User talk:Secondhand Work

Equinox ◑ 20:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Gothic non-lemma forms
Hey, and welcome to Wiktionary. Please note that the rule for Gothic on Wiktionary is to not add entries for forms that aren't actually attested (except for the lemma form of a word that is only attested in an inflected form), so 𐌲𐌰𐌻𐌹𐌲𐍂𐌾𐌴, 𐌲𐌰𐌻𐌹𐌲𐍂𐌾𐌹𐍃, 𐌲𐌰𐌻𐌹𐌲𐍂𐌾𐌰𐌼 and 𐌲𐍂𐌴𐍄𐍉𐍃 do not meet WT:CFI as far as I can tell. (If I'm mistaken in thinking they aren't attested, please add citations that show that these forms are attested, so they do not fail their verification request.)

If you really want to get rid of some redlinks, check Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry. This is a list of (almost) all words (thus, attested forms) found in Wulfila's Bible that don't have a Gothic-script entry yet. I've been working on emptying that category over the last 9 months or so, but it's proving to be quite the Herculean labor. — Kleio (t · c) 18:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't know that unattested forms cannot have pages made for them. I thought that, since we knew with almost certainty the declension of nouns and verbs of Gothic, that these forms would be assumed to be how it was actually spoken despite no direct attestation. Thank you for bringing this up to me. I'll shift my efforts towards the incomplete romanizations for you. Thanks for the notice. Secondhand Work (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks. The only real exception to this rule for dead languages seems to be Latin, where we tend to assume a logically predictable form exists until it is proven that it doesn't, but for Gothic we've always preferred to be on the safe side. — Kleio (t · c) 19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding to this, you can generally see which forms are attested in an inflection table by looking at the romanizations; if they are blue-linked, the word has been imported from the Wulfila Bible (a mass import happened a few years ago that filled up that romanizations-without-a-main-entry category) and is attested. Do note that sometimes a word could potentially be a form of multiple words; e.g. the genitive singulars and nom./acc. plurals of words suffixed with overlap with the nominative singulars of words suffixed with ; that can be tricky sometimes. — Kleio (t · c) 19:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There may be a blue link for a romanisation without there being a Gothic entry on the page, of course. So it's best to check the romanisation entry first to see if it has Gothic. If it does, then it's generally ok to create a Gothic script entry. However, we have an IP user who likes to create entries for unattested terms (Kleio knows the one) so vigilance is still necessary. Check the page history; if the Gothic romanisation entry was added by MewBot, you're fine. —CodeCat 14:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Status of Proto-Norse in English translation boxes?
Hello to anyone who may be reading this.

If you check my contribution history, you would see that I have been adding Proto-Norse to English word-translations. I assumed that it would be allowed - I distinctly remember the word rune having its Proto-Norse counterpart in the translations box, but looking at it now in the middle of my translations which have been done on the assumption that it is still allowed (I haven't edited Wiktionary for two years so I may be very behind), the Proto-Norse translation is gone. I am not sure if Proto-Norse translations are still allowed in the English translation boxes, or if someone removed it for some other reason. If anyone who may be curious/wanting to know why I have been adding Proto-Norse translations to the wikiboxes, this is the reason why, and I just wanted to let you know/also ask for clarification. Thank you! Secondhand Work (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as it's attested, it's fine to add it to a translation table. You can see all pages that have Proto-Norse translations listed here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can add the rest of the translations. Secondhand Work (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Gothic romanizations that were not imported
Re your edit summary at : you are right, and thank you for working on that! The romanizations of the Gotica Bononiensia were indeed not imported. Same goes for the Mangup-Kale inscriptions, the Gothic Calendar and the Naples and Arezzo deeds, as well as the fragments found in some Carolingian manuscripts (such as the Gotica Vindobonensia). The big import of romanizations to Wiktionary by User:Rua (I believe) which happened in 2011 drew, afaik, on an online corpus which only included the main Bible text from the well-known codices and possibly (but I"m not 100% sure) also the Skeireins. This means that 99% of the Gothic forms were imported, but some are still missing. Besides that proper nouns were rarely imported for some reason or another; compare http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/lemmata/?pos=1 to the romanizations here and you will find most are missing.

Do note that a lot of the smaller sources such as the Gothica Bononiensia and the Gothic Calendar for example have quite a lot of uncertain readings, both being palimpsests and very fragmentary. Whenever a reading is uncertain, consider noting that on the page when you create the entry. E.g. as I did at, which is one (quite plausible) solution of a difficult-to-read word. In any case cool that you are working on the Bononiensia, one of the more intriguing recent discoveries in Germanic philology. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically the import was done from https://wikisource.org/wiki/Bible,_Gothic,_Ulfila . So anything that isn't there wasn't imported. —Rua (mew) 10:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)