Welcome to Wiktionary ! :) Leasnam (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. ː) Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



Hi Leornendeealdenglisc ! I just saw the entry at roufan...does the Reference (An Old High German Primer) really show this word spelt as such ? I just have only seen it as ruofan/ruofen... Leasnam (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Leasnam, Yeah it is because the tricky thing is that from Wright's second edition primer we have "Roufan" to call but in Gerald Koebler's Althochdeutch's dictionary there is Roufen which means to pull. Here's a link to thatː http://www.koeblergerhard.de/ahd/5A/ahd_r.html I think the many spellings are a result of the many dialects in the language.

Okay...yeah I see the roufen (to pull, tousle)...but do you think that the more usual spelling for "to call" (Modern rufen) might come from ruofan instead ? Leasnam (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but I'm on the fence because even today's dialects of German, one can argue one way or the other. However, I am unsure for the about the conjugation, specifically the 'rief' part. It was based from the Houwen conjugation template where it had "hiew".

Well, I'm specifically referring to the vowel ou. I think the correct form is with uo. Doing a search for roufan + "Old High German" turns up a different verb, if anything at all (4 results) see here [[1]]. I'm pretty confident the OHG form was ruofan or ruofen for "call", see results here [[2]]. uo is the expected outcome of Proto-Germanic ō in Old High German, not ou. ou comes from PGmc au. Leasnam (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Leasnam, I have made a mistake. Even in the Old High German Primer by Joseph Wright, it says "ruofan" for to call. I shall mend this.

No worries man. Thanks :) Leasnam (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are you able to move the page ? I think a move to roufen makes sense Leasnam (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wish I can but I don't know how to.

When you're on the entry page for roufan, up at the top where you see the tabs: Read, Edit, +, History, ...do you see a dropdown which reads "More" ? If so, click on it and select "Move" Leasnam (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you do not see this, let me know and I'll move it for you Leasnam (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, cheers, mate. I moved it. ː)

Whohooo!!! Leasnam (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

nonexistent .wem files


Why are you adding these? DTLHS (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

To help those with pronunciation in Old English. — This unsigned comment was added by Leornendeealdenglisc (talkcontribs).

@DTLHS: It looks like it's from @Yair rand's audio recording tool which is still broken. —suzukaze (tc) 04:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah okay. I did not know that. Leornendeealdenglisc



Hi Cefin ! I see you created a page for bercan. Thank you ! I'm having difficulty finding this variant though...can you steer me in the right direction please ? Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Leasnam, I found "bercan" on this pageː https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Old_English. Do CTRL F and put in "*berkaną > bercan "to bark"".

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia pages really shouldn't be used as a source, IMO. I did manage to find bercan (several mentions, but no uses/attestations) in a few other places, alongside borcian Leasnam (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that bercan would fall under "reconstruction"? Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
If it's normal for Anglian -erc- to correspond to WS -eorc- then I don't see why you couldn't have an entry for it as a reconstruction Leasnam (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



Hello ! I reverted your edit at frōwe regarding the macron. Although it is not shown in some sources (B&T, et al.) it's probable that the o-vowel was long. We can be fairly certain of this due to the Pgmc form (PGmc ō > OE ō). An Old English frŏwe would indicate a PGmc *fruwǭ, which I do not believe is reconstructible solely based on Old English alone. It's more likely that B&T missed off on the macron. Leasnam (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Saterland Frisian pronunciation


There is a guide here which you may find helpful [[3]] :) Leasnam (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː Thank you, Leasnam. I had been using this. All the best to you. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

   However, Leasnam, the page you've given me here doesn't explain when the 'g' makes its sounds. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It does. It can be either /ɡ/, /ɣ/; or /x/. It reads "/ɡ~ɣ/, /x/". I believe that the g alternates between /ɣ/ and /x/ depending on position within the word (Wikipedia says Voiced velar fricative, unvoiced in the syllable coda and before an unvoiced consonant. and that the alternation between /ɡ/ and /ɣ/ is due to German influence, with the younger generations preferring /ɡ/ over /ɣ/. I think that the pronunciation now at njuugen is fine according to this. Leasnam (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Old English Declension Tables


I think, that the declension tables for Old English should have definite and indefinite articles in them, just like the declension tables for German. What do you think? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm mixed about it. Early Old English didn't really use def and indef articles but only until later. HOWEVER, on the positive side, it would help learners with remembering the gender of nouns. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Since that's the case, you could have that statement on Early Old English in the templates. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Or in the policy WT:AANG. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
There, I've added the statement under Nouns in WT:AANG. However, I mean se/sêo/ did become ðe/þēo in later Old English. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Now that I thought about it. I think leaving the articles out may be a good thing because they differ when it comes to dialects. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pages Created in Error


If you create a page and realize you made a mistake in doing so, don't move it to a talk page or anything like that. Just add the {{delete}} template or one of its aliases. As long as no one else has added any important content, it will be deleted. It will help if you can explain why it needs to be deleted in the first parameter: {{d|misspelling}}. This template is only for obvious cases where no discussion is required- if it's not obvious, use another template: If you don't think a term exists, use {{rfv}} and use the "+" to post a request in the appropriate rfv forum. If you think it should be deleted because of other provisions in the Criteria for inclusion, use {{rfd}} and post to an rfd forum. If it's a category, appendix, reconstruction or other page outside the main part of the dictionary, use {{rfdo}}. Finally, if you think it should be moved, merged, or split, use {{rfm}}. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ːː Oh okay. Thank you. ː) Good to knowǃ Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alternative spelling entries


Hey, when creating entries for alternative regional spellings of OE terms, please keep it simple and make it refer (via {{alternative form of}} or {{alternative spelling of}}) to a single main entry at which the proper definition is given and info re:alt forms and etymology etc. is contained. See for example siolufr -> seolfor. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. It's just I've been adding so many. Don't worry I'll get to it. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good to hear, keep up the great work :) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would using (via {{alternative forms}} be okay too? Because doing "alternative form of" would imply that there is a "Main Old English dialect" while there are others to consider. I mean, unfortunately most people today see Old English as a "Monolithic language". Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whatever works to keep info mainly concentrated on one main entry. It probably would be best to take the most commonly encountered dialect for the main entry, so probably the West Saxon form? (but I'm not knowledgable about OE dialects and which would be the most common.) If you still want to emphasize that there isn't a "standard" form despite what having a main entry with alt form entries would suggest, just add the dialect in a {{label}} on the main entry as well. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



Hey there again ! I see you made frēoh, which looks very similar to frēo...why wouldn't frēoh simply be an alternative form of frēo ? Is it really so distinct ? Leasnam (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː The differentiation would be the dialect and period between them. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː I would not want West Saxon to be the main dialect while others should be known too. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

But the Anglian Late West Saxon word means exactly the same thing...there isn't anything distinct about it, except for the headword form with -h. This is a redundancy and wastes space. It should be listed as an "Alternative form/spelling of frēo" and should include a Pronunciation guide, an Inflection/Declension table and that's it. Leasnam (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear, Anglian and Late WS forms when different or unique should have entries. I'm not saying that this entry shouldn't exist, but it should point to the existing one (frēo), regardless of which dialect the existing entry is. Conversely, if an Anglian/LWS form already exists, and I create an entry for the WS alternative form, I would point it to the Anglian/LWS entry. There is no preference here of WS over Anglian, but we do want to limit any redundancy. Leasnam (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
My bad, it's not labelled Anglian but Late West Saxon. Nevertheless, everything should still apply Leasnam (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



The nom/acc plural of ċicen is ċicenu. If the vowel is long, how can it terminate in -u ? Leasnam (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː Joseph Wright's Grammar on Old English has Anglian "Chicken" as "cīcen". Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː All I did was catagorise and add the form "ċīcen" to Anglian. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay...I gotcha ;) Leasnam (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Based on the 2 possible Etymologies, we might be seeing a fusion of two separates words here: *ċīecen (also ċīcen, ċȳcen) from Proto-Germanic *kiukīną; and a second from *kukkiną. How can we resolve this ? We cannot in the Declension show ċȳcenu...that's just not right ! Leasnam (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː Wright says that Ciecen comes from Germanic iu and cīcen from Germanic ī Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes we see the vowel simplifying over time īe > ȳ > ī ; so an OE ī can come from multiple origins: cf. OE ċīġan [a.k.a. ċȳġan, ċīeġan, even ċēġan] all from PGmc *kawjaną Leasnam (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yep. I've changed the entries to be able to handle both (for now), as there seems to be evidence in support of both a long and short vowelled version. It might have even started out as a long vowel, then became short over time, who knows?? I've left a message on Metaknowedge's TalkPage to get his thoughts on it as well. Leasnam (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

cniht, incniht


The pronunciation at cniht still shows /kniçt/...are we certain that -iht was pronounced as /ixt/ vs /içt/ ? Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe that /içt/ is correct, and is the IPA used in other similar words (riht, niht, etc.). I've reverted the edit. Leasnam (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː Joseph Wright's Grammar of Old English argues that the medial 'h' takes the sound of Modern German's 'ch' in Nacht and noch both of which have the IPAː [x] sound. This can be found on page 11. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

In words like eahta, wrōhte, sure; but i is further forward, thus it would be more likely produce the sound as in German nicht. Leasnam (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

ː Alright, which Grammar book author argues specifically that? Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, no one really knows exactly how OE was pronounced. It's possible that it could have been either. It's probably an allophone of /x/ for front vowels (it's really difficult to pronounce /knixt/ without it tending to lead into /kniçt/, imo). I'm just carrying forth what's already been accepted as the pronunciation here, and at Wikipedia. If we need to change it, I'm perfectly fine with it, just so long as we're consistent and change it everywhere. In PGmc the sound was most likely /x/, and in early OE it's quite possible that it may have been so as well. Maybe even later too, who knows. We can always show both. Leasnam (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I find it hard to believe that a language which palatalises all and everything as aggressively and consistently as Old English would stop randomly at a single fricative of all things, especially as the other fricatives and stops of this articulatory places are beyond doubt fully palatalised, even to the point of affricatisation. Unless Wright specifically argues that it's the sound of "Nacht and noch and not of 'nicht'", I'd assume he just trying to explain to an English lay audience that it's a dorsal fricative, not mute or [f] as in modern times. After all, if he really wanted to be specific, he could have just put ⟨[ç]⟩ in his grammar, but he forewent this. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Low German category


Collecting Low German entries by category is a good thought, but 'regional Low German' makes no sense, as all Low German is regional by nature. It should be moved to 'Low German by region'. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Template syntax in mainspace


You should never copy the wikitext from a template directly into an entry, or substitute a template that's not designed specifically to be substituted- it's a nightmare for other editors to work with, and we have abuse filters that look for such things- so it will get removed sooner or later anyway. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about the entry to Wōden? I had to do that so I can put in the correct declension. What should have I done? Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Leornendeealdenglisc, I've edited Wōden to display what you had there originally for Declension, using an existing template to facilitate this. Please have a look. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Leasnam, you're a saint. Thank you. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply



Hi ! I saw you added an alternative form to bearn, but I seem to be unable to locate anything as "bæurn" or "baeurn" or any of their declined forms. Could you please share where you found this ? Leasnam (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Leasnamǃ Sorry for the late reply. I first found the word in Peter S. Baker's Introduction to Old English Third Edition. It's on page 196. Where he talks about the stone at Great Urswick, Cumbria. It has the word "bæurnæ". Baker interprets this word as the singular dative of Bæurn 'child'. As well, here's a link to the textː https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/frag/9772151.0006.004/--runes-and-commemoration-in-anglo-saxon-england?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh okay. Interesting. Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please do not format links like you did in diff. Each term should be in its own template, not combined like you did here. If they are combined, this means that the entire thing is one term, which is obviously not what you meant. —Rua (mew) 16:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply



I undid your edit. It seems unclear how this word was pronounced. It could have been either /jeːol/ or /joːl/. Both seem valid. What makes you certain that it is ġēol ? Leasnam (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because the stress is always on the first part of the diphthong like every other word. I don't see why it would be any different for ġēol and its variants. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

If the Old English word were pronounced /joːl/, how would it be spelt in Old English ? It couldn't be spelt gōl, that would be /goːl/. A clue lies in the Alternative spellings iol (iōl) and iul (iūl).
Compare the Old English for "young", geong. It certainly wasn't pronounced /jeoŋɡ/, as written; it was /juŋɡ/ or possibly /joŋɡ/, because we know it descended from PGmc *jungaz. I know of no sound law that changes PGmc /u/ to /e/ in OE then breaks it to /eo/, then converts it back to /u/ and /ʌ/ in modern English. So based on this we know that the graph ge was also used for rendering /j/ in at least some words.
Based on the PGmc plural form *jeulō, OE could have levelled the form to ġēol /jeːol/, with a long diphthong in all cases. But what strikes me most is that we find no Middle English descendants yele or yeel for ġēol, we invariably (except for one early attestation) find Middle English ȝol(e), ȝoule, yol(e), youle, etc. Now, it's hard to say to what extent Old Norse jól may have played a role in influencing the ME form. It may have or not. In fact, the ON word may have even been borrowed into OE as well...we can only speculate. This is why I leave the possibility that it could have been spelt either ġēol or ġeōl. Leasnam (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I agree. It is possible that both pronunciations were around. Good Yuleǃ ː) Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Happy Yule to you ! :) Leasnam (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Etymology of Gothic aistan


Hey, I was wondering if you saw my tag at Talk:𐌰𐌹𐍃𐍄𐌰𐌽. I'm not sure how the Proto-Germanic form given in the etymology you recently added would yield the attested Gothic form. Also please remember to use the {{der}} template and its daughter templates ({{bor}}, {{inh}} etc.) in etymologies (for categorization). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed it's listed over at *h₂eysd- as a descendant of *aistēną (citing Kroonen), however, afaik we don't have verbs ending in *-ēną (we seem to standardize differently). @Rua - am I correct in thinking it'd be *aistāną according to how we do PGmc.? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
There's a bit of a problem with how we currently handle class 3 weak verbs. Kroonen's *-ēną doesn't seem plausible, because then you'd have the ē > ā shift in North and West Germanic and end up in OHG with *-ān, which is not the attested -ēn. It would also require that > a in Gothic medial syllables, which would be an ad-hoc proposition as there are no other cases of it. At the same time, I don't know if there is any evidence about whether ē > ā applies in Northwest Germanic medial syllables. It didn't happen in Old Norse final syllables, at least, where unstressed *-ē > i, while West Germanic has -a in this position. In any case, Ringe's stance is that the ē in OHG originates from Proto-Germanic *ai, and connects this with the ai~a alternation of Gothic. He posits that the a of Gothic must be ā.
A related problem is that some class 3 weak verbs appear with j Old Norse and/or northern West Germanic, with "to have" as the most important example. Under Ringe's view, these come from PIE statives and should actually be the majority of class 3 weak verbs, but that clearly does not match the relic status that these verbs have (OHG and Gothic have ousted this class entirely). So I'm not really sure what we should make of it all. —Rua (mew) 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua Alright, I'll leave the Proto-Germanic form empty then for now and just note the ultimate derivation from *h₂eysd-, which in any case makes more sense than the currently claimed inheritance from *aizijaną. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply



Hi Leornendeealdenglisc ! I saw you created efnesecgan based on a snippet at gegaderian. When I read the text Gegeadriges efnesæcgas féwero doesn't it translate as "four fellow-warriors agree" ? Leasnam (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would think so because the ł represents 'vel' meaning "or" to show a synonym. 02:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok gotcha. However, I believe the "agree" belongs to gegaderian (please see). efnesæcgas doesn't look like it might be a verb, but a noun. Surface analysis, it looks eerily like the plural of *efensecg (co-hero, fellow-warrior), cf. efencempa Leasnam (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay I made an error. I thought it was a verb because in some Northumbrian words especially of the 2nd person indicative the final -t is sometimes omitted. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep, Northumbrian verbs do do that. Leasnam (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
You wanna know something...the more I think on this, the more I'm beginning to think you may be right. Here's why:
1). There is a similar verb efencuman which has almost the same construction and meaning: "come together, assemble, convene, agree".
2). fēwero (i.e. fēowero) could also be nominative plural. This makes it possible for efnesæcgas (i.e. efenseċġað) to be a Northumbrian plural verb.
So that leaves us with efnesæcgas fēwero (= efenseċġað fēowero "four agree").
I'm going to reinstate your entry. I did find a couple other mentions of efensecgan, but I am relying on the attestation you provided where the Latin clearly says "four agree".
The wrength is mine. Leasnam (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Once reinstated, we may want to move it to a more normalised headword, efensecgan...do you have any objection to this ? Leasnam (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I do not object. I am glad you had a re-think about this. Thank you. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply



Reconstructed entries go in the reconstruction namespace and only in the reconstruction namespace. DTLHS (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thought I did that. I had put the asterisk and put the reconstruction label about the entry. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. The title has to start with "Reconstruction:..." DTLHS (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reconstructions for East Germanic languages


Hi Cefin ! Do any of your reconstructions have descendants in any languages, whether inherited or borrowed ? Leasnam (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. Some are based off of attested names, others are made from comparisons of Gothic, Proto-Germanic and other old Germanic languages. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think that you can use names (personal names) as derivations to support reconstructed forms. However, unless it's recently changed, I believe that a reconstruction must have at least one descendant to be inclusion-worthy... Leasnam (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I have some deleting to do... Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mark all the ones you would like removed/deleted; I can assist with those Leasnam (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anglo-Saxon Kings


Hi there ! We don't have English entries for King Alfred, King Henry, etc. because we're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia... Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

If the name is a common AS name, the entry can be kept. We have entries for John, David, Kevin, etc. :) Leasnam (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand now. I have fixed Sæward. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey


RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey


RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ic neom nan fadiend, ac...


Ic wundrige, hwanon hæfst þu þæt word Woðen? On Westgermanisc awende Frumgermanisc [ð] to [d]. Ealdenglisc [ð] cymþ of oðrum swege, þæt is [θ], þæs allophone he is.

Eac, eart þu sumes cynnes niwhæðen, oþþe leornodest þu Ealdenglisc for sumum oðrum gesceade? Seldan hit biþ þæt man þis gereord cann þe bet þe he cann toweardnesse oþþe þara goda mod. Hundwine (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Þæt word is ān eftsceaft. Hit cwōm of þǣm lǣdeniscum worde "Wothen".
Hit is ġefunden, Ufan Winestran healf. heonan:
Hit mæġ Wōðen oþþe Wōþen bēon swā ilce þæt word "Ǣþm" and "Ǣðm".
Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) :22:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey


RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Some notes on recent Gothic edits


I reverted all your edits to ahma; the formatting was a mess and all the mentioned comparanda lacked any templates (e.g. {{m}}, {{cog}} and {{noncog}}) or native script. Please note my recent edits to the entry. A specific point to note is that aha is not a "root"; you probably misinterpreted Lehmann, who simply notes that ahma is based on the same root (paraphrasing) from which aha is also derived, not that aha is an actual root, which means something else altogether. (For examples of roots, see Category:Proto-Indo-European roots. Unlike aha, roots aren't actual words, they're simply a base on which morphological patterns can be imposed to form actual words.)

Furthermore, regarding 𐌰𐌷𐌰: note the difference between a derived term and a related term. A derived term is a term that is directly derived through morphological changes within a given language (from the word to which it is a derived term). A related term is any etymologically closely related term. For example, even if 𐌰𐌷𐌾𐌰𐌽 (ahjan) could just be interpreted as aha + -jan and may have been formed in Gothic on first sight, it appears it was already formed in Proto-Germanic so it can't be a derived term of the Gothic aha, because derived terms always refer to derivation within a certain language. As the derivation occurred in an ancestor of the language, the result is that they are related, but no process of derivation took place in Gothic.

(Hopefully this all doesn't sound too stern; most of your edits are absolutely fine and Lehmann is a great source to find Gothic etymologies. Just be conscious of some of the finer points of Wiktionary editing!) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because misfortunes never come singly, I am also the messenger of some bad news regarding a Vandalic entry you created which has been nominated for deletion, please address the concerns raised on that page. On which subject I might add that you confused "Descendants" with "Derived terms" various times and placed the header one level too low (link is to my correction) in your Vandalic reconstructions:

Please be more careful in your edits


Nearly all your recent edits were incomplete, incorrect or misused templates. Please do not ignore critiques made by people on your talk page or elsewhere and please be more careful in your editing; try using the preview function before you publish an edit and compare your entry with other, more fleshed out entries. Examples (diffs of my or others' reverts or corrections):

Adding this to the problems mentioned in my posts above this one (which you have so far ignored) and by others on this talk page and elsewhere, I urge you to try to learn more about how Wiktionary entries are formatted before you add a new entry and to respond when people take issue with your edits. I don't want to sound overly grumpy or always be the bearer of bad news here, but currently you are creating a lot of unnecessary work for other editors who clean up your entries after you. If these problems persist (without any effort from your side to even respond) you will eventually get a temporary block, which would be a pity because you clearly know a fair bit about these languages. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I've made a few mistakes in the past. For the 'Incomplete' part, isn't that part of wiktionary? I mean, someone starts some thing and someone elses adds onto it? When I make an entry, I don't know everything about the word's origin and such. Isn't wiktionary a team effort anyway, to divide up the labour?

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, a lot of new entries are not as complete as our fullest entries straight away. But an etymology such as at this entry is worse than an entry with no etymology or a {{rfe}} or {{etystub}}. At least when one of those templates is present, other editors will know the entry is in need of a proper etymology. That is however not the main point of my posts; of course people make minor mistakes sometimes. Most of the problems I have referred to (here, but also here and in the linked discussions and elsewhere), as you well know, are not issues of incompleteness either - they're actual mistakes (that are very easy to avoid).
The main point here is that a very large percentage of your edits contain errors - some minor, some major - that other editors then have to clean up, even after you've been here for quite a while and various editors have raised issues with your edits. At the very least acknowledge the issues people find in your edits and try to improve. If you don't, your edits will just be a source of work for others without any sign of improvement (from others' perspective), which is not a situation that is desirable in the long run. I don't want to be too much of a scold - as I have mentioned, the sources for most of your edits are a-ok - so I won't further belabor the point; it is literally just a matter of responding to others and making the occasional changes to your editing style. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Heads-up and some points of improvement


I wanted to make you aware of a discussion created by another user at Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#Entries by Leornendeealdenglisc regarding your recent place-name entries. Also, I went through part of your recent entries and there were some divergences from Wiktionary practice:



Hi again ! I reverted your edit at *wastmaz because I believe Old Norse ávǫxtr is composed of af- + vǫxtr, and is not a descendant of the PGmc term, but rather derived from a descendant of *wahstuz. Leasnam (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Thank you, Leasnam. Forgive me for the error. I hope you're safe and well.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Anglish Moot


I made an account for The Anglish Moot of all wikis, so if you're interested, you can have a look. --Apisite (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Things to pay attention to when editing


Each of your recent entries contained errors large and small: epistol, gelaeccan, sunna, laeca, witer, and so forth. What went wrong: spurious capitalization ("Derived Terms", etc.); spurious empty parameters (tr=|pos=|id= without any content); missing punctuation here and there; a lack of blue-links in definition lines and in one case having all gloss definitions italicized; lack of four hyphens (----) separating language entries on the same page; occasional lack of templates and even of some headers; incorrect order of language entries on the same page (placing OE before Old Dutch); references not indicated as a list (use asterisks to generate bullet points); wrong amount of = signs with different headers (this messes with entry structure); placing spaces between = signs and the header text (this is annoying for bot makers, I have been told); and an entry (laeca) which was an alternative form of laece, but was not indicated as such.

I realize this kind of call-out is tiresome for everyone involved, but so is having to clean up basic mistakes in your entries after you, so I will keep doing it. Most of these are basic entry layout or even grammar problems and in other places you do them right, indicating you do know how to do this correctly, but for some reason you don't always bother. Having a second look at an entry you create instead of just abandoning it with its initial mistakes would probably resolve most of this, but in any case, leaving an entry looking like this is sloppy and similar mistakes happen too often for them to be dismissed as a small slip-up of the kind everyone tends to make sometimes. Without these problems your entries would be entirely fine and a boon for this site, so please take heed. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you give an indication that you are reading your userpage? You seem to still be making the same mistakes (1, 2). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I have read this. At the same time, isn't the whole beauty of Wiktionary and the like are that entires are a team-work effort? When I see an error on a page. I just fix it myself and thank the person who created the page. Lately, I've been using the Visual Editing feature. Obviously, I've yet to master it. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
The beauty of Wiktionary is that we all do our best, and that's how we produce great entries. We all have different abilities, linguistic specialities, and resources, so teamwork is critical. However, if you're not trying your hardest, you'll make sloppy mistakes like those Mnemosientje pointed out, and you effectively force other people to clean up after you. They have their own interests and specialties, which they'd presumably rather work on, and being part of a team means respecting their time and ensuring that your work is the best you can do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ongoing vote


Hello Leornendeealdenglisc! I just wanted to inform you about the following current vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2020-12/Bringing back wynn entries. Since you deal with Old English, you might be interested in the subject. I hope you would be able to make good judgement there :) . Thanks! inqilābī inqilāb·zinda·bād 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Verbatim copying from Köbler


Hey, thanks for your recent work on OHG. It looks pretty good, but copying everything verbatim from Köbler isn't really desirable for multiple reasons:

  1. see WT:Copyright
  2. many of his English definitions suck and don't map well to our lemmas (e.g. at Special:Permalink/63080320, Special:Permalink/63079750); these definitions sometimes yield very strange translations when seen in their actual context. A good example of this is weraltrehtwiso which clearly doesn't refer to a lawyer (the way we understand that term) in its sole attestation in Muspilli.

So by all means continue, but if you use Köbler as a source don't copy him exactly. Preferably, look where the word is attested and base the definition you give on that, and note any difficulties in ascertaining a definition if applicable. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'll bear this in mind in future entries. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Old English Prefix "ymb/ymbe"


Hello, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me about the prefix "ymb/ymbe" in English, namely the first vowel. How did this prefix go from being "umbi" in ProtoGermanic to "ymbe" in Old English back to "umbe/umb/um" in Middle English? Since it was spelled beginning with a "y" in Old English, wouldn't that mean that it was pronounced as something like a modern short "i" sound? If not, how was this prefix really pronounced then? I couldn't navigate the IPA page well enough to get an answer. DieNeunUndZwölf (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The letter "y" in Old English is basically the same as the German ü, also known as "U-umlaut". It's more like the "i" in "machine" spoken with the lips rounded. How it got that way in Old English is easy to explain: "u" tended to take on the characteristics of an "i" or an IPA "j"/English "y" sound in a following syllable, while still retaining the lip-rounding. In German that process is called umlaut, and is shown by putting dots over the letter. Many of our irregular plurals in English are due to this process happening in pre-Old English, though it's not so obvious due to the changes that came later: foot/feet, goose/geese, mouse/mice, etc. There was also a causative suffix that resulted in pairs of verbs like "fall" and "fell" ("cause to fall"). As for why it changed back to umb/umbe: the situation in Middle Engish was very complicated, so I'm not sure. In some dialects the "um" became "im" or "em" instead of "um", in others the "um" was borrowed from Old Norse. In Old English times there were several regional kingdoms with dominance passing from one to another over time (not to mention the places ruled by the Vikings), and Wessex being dominant when a lot of the best known manuscripts were made (scribes and writing material were expensive, so only the very wealthy could afford more than basic record-keeping). During the Middle English period, London in what was formerly the minor kingdom of Essex became the center of everything, and so the language started to standardize around a different dialect than the ones in most of the Old English manuscripts.
I hope Leornendeealdenglisc doesn't mind my barging in on his talk page. I just spent a very frustrating few hours telecommuting in the midst of intermittent power outages at the office, and this gave me the chance to forget about all that and unwind a bit, Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Declension tables


Hi! Thank you for contributing to Wiktionary. When adding declensions to Old English entries, please add the full word form instead of the ending, as you did here. If you only add the ending, the proper forms will not appear.

Best, Prahlad balaji (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

incomplete etymologies


@Leornendeealdenglisc I like to see that you add a lot of words and that is very useful, but be more careful, I know that you put quotations from texts that use the word mentioned but it would also be good if you put more references and also put the etymology of them, there is a whole list of words that you have added but are without etymology. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply



Sorry if I stepped on any toes...I thought you were done with it Leasnam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Leasnam!
You did not, sir. Thank you for adding on what I did. :) Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply



Hi, do you have any idea what you're doing? You are adding lots of entries but also making lots of mistakes, e.g. you created swuletlic which is total garbage, and in awritan you added only a single macron, and that one is wrong; check the conjugation table. In underfon you are randomly mixing macrons and acute accents to mark long vowels. In gerynu you indicated this as a u-stem when according to Bosworth-Toller it's indeclinable. If you knew anything about Old English you'd know that u-stems with long vowels don't have a final -u in them (you even added |short=1 obviously without understanding its purpose). These are only the first few entries of yours that I've checked and it does not give me confidence in all the others you've created. I am also not sure where you are getting the translations, I hope you are not using Google Translate. I would strongly recommend you stop adding any Old English entries immediately, until you spend more time learning how Old English works. Benwing2 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mnemosientje I see you have called out the mistakes this user has been making for years. Obviously they're not learning. User:Leornendeealdenglisc given this history I may block you unless you stop creating Old English entries. Benwing2 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
In regards to swutelic, I am aware of this so that's why I had put the delete page code on there because I intended to create a page for swutelice. For awrītan, the Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon dictionary has the variant without the macron on the a, and given how it was used used, I thought it was that one. As for underfōn, I am aware of that and other entries are like that too but in due time, they will be corrected. As for gerynu, I admit that is a mistake on my part.
My main intention with these entries is to get the quotations out there to make Old English easier for everyone else to learn. The translations themselves are from Benjamin Thorpe and not Google Translate.
Yes, in the past, I have made mistakes on this website but who hasn't? We all have to learn somewhere but those mistakes are not the same mistakes as today. Further, isn't this website a team effort? I really do not like your disrespectful tone. I have been doing Old English for 9 years. Yes, and I am still learning but a few mistakes here and there should not throw away completely my right to create entries.
Thank you. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
For awrītan you wrote awrīton instead of awriton. You must have added the macron over the i, which is wrong (I see you tried to "fix" it by adding a macron over the ā instead of removing the one over i). As for "team effort" that does not mean you can be sloppy and produce wrong entries and expect someone else to clean up after you. *That* attitude is far more disrespectful than anything I've said. The history of complaints on your page over several years shows that "a few mistakes here and there" is a serious understatement; you appear to be making mistakes in practically every entry you've created. Have you taken a look at the edit history of some pages you've created and seen all the other people fixing your errors? That is a bad sign, because inevitably a lot of mistakes will remain unfixed, and no one likes to clean up other people's shit, which is what they're doing. When it comes to dictionary entries, it is really better to do nothing than create garbage. In general I would strongly recommend you spend time cleaning up your past entries and not create any more entries until you can commit to creating mostly error-free entries. Benwing2 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply



Hi Leornendeealdenglisc ! Is this an inflected form (plural genitive ?) or derived form (from a verb geddian > gydda ?). I'm finding it difficult to locate in source. All I can find is a ġydda/ġidda glossed by proverbiorum "of proverbs". Leasnam (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources for your alternate forms additions


Could you please point me at the source you are using for your various "alternate forms" additions to the pages for Old English words? I have by no means checked all of them, but the few I have looked at give me no confidence in their accuracy. Your assignment of dialectical forms for weorold is just straight up incorrect. Before /r/ is one of the few places that back mutation occurs in West Saxon, weorold is absolutely the expected form, meanwhile Ringe assigns the Mercian form as weoruld, and the Kentish as wiarald. And on your addition to niþer, I cannot find the sequence "nyder" attested anywhere in the corpus. Minerat27 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand you mean well, LEE, and it's good to have more quotations; but the constant formatting mistakes, and lack of or improper use of diacritics, and frequently highly unintuitive translations, and frequent inclusion of unnecessarily difficult to approach quotations is a huge mess to clean up and not nearly as helpful to learners.
Also please, I beg you, stop slapping "Northumbrian" on every other weird spelling you add! As Minerat said, an awful lot of your dialect tags are incorrect or overspecifi.ed
Could you please put in an actual effort to better vet your claims and properly format your future entries and edits? For example, not every alternative form needs a new line, word for word Latin glosses don't make for good quotations, and "peradventure" is not a good translation of anything (even if it wasn't your translation). Ythede Gengo (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply