Wiktionary talk:About Old High German

Mentionings
WT:CFI: "For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements [...] the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" (bolding adding)

So how about adding (OHG) glosses to that list which can be found at WT:About Old High German (the page doesn't have such a list yet)?

If (OHG) glosses isn't specific enough, here is a start: [Well, sometimes works entitled with (Old High German) do also contain some Old Saxon texts, and similiary this work might also include some Old Saxon glosses. If there are Old Saxon glosses in it, then of course they are excluded for attesting OHG terms.] Some random examples which these glosses could attest (from vol. 3, section entitled "DCCCCXXXI Vocabularius Libellus Sgalli."): "Rex cuninc [...] Uir uuer [...] Sapiens uuizzo [...] Os mund [...] Lingua zunga [...] Cor herza [...] Ros tau". Some normalisations could look like this: *kunink, *wer, *wizzo. -84.161.34.196 02:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OHG glosses in: Die althochdeutschen Glossen gesammelt und bearbeitet von Elias Steinmeyer und Eduard Sievers (multiple volumes, e.g. vol. III from 1895)

From 500 to 1050?
Are there any actual attestations before the 8th century? Runic inscriptions from the 6th and 7th century in southern Germany and so forth don't show any effects of the HG consonant shift afaik. (I think part of this book is about that, I've borrowed it from the library but not read it yet.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what's the language of the quote in ? --Bolaguun (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess I should have read that book I linked before posting. Thank you! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it should be noteed that the Bülach fibula is dated to the latter half of the 6th century at the earliest (Findell 2012:382), so 500 still seems a bit early. (Also it may be considered West-Germanic instead for our purposes?) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Normalisation of second-syllable vowel sequences
Early forms of OHG had sequences like -ea, -eo, -io in the second syllable, reflecting a Proto-Germanic -j- before the ending. This was later lost. Should lemmas reflect the earlier or the later form? Given that we already standardise on the later form th > d and hC- > C, I propose lemmatising at the later form in this instance too. —Rua (mew) 20:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think using Tatian as the basis for normalised vowels would be fine, this seems to be common practice. I believe this is what Köbler does as well. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Where on the spectrum does Tatian fall in this regard? —Rua (mew) 15:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

io and iu
Noticed that the contents of tiuf and tiof were recently swapped so that the primary spelling is. Noticed that some primary spellings use iu and some io, maybe based on etymology. I'm not familiar with OHG. Could someone write up the rules for this here for future reference? — Eru·tuon 19:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)