the case form, but point to the nominative as the main entry. Leasnam (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

stynkynge
Hi Hazarasp ! Hey, gerunds are nouns, not adjectives, so the entry looks like it needs some cleanup. I would suggest placing any participle senses as alternative forms of Leasnam (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can do it...one sec...Leasnam (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had another look at the quotes in my source and it seems to be referring to a nominal use, so I've changed the entry accordingly. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Whenever you see that the MED has "(ger.)" it's a noun. But it's not a noun derived from the participle (i.e. the state of being stinking)...that would be be ;) Leasnam (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know; occasionally though there's mistakes in the MED's categorisation (I think it labeled an verb as an adjective once IIRC} --Hazarasp (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think it's potentially more confusing to users who see the verb as, yet the noun derived from it is ...I think it's better to show consistency between the headwords and their derivatives. Either use & , or  & /. Can you see how this just looks like a big mess Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Same is true for the Etymology (1) of, it says it's from stinken + -ing Leasnam (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll move to, but moving -ing to -yng or -ynge would be quite a large task, as there are around 100 or so pages linking to it (and a decision would have to made between -yng and -ynge; I think the second is more common, but not by a huge margin). --Hazarasp (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks man ! If you decide you want to move -yng(e) let me know, I will be glad to help out :) Leasnam (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just curious though...what made you decide on the one with the y (stynken) ? The number of occurrent cites ? Leasnam (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes; I generally choose the most common form as far as Middle English is concerned. --Hazarasp (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I choose a ME word, I look for the form which is the most apparent direct ancestor of the Modern English word, which in most cases has the closest spelling to the Modern word. I like to stress the continuity of English, from Old => Middle => Modern. So, in the case of English "baptism", I would not show ME bapteme in the etymology (unless as a side-nugget) because that form is a deadend in English--it's a branch that split off and then died--the forms with s are the ones that survived to become English "baptism". We previously discussed this above on this page. I also would not have chosen bapteme as the headword for the ME entry for "baptism" for just the same reason. Just a window into my method. Leasnam (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, here's a few notes about IPA and general entry conventions that I've used for Middle English:
 * As far as I know, the "e" in -inge/-ynge was never pronounced; I usually put both gerunds and participles in the category -ing. Even if it was pronounced, final "e" was probably a schwa that marginally contrasted with  (I use  for the phoneme in kepte, bed/bedde)
 * I think it was pronounced, at least at some point. If the following word began with a vowel, the -e could be elided (The stynkynge is = The stynkyng‿is). But yes, definitely a schwa. thanks for the pronunciation corrections. Leasnam (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Like in Old English, shouldn't be used except for in phonetic transcriptions (in the brackets ) not phonemic transcriptions (in the slashes ). The phonetic transcriptions of course follow the phonetic transcriptions (for an example see ). Until the end of the Middle English period, examples of "ng" should be assumed to represent.
 * I've changed to reflect this.
 * I need to make a page on Middle English phonology at some point, but that's just one of many things that need to be done as far as Middle English is concerned (like make verb conjugation templates able to display strong verb class like Old English ones do; BTW, automatically inserting the stem vowels is probably not worth it given the amount of fragmentation in ME strong verbs) --Hazarasp (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you add it to the page we already have ? About Middle English ? Leasnam (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add some guidelines there when I get around to working on i, but I intend to do a detailed overview in the style of Appendix:English pronunciation. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. I look forward to seeing it. Thanks ! :) Leasnam (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

About Middle English
Hi There. I reverted your edit to About Middle English because you removed the section on the Past Perfect construction. Also, the level of detail regarding weakening of final -e was overkill. Let's keep it simple. As for the plural genitive of nouns, I used what is available in Wikipedia here []. We cannot possibly add ALL possible variations, that would make the page too busy and uninteresting. Just the basics is all we need. If you want to delve further into how Middle English evolved maybe a separate entry dedicated to that topic would do more justice (?) Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with you removing the detail about weakening of final -en (not -e); I'll re-add that when I create a page on verbal conjugation, though the lack of explanation might confuse some people because -en of course survives in the past participles in Modern English.
 * That is due mainly to Scandinavian influence of 🇨🇬. That's explained on the page. Leasnam (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * However IMHO, it's misleading to note the plural genitive ending as -e, as all the sources I know of other than Wikipedia present it as rather marginal: According to the MED, it was only present in earlier ME. Mustanoja's A Middle English Syntax (the relevant section is on page 73) doesn't even bother mentioning the plural genitive in -e, but only mentions the plural genitive in -en and -es; R.D. Fulk's An Introduction to Middle English: Grammar and Texts presents genitive -e as more of an exception than the rule. I would say that if any of the three forms deserve to be omitted, then it would be the -e form.
 * -e is the inherited form, and is therefore the most etymologically correct from a traditional standpoint. Certainly, as time went on speakers began making grammatical errors that accrued in -en(e) from the weak declension being moved over to the strong. That is alluded to in the blurb where it says the system broke down. I'll add a Middle English paradigm that shows what you're talking about, with confounded/mixed endings in one table. I started it earlier, but I was at work, and I just don't have the time to put into it there :) Leasnam (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that the -e ending is also quite rare, and was replaced independently of the system breaking down (just as the conflation of the nominative and accusative plural in Old English didn't indicate the system breaking down) ---Hazarasp (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question about the inflected infinitive (at Wiktionary talk:About Middle English). --Hazarasp (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I did...I'll check in a min Leasnam (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's the question ? I just re-read and I don't know which you're referring to...Leasnam (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, is it fine if I remove the inflected infinitive (i.e. Old English "to steppenne" etc.) from the ME verb table, as it fell into disuse very early into the Middle English period? --Hazarasp (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I answered that question. I would prefer it be left the way it is because the inflected infinitive actually did make it into the ME period. Basically, the two templates are there for comparison purposes, to support the assertion that the verbal inflection didn't see any radical change from Old to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be at least made clear that it was lost very early on (~1150-1200), and therefore isn't really relevant for most of the history of Middle English. Both of the later examples you gave probably represent other things: the final "-e" in Emelye..fairer was to sene Than is the lilie is probably just orthographic [representing long /eː/], and To opene my mouþ y ne dar ne may shows loss of final -n in the basic infinitive [from earlier openen]).


 * It would IMHO be a bit like including the plural -en ending in an overview of modern English verbal inflection, or the distinction between final -æ and -i in an overview of Old English phonology. --Hazarasp (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, the opene is a wrong example (I'll have to look for others when I have more time). Still, even if the to-infinitive is not distinct from the bare infinitive, why would we not want to show it ? Does it have to be morphologically different to qualify for a spot on the conjugation template ? Leasnam (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the "to"-infinitive being shown, but given that it's just an optional element before the infinitive rather than something morphologically different like in Old English, it should be placed in parentheses before the infinitive (like "(to) been" or "(to) maken") rather than having its own spot on the conjugation table. --Hazarasp (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not an optional element, the to-infinitive is a different POS from the bare infinitive. One is a noun (to-infinitive), the other is a verb (bare infinitive). Leasnam (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The to-infinitive didn't exclusively function as a noun; even in Old English times, its ancestor (the inflected infinitive) usually functioned as a verb: "The state of affairs just described is very old. The inflected infinitive exclusively functioned like a noun after to only until Proto-Germanic times, maybe until 300 A.D. or so. By the time Old English was written down, it already behaved like a verb in the overwhelming majority of cases. That means that the whole complex, to plus the infinitive, developed from a prepositional phrase to a non-finite clause. The word to was recategorized from a preposition to a non-finite marker. And the infinitive itself changed from a nominalized gerund to a true verbal form." Even if we assume that it was a noun, it having a different part of speech isn't necessarily grounds for it being marked separately; for example, the English present participle can be used as an adjective, a noun, or even a verb form, but we don't mark it as three separate forms. --Hazarasp (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to grasp why you're so set on having it removed...it's in the Old English template, and it's a construction familiar to Modern English speakers (we use it today). OE tō bringenne => ME to bringen(e) => ModE to bring. It's useful information and it's interesting to highlight. Why should it be removed ? Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just curious, do you also want to remove the Accusative sections of the ME Noun templates since the forms do not differ from those of the Nominative ? Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ġēatan
Hi Hazarasp, OE is attested Leasnam (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I marked it as unattested as the MED said it was unattested; however what the MED editors seem to have meant is that the infinitive is unattested (but of course other forms are; AFAIK there isn't any policy on what to do if only some forms are attested of a word). I'll also change to mark it as attested. --Hazarasp (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen where they sometimes do that. But in this case the infinitive is attested (in an alternative form): he scolde þæt géten mid his writ Leasnam (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

enm-adj
Hi Hazarasp ! I made a slight change to the template to include an 'inflected form' for the adjective. Similar to West Frisian template for adj, this allow us to show the old weak declension for adjectives when they follow a definite article or possessive, etc. Unfortunately, the best place to add it was ahead of the comparative in the argument sequence. I've edited to ensure the existing forms were still displaying there. I've also used it for, to show that the weak adjectival for is leodliche, which is how it appears in the citation. Leasnam (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've meant to get round to doing this at some point, but have never found the time. However, I've changed it so that the inflected form is the third parameter as to not break existing pages. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it not be the third param, as that will force us to add the first 2 to get it to display. Logically, I think it makes most sense to place it first. I can change all the few existing entries that use this template to ensure they're correct Leasnam (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've beaten me to it. 3rd place will work :) Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, it's messing with my mind having the params out of sequence with how they display...would you be up in arms if I made the inflected form firstplace ? Leasnam (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, IMHO there's too many entries with enm-adj (over 1,200). It'll take too long to sort through all of them to find the ones reliant on having the existing parameters (i.e. 1=superlative, 2=comparative). --Hazarasp (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think only and  actually had anything in those slots. I spot checked for  (doesn't exist),, and  and they also do not have comparative/superlatives. I think we'll be ok. I'll not change it for now, but I'll go thru and perform an exhaustive check and let you know what I find. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having created/edited a large number of entries with those parameters filled (e.g., , etc.), if you're looking to change it, you'll have quite a large task to deal with. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Hmm, okay, maybe I can just take a pill :p Leasnam (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've found a way of finding them all (searching insource: /"enm-adj|"/; i.e. checking for pages with and which have a parameter entered for it); I'll go and change them all now. ---Hazarasp (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's my OCD again. I won't be able to sleep at night knowing it's not, well, 'perfect' :{ :) Leasnam (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The problem with putting the pronunciations of alternative forms at the main entry is that the user doesn't know which of the pronunciations relate to the headword. It might not always be simply the first, as a headword can have multiple pronunciations. How will they know where the cutoff lies ? Also, consider a Middle English entry for containing a pronunciation for  and. It doesn't seem logical. Those pronunciations are best served at their respective pages. Leasnam (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While a setup putting pronunciation on the respective entries initially seems logical, there are multiple issues with it:
 * Firstly, many words in Middle have a surfeit of alternative forms. If all alternative forms had their own pronunciation section, then it would be a nightmare to maintain, and if only some had it, then the end user would be confused as to which entries had pronunciation on them.
 * Secondly, some Middle English spellings are ambiguous, represent inverse spellings (especially in later Middle English), or otherwise don't reflect the pronunciation. For example, if a poet rhymed and  (northern form of, then we know that the poet didn't pronounce  as indicated by the spelling. Several cases like this, where the rhyme doesn't match the spelling, crop up in Middle English.
 * Thirdly, (modern) English (and other languages such as German, Chinese, etc.) already de facto uses the same all pronunciations on one entry standard; e.g. the pronunciation of without  is present at the standard spelling, not ; additionally terms with differing British and American spellings tend to have RP and GA pronunciation on both pages, rather than RP on one page and GA on the other.
 * Fourthly, there is no official Wiktionary policy on this (probably since Wiktionary policy is designed around modern languages, which have largely standardised spelling). I would argue that it's better to wait for an official decision to be made rather than changing everything unofficially.
 * Fifthly, I use Category:Middle English terms with IPA pronunciation as a rough estimate of how many unique Middle English terms exist, as Category:Middle English lemmas is clogged with alternative forms (and some terms are non-lemma forms). This change would leave me with no way to see how many ME headwords there was.
 * Finally, the effort required to change all Middle English entries (probably about 1/3 of the almost 3,000 ME headwords) would be immense. --Hazarasp (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern English places them on the same page because the spellings are largely standardised. The entry (sans t) should have its own pronunciation guide, because it is never pronounced /ˈɒftən/; only as /ˈɒfn̩/. However, "often" can be pronounced either way. For Middle English, we may need to distinguish between 'Alternative spellings' and 'Alternative forms'. We used to make this distinction for Modern English in the past but it was redundant. Maybe not so for Middle English. Here's a possible reason why: Certainly, ston and stoon are alternative spellings of the same term, with identical or near-identical pronunciations. However, stain and ston are Alternative forms which have their own unique pronunciations. They actually are separate, though closely related terms. The spelling ston was never pronounced /stein/, nor stain /sto:n/; /stein/ as a pronunciation should not be featured at . This is the reason why we link alternative entries via "Alternative forms". You can find more info on that form there. Likewise,  and  should share the same pronunciations, however,  and  should not, nor should the pronunciation of one be at the other--yiven is the entry, and "yiven" was never pronounced as /je:ven/. I do not suggest that we create entries for every single Middle Enlgish spelling--that would be too exhaustive (I'm not willing to spend that much time and effort...and I like doing things of that nature :] ), but we should group them by pronunciation, and if so,  and  belong on different pages and should feature their own individual Pronunciation. I believe lumping them together at one is a mistake. Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are still several issues that this doesn't address; e.g. spelling/pronunciation mismatches; ambiguous/unclear spellings, my usage of Category:Middle English terms with IPA pronunciation, losing the ability to get a quick overview of pronunciation variations, etc. I would suggest making an official policy proposal if you wish to see this changed, as there presently doesn't seem to be any policy on this and existing practice is inconsistent (see Help:Creating a vote). --Hazarasp (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not attempting to create policy, nor trying to establish any rules for Middle English. You shouldn't see it as that. I am merely stating that /ˈje:ven/ doesn't belong at, but it does belong at . That is my point. I'm not taking it any further than that. :) Leasnam (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I see things differently (all pronunciations belong at the headword IMHO), and as far as I know, neither of us are likely to change our mind; so I believe changing policy would be the only way to enforce your will. --Hazarasp (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

sceada vs scead
Hello ! I undid your edit. I see that the MED seems to merge and,  into one entry in ME, , but in OE I think these words were distinct, albeit related. The meaning of sċēada indicates that it has a slightly re-routed etymology, through 🇨🇬. Leasnam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to merge the two OE entries - I just thought that was more probable than . Any connection to  is irrelevant in my eyes, since I don't believe that there is one (see RFD; I'd appreciate your thoughts). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Connection to *skaidilu comes from Koebler. See [] (click the word to see more info - disregard the PIE reconstruction [it's old]). Etymologiebank also groups with 🇨🇬,, and further groups these two with descendants of *skaidilu []. It's possible there was a 🇨🇬, , however the Middle Dutch word seems to mean "vagina" rather than "part of the hair/crown of the head", so we're still left with *skaidilu as being the one that makes the most sense. Leasnam (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can also take a third option; isn't connected to anything, but is instead a de novo formation from . I feel this explains the facts best; the disappearance of -l or the change in declension/gender, but to accept both is a leap too far. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Grimm's Law
I think it might be from *skeyt-/*skoyt-, an extension of *skey-. Grimm's Law implies no stress on the suffix (i.e. Verner's Law), which I don't believe there was (?) Leasnam (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake (IE d > Gmc. d is precisely what you'd expect in the absence of Grimm's Law); I changed it to link to, which should do until somebody decides to create a page for (which also seems to have a slightly different meaning; "to seperate, to protect") Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, Verner's Law wouldn't operate on *skeyd-; it only operates on the Germanic voiceless fricatives/IE voiceless stops. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I was referring to the resultant Germanic d from PIE t (t > þ > d) being a result of Verner's rather than the d in PIE *skeyd- :) Leasnam (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

ordeal
Hello. Just because most attestations in ME were in Latin doesn't mean that the word was borrowed into (Anglo)-Latin, then borrowed back. The Etymology in the MED doesn't mention the Latin at all. Compare MED soke (n1). Etymology online is the only source which hints at the possibility. That's not enough to make an assertion. The vowel in Modern English (ea) supports inheritance. Leasnam (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the Oxford Guide To Etymology states that Late Middle English and early Modern English forms such as ordal and ordale suggest the word was partly borrowed back from post-classical Latin. At best, a mention that the Late Middle English/Early Modern English word was reinforced by Latin ordalium is right, but to state outright that it was wholly re-borrowed is utterly fringey. Leasnam (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is understandable that you are limited by the evidence at your disposal. However, it turns out that a source that you haven't examined mentions the possibility of borrowing, and makes what I see as a compelling case for it:
 * Note the claim that the word "may entirely represent a reborrowing from post-classical Latin". Even if the OED didn't make this claim, we at Wiktionary shouldn't be in the business of blindly following sources; we aren't like Wikipedia in that we cannot partake in original research. Furthermore, you claim that the Modern English vowel is evidence for direct inheritance is odd; Medieval Latin has besides, and even if it didn't, the vowel in fact cannot derive directly from either of the attested OE forms; it must be otherwise explained (analogy with  is probable). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the claim maid by the OED that the term was borrowed from Old English, I find that somewhat dubious. Any Old English legal texts that mentioned the term the pre-Conquest era would have been long since converted into Latin by the time the word first appears in ME, meaning that those borrowing it would've got it from a Latin source. Additionally, while there's plenty of evidence for some knowledge of OE in the early ME period (e.g. the Tremulous Hand of Worcester), I believe knowledge of OE was very thin on the ground during the Late ME period. If hardly anyone knew OE, how could OE words be borrowed back into ME? Therefore the hypothesis of a borrowing from OE isn't even worth mentioning besides the possibilities of direct inheritance and mediation through Medieval Latin. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it, and was adjusting the etymology at at the same time that you were, to a similar effect. Yes, I was already aware of ordelum and ordela. this is how I see it: the word is English, which slipped into the (pseudo-post-classical-liturgical-artificial) Latin spoken by the English in England. So the Latinised version has a stabilising effect on the form of the English word. Those who speak English natively in England and who also are learned in Latin, come to think of the word's most accurate form being the Latin form. But the word is still English. It was never used by native Latin speakers in Rome. Mediaeval Latin is highly influenced by the native languages of its speakers. So when Chaucer pens the 1385 poem, he's torn between ordel and ordal. He chooses ordal because it "feels right" (?). I disagree about knowledge of OE in ME as being thin. I think it was comparable to our knowledge of EME and ME today. But it's a guess either way. Leasnam (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe some mss. of Troilus and Criseyde actually have here, and ML. has  besides, so Chaucer could've got either form from Latin. Furthermore, I can't agree with you about Latin altering the phonological shape of words; plenty of good English words were borrowed into ML or have ML relatives, but haven't been affected at all.  But whatever, it's not like I'm going to remove the OE etymology; it's the obvious, traditional path, and you have to ensure you're standing on a unassailable foundation when you try to uproot stuff like that; your objections and the OED editors' hesitation in fully endorsing their alternate etymology demonstrate why. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, after the 10c attestation of ordalium in Latin, when is the next occurrence of this term in Latin ? Does the OED mention anything ? Leasnam (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * <<Note the claim that the word "may entirely represent a reborrowing from post-classical Latin". Even if the OED didn't make this claim, we at Wiktionary shouldn't be in the business of blindly following sources; we aren't like Wikipedia in that we cannot partake in original research. Furthermore, you claim that the Modern English vowel is evidence for direct inheritance is odd; Medieval Latin has besides, and even if it didn't, the vowel in fact cannot derive directly from either of the attested OE forms; it must be otherwise explained (analogy with  is probable).>>
 * - on this, of course we don't blindly follow any source. But what I find odd about what you infer is that the OED is in fact itself a source, and in this case, somewhat of a lone wolf. It's not original research when a multitude of credible dictionaries tie the etymology directly to OE, and mention nothing about the Latin, despite what the OED states, which in fact may be original research (i.e. inference) on their part. But what they state makes some sense, but I do not find it to be that noteworthy. We don't belabour the fact that Old Norse words may have come into English via Old Norman French vs. direct borrowing from Norse. But nonetheless we show them as Norse borrowings. It's the same thing. Why single out this one word (ordeal - I'm talking about the OED) ? The Middle English environment was convoluted. As to the vowel, I doubt any EME speaker associated ordal with deal. By then, the meaning of deal had changed, and even today an association seems obscure. It suggests to me someone who knew the word in Old English, and adjusted the spelling to match the etymology. But I have no issue with the overall decision here as to the etymology. What we have now is more precise. Thank you ! :) Leasnam (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat helpful that the OED lays out a case that I can use, so I took the opportunity to use it. However, they don't have a time machine; they're fundamentally working with the same set of facts as you and me. Even if 900 dictionaries supported a derivation as inherited OE vocabulary and none didn't, we reserve a right to question that derivation; 900 dictionaries can be wrong.
 * Obviously a word's exact chain of transmission is irrecoverable, but I can't agree with you claim that it "doesn't matter" whether a word was mediated though OF versus being directly borrowed through ON; we have a duty to our users to provide accurate data, especially as I've seen non-inconsiderable number of people relying on us for their etymological information; we're free, unlike the OED, and we're more accessible than the MED or Bosworth-Toller. Additionally, the ability to trace a word right back from PDE to PIE is awesome (in both the current and archaic senses of that word), making many people gravitate here.
 * Finally, could still mean "fate" in ME, which isn't too far off from the meaning of "ordeal". Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The OED only mentions the first attestation of each ML form, to wit: "ordela, ordelum (from 12th cent. in British sources), ordolaium (1419 in a British source); also Old French (Flanders) ordeil (1198)" I'm not skilled with Medieval Latin, so I can't dig up anything more. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * -This is very interesting. The first attestation in Latin is ordālium, 2 hundred years later it's ordela, ordelum, and then 200 years later it's ordolaium. The shape of ordolaium in particular is of interest, because I know of no vowel development where Latin 'ā' become 'o'. This vowel alteration does occur in Southern Middle English, which points to this term being constantly re-borrowed into Latin over time, and each time being a snapshot of what the Middle English term was, despite us having no record of the Middle English term's existence. If what you've added above is in fact correct, this strongly suggests that the word continued in Middle English under the radar and that the Latin words are actually attestations of the word in Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put too much stock in that; there's (with the same mysterious o), but no ME form with o is actually attested. It could also be taken to suggest that the word was so foreign from everyday speech that the vocalism wasn't consistently rememebered. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think it's of as equal importance as the comparison of ordal and ordel. Can you please point me to where ordōl is found ? I have seen this mentioned in several places, but I cannot locate it in B&T or my usual OE references. Leasnam (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't place too much stock in that comparison either; what I said there was mainly to respond to your points. The OED mentions ordōl, but gives no cites. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm unable to turn up any cites either. I shall add a copious amount of pepper with my salt... Leasnam (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm unable to turn up any cites either. I shall add a copious amount of pepper with my salt... Leasnam (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

NOT in ModE
There was a time here on Wiktionary where the concensus was that Middle English was not a separate language from Modern English, so you will find a lot of Middle English citations in Modern English entries, etc. If you see things like this, it's not a claim or assertion that the entry is Modern English. Just change it to a Middle English entry if you're sure. Otherwise, you'll be creating a long process of verification that no one is going to gainsay. Leasnam (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried doing that with one entry but got told off. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

tosheden
I just woke up, so please forgive me if I've got this wrong: you count separately from, due to the spelling of /ʃ/ ? Leasnam (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the space is significant. I've created as an alternative form of ; the only difference there is the spacing. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why ? This is just an alternative spelling. I noticed that you list some alternative forms, such as 'to shædenn' where it is actually attested written as one word: c1175 Orm.(Jun 1)19862 : Sannt Johan Bapptisste..wollde hire & te king Todælenn & toshædenn. Leasnam (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't usually distinguish between alternative spellings and forms for ME, because it's not always easy to establish whether certain spellings are phonetically significant (for instance, does represent  as opposed to, or is the extra w a graphical flourish?). By the way, the original manuscript of the Ormulum pretty clearly reads , not  (technically it reads ꞇo ſhæꝺenⁿ, but that's a overly precise transcription for a entry title) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis)
 * Are you going to do this for all words with prefixes ? Some, such as those beginning with be-/bi- are written as a separate be/bi like be gan for began. Are you going to create entries for as well ? Leasnam (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I ever get time for it, yes, though I think the overwhelming majority of attestations of are written as one word, unlike with . Hazarasp (parlement · werkis)
 * Still, what's the cut-off point ? 40 % of attestations ? 50 % ? Anyway, knock yourself out ! :) Leasnam (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO the headword should never have a separable prefix, unless that's literally the only form attested. Some sort of consistency needs to be maintained after all. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

gripul vs *gripulaz
What you state was actually my initial thought as well, but the form of the word indicates the opposite. There is no verb gripan or gripian in Old English, there's only, which would give grippul. It's unlikely that it derives from a substantive (i.e. ). So the creation must have occurred further back in the West Germanic or Proto-Germanic era. Leasnam (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlikely and impossible aren't the same thing, but a nominal derivation isn't even necessary. Many forms of lack the geminate (specifically, the 2/3p singular present indicative, the singular imperative, and the whole past paradigm), so it could've been made off of those. Alternatively, the plural past, past subjunctive, and past participle of  are all (expectedly) grip-. This is the more likely possibility, as formations from strong past participial stems were apparently common in early Germanic; compare, . Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

becws
Are you sure (re: ) ? The Middle English vowel spelt "a" can also represent /æ/ (> Welsh 'e'). My other option was to posit borrowing from Old English directly, but I couldn't find any sources confirming it. Indeed, neither could I for Middle English, but it just seems to me that a modern borrowing would be more close to how English pronounces it (?) Leasnam (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the "Middle English vowel spelt "a" can also represent /æ/ (> Welsh 'e')"; spellings like and  for "January" and "sack" represent alternative form of those words with  rather than a raising of  (note that many writers of the 16th and even 17th centuries still have  for their reflex of ME ). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So Middle English 'was' ("was") was not pronounced as /wæs/ ? Leasnam (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes; it might be simpler to assume that the vowel in was went directly from to, but Occam's Razor is not inviolable. Only a more complicated development (OE  → ME  → EModE  → ModE ) properly accounts for the facts. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm delirious and a bit grumpy. I'll get back with the discussion once I feel better. Sorry for the jab, but my mood is not the best at the moment. Leasnam (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand; I'm currently not doing the best either, as can be seen in my excessively vituperative response to you. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bahche
Hi Hazarasp ! The MED gives Bahche as one of the forms for bach "batch, baking". I'm curious about why there is a h in Bahche. Do you have any insight into why it would be there and if it has any effect on the pronunciation or length of any surrounding sounds ? Leasnam (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would assume the would be from a abbreviated form of, as in e.g. ; it wouldn't have any effect other than to (redundantly) show that the preceding vowel is short. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

wyrt/wyrte
I think I have it all sorted out now. I treat as one term,  as another, and  as a third, with the middle one (Etymology 2) as a conflation of the twain. Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There's no need to reconstruct a, as can regularly yield attested  (compare  < ). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we were showing a positive wyrte (nominative) in the Descendants, which would be incorrect. The jo-stem form is only attested in the compound, so a reconstruction is necessary, imho. The parallel to hyr from *huriju is what we show at etymology_2. *wurtiju descends into 2 forms. 13:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's simply not true that descendants of which retain its (j)ō-stem inflection are "only attested in the compound ", as  and Etymology 2 of  can both reflect ō-stem etymons. Sure, you labelled them as i-stems, but the attested forms can reflect either i-stems or ō-stems (the only difference is that the i-stem accusative singular can be either  or, while the ō-stem one can only be the latter, but the lack of attestation of the accusative singular makes this irrelevant). Given this, it would be more parsimonious to assume that Etymology 2 of  and  are ō-stems because of the forms in other Germanic languages. By the way,  cannot be a ō-stem, as OE ō-stems don't end in -e; it would have to be a feminine n-stem, but I feel that's a moot point, as it seems like your  comes from a misinterpretation of 's inflected forms. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * <> but the usex I've provided at is an attestation of the accusative singular - this can't be anything but an i-stem (?). I see your point regarding  (and hence ) - I've changed those to n-stems. I was thinking of masc & neut ja. Apparently the inflection changed due to the residual -e to conform to other n-stem feminines Leasnam (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That usex should belong to etymology 1; you can hardly "dig out" beerwort (it looks like this) from the ground, so my point stands. In case it wasn't clear, I don't believe either and  should exist as entries. The form maxwyrte is attested four times in the DOE Web Corpus (which apparently contains "at least one copy of every surviving Old English text"); all four of these attestations can be interpreted as accusatives, datives or genitives of, meaning there's no need to posit  as a separate word. That then gets rid of any justification for reconstructing . Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * beerwort - I know that's what it means today, but in Old English doesn't the word mean both the liquid and the spice/root it's made from ? Bosworth lists māscwyrt as a derivative of wyrt2 glossed with "in brewing" and Latin (?). I think they have it right, no (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Same Bosworth entry for wyrt2: bewylle on hwǣtene wyrte "reduce in/to a wheaten wort" - this is accusative and can be either -o or -i stem. This is clearly referring to the liquid. Leasnam (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oooooh - Do know what I just realised - when it glosses as "amber fulne", the gloss is in Old English. amber fulne = fulne amber "full amber" in the masculine ACCUSATIVE case. So wyrte is never nominative. that means that it can only be o- or i-stemmed, but the evidence seems to lean a bit towards the latter. However, the etymology makes it clear it's a very possibly a conflation of *wurti and *wurtiju. Your thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you pointed out the cases further above, but they didn't register with me at the time I first read it. Okay I think I have it right now. Please check. Leasnam (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the belated reply; I haven't been feeling all that well lately. More pertinently, I have no issue with the vast majority of the entry, but one issue remains. I still don't think there's any need to mention i-stem inflections for Etymology 2 of (and its derivative ); its cognates are ō-stems in other Gmc. languages, and there's no reason to think the situation was any different in OE other than the fact that it coincidentally coincides in form with Etymology 1. Sure, one can conjecture that the coincidence in form led it to become a i-stem under the influence of Etymology 1, but that is too suppositional to make it worth including i-stem forms at Etymology 2. It is also incredibly unlikely: for most of the prehistory of OE, the two nouns would've been formally distinct (e.g. pre-OE *wyrti "herb" and *wyrtu beerwort), leaving precious little time for one to influence the other. Furthermore, i-stems are a recessive class in OE; if anything, we'd expect Etymology 1 to become a ō-stem due to the influence of Etymology 2, as ō-stems are far more common. Given the reasoning I've just laid out, i'd like to remove the i-stem inflection templates from the relevant forms if you don't mind. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * i-stems removed. Hope you feel better real soon ! :) Leasnam (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

-er
Hi Hazarasp ! I saw you reverted the etymology breakout for back to what we had originally, which follows the standard seen in nearly (if not all) other dictionaries, where the etymologies of OE  and  are merged. I also saw your comment regarding ME surname Mylnere as evidence of the merger in Middle English on the whole. Yet OE *mylenware (not to be confused with ) could only mean "a citizen or inhabitant of Mylen (placename)", never "miller (one who operates a mill)". I'm struggling to see your reasoning, other than to follow suit with the other sources. Leasnam (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that and  would be semantically identical; instead, my point is that it cannot be discerned whether new onomastic formations with  continue OE  or ; for instance,  could represent either  or . This is relevant because reflexes of  don't seem to survive outside surnames; the type represented by modern  etc. is a re-innovation, not a continuation of e.g. . Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "inhabitant of a mill", hrrrrm. People don't live in mills. *mylenware can only mean "inhabitant of Mill (a place or location)". The distinction between the two suffixes is stark and clear in Old and Middle English, and today. We easily and correctly categorise them Category:English words suffixed with -er (inhabitant). I cannot think of a single term that uses both the agent noun and demonymic suffix at the same time. Looking at the MED, I happen to notice their sense 2b is incorrect: (b) forming surnames from place names: e.g. Dǒuner, from dǒun hill; Haccher, from hacch hatch, gate; Briǧǧer, Breǧǧer, Bruǧǧer, from briǧǧe bridge; Bẹ̄cher, from bẹ̄che beech. - these surnames are not derived from placenames but from agent nouns. I see no basis (other than lemmingism) to merge them. They are distinct suffixes. Leasnam (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "'inhabitant of a mill', hrrrrm. People don't live in mills."
 * Yes they could; even if they didn't, that doesn't obviate my point. A miller could be referred to as a by virtue of the fact that they spend a large portion of their working day inside the millhouse. Alternatively, the  could refer to the whole complex of outbuildings surrounding the mill, not just the mill itself.
 * "I cannot think of a single term that uses both the agent noun and demonymic suffix at the same time."
 * What's relevant here is the semantics of, not Modern ; if no nouns maintained that particular semantic multivalency into ModE, it doesn't mean that they didn't have it in ME. Given that they're occupational terms that have either underwent great semantic change or been fossilised as surnames or historiographical terms given the vast transformation in socioeconomic conditions that has occurred, we wouldn't really expect the original semantic situation to persist. Anyway, all this is besides the point; is a apparent example of a term meeting your requirments.
 * "these surnames are not derived from placenames but from agent nouns"
 * That is a assertion; I prefer to think that the MED editors know what they are talking about unless proven otherwise. A quick glance at the evidence doesn't convince me; what exactly is a  or a  supposed to do? Though the last of the MED's examples is more semantically tractable, it just ends up proving my point;  it means "keeper of a bridge", which can be interpreted either as a agentive  (as the bridge-keeper continually "bridges" the crossing by keeping the bridge from becoming inoperative) or a locative  (as the exigencies of bridge maintenance will compel the bridge-keeper to live in the bridge's vicinity). Neither interpretation is obviously superior; if two seperate OE or early ME formations merged, it may well be a term that "uses both the agent noun and demonymic suffix at the same time". Even if it isn't, it still shows the indistinguishability of  and  in ME. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "even if they didn't, that doesn't obviate my point."
 * Yes, in fact it would. The whole basis for your coalescing the etymologies backward is based on the theory that they merged to one in Middle English. *mylenware sounds very much like a term that was attested.
 * "What's relevant here is the semantics of Middle English -ere, not Modern English -er"
 * You haven't demonstrated any change or difference in the meaning of -ere to -er.
 * "forester is a apparent example of a term meeting your requirments"
 * The requirement is not met. Forester was borrowed from Old French, , so no English suffixes went into creating this term. The senses alluded to were already present in the word when it was taken from French, "officer in charge" and "dweller".
 * "what exactly is a *dounere or a *bechere supposed to do?"
 * Simple. A *dounere climbs or ascends hills (cf. ), a *bechere is a worker in beech-wood. These are not complicated questions to be asked. A 'bridger' is not a "keeper of a bridge" but a "bridge-builder" (see ).
 * "if two seperate OE or early ME formations merged, it may well be a term that 'uses both the agent noun and demonymic suffix at the same time'"
 * Doubtful. Can you please provide a real example ?
 * "Even if it isn't, it still shows the indistinguishability of -ere and -ware in ME."
 * No it doesn't. That's why there's a section 2. (a) in the MED for -ē̆r(e suf.(1).
 * I'm overwhelmingly not convinced. I am however more convinced that they are independent suffixes up to the present day.
 * "I prefer to think that the MED editors know what they are talking about unless proven otherwise."
 * ✅. On this minute point about the surnames they dropped the ball. Otherwise, they have done a great job. We're all human, and we all make mistakes.
 * "That is a ipse dixit assertion"
 * Nope. Spot on. Leasnam (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When I say that and  "merged to one", I mean that for some instances of, it cannot be discerned which OE suffix it descends from. This is true for  whether or not medieval English millers lived in mills or not (for the reasons I mentioned in my above comment), so it in no way obviates my point. As for the differing semantics of  and modern ; a obvious example would be the formation of locative surnames with , which is no longer possible in Modern English (you claim that all such formations are agentive, but my point still holds). Your point about  is irrelevant, as  didn't mean "forest-dweller" in Middle English; that sense therefore cannot be a direct inheritance from the corresponding OF sense; additionally, by the time this sense is attested, native  and borrowed  had fell together, so it doesn't make for a good example.
 * Now let me discuss your response to my last paragraph. The meanings you hypothesise for and  are implausible; I doubt a medieval Briton would climb mountains or cut beech to the exclusion of other trees enough to be given those surnames. Furthermore, the MED's interpretation of these surnames is backed up by the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland; it lacks / (is that even a live surname in modern English?), but it has, , and , all of which are interpreted as locatives. Similarly,  is etymologised as a locative referring to one who lives near beech trees, while  apparently refers to "either someone who lived near a bridge or the keeper of a bridge", so it's a "real example" after all (the "bridge-builder" sense of  is a ModE innovation). TO respond to your next point, section 2. (a) of the MED entry for  hardly proves your case; I just provided evidence that the surnames referred to there have both agentive and locative senses; i.e. they continue both  and . If the MED editors were trying to section the senses deriving from OE  off, they did a awfully poor job of it; they'd be better off splitting it off into its own entry, as the MED generally does when a word is felt to be distinct. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, sir, your dissertations are nothing but smoke and mirrors. You really almost had me. From now on, I know that when you say something is "irrelevant", that it is really relevant. And when you say I've not proven anything, then I know I have. Btw, your English is terrible. I'm reverting your edit. Leasnam (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I could try and launch a riposte against your comment, but I have little interest in continuing this fruitless dustup, as I'm in a horrendous state at the moment, both physically and mentally. No wonder my posts are barely-coherent, stream-of-consciousness rambling (to be fair, yours aren't a whole lot better; I presume this is because this issue is a sore point for you). The last thing I need is you making senseless jabs at me. Let me note that despite our disagreements, I had a significant amount of respect for you; most of that's disappeared now. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your choice. I still have respect for you. I hope that you're felling better soon. I actually know exactly what it feels like to be feeling unwell, and trying to Wiktionise. Wiktionary is tremendously exacting ! Get rest. When you're well again, you can decide again if you'd like to discuss. I'll wait. This is not personal. Leasnam (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Scots descendants
Hello Hazarasp ! I changed Scots luely to luvely thinking perhaps the v was missed out, then I saw your descendants at which are also missing the v. I could not find these Scots terms in the Scots dictionary I use, except where the word is prefixed by un-. I'm using DSL (Dictionary of the Scots Leid) online. You're using a different source ? Leasnam (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * and don't have independent DSL entries; you'll need to see the entry for luve. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)