Old Norse varða edit

Hello ! Wouldn't an Old Norse *vǫrð point back to an PGmc *warduz (fem) ? and perhaps varða should actually point to a weak noun, PGmc *wardǭ (?) derived from a verb. The Icelandic entry at varða says it's from Proto-Germanic *warþō. Leasnam (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

vǫrð would point back to either *warduz or *wardō, yes, but varða can never be directly from wardō; this *-ō always becomes a -u in Proto-Norse, and then causes u-umlaut and is dropped in Old Norse. Compare the conjugation of Old Norse jǫrð (from Proto-Germanic *erþō); this is identical to what we'd expect for the regular descendant of *wardō. If varða is descended from *wardǭ, then that should be ancestor, and the page on which the descendant varða be listed; not on *wardō. Mårtensås (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Module Errors edit

Whenever you make a change to a module that's in use, please check CAT:E for a day or two and deal with any errors resulting from your change. Of the 61 entries there, it looks like 40 are due to your edits to Module:sv-verbs today. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for alerting me, I had no idea. I actually tested the updated module quite extensively in a user sandbox, including the feature that broke; I made a small change immediately prior to publishing though that I did not think even needed testing. I just fixed it thanks to you writing, but it would probably have taken me days or weeks to notice otherwise. I'll do as you said in the future. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌWiktionary's most active Proto-Norse editorAsk me anything 20:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

kumbl edit

Hi - yeah it looks fine now. Earlier it was saying that there was a LUA error due to no Descendants section at kumbl, which I checked several times only to find there actually was. The header was not misspelt either. Weird. Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

About the gender in Swedish edit

Hello, I saw you added feminine as the second gender of gran in the declension tree of grǫn. While I personally think that is a very good thing, considering the many dialects who use feminine, I was wondering if it's common practice to talk about feminine in Standard Swedish. And also what kind of Swedish is described here on Wiktionary. Is it strictly Standard Swedish, or Swedish as a whole? --Eiliv (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

gjǫldum edit

Just a heads up, I noticed gjald does not have an Old Norse entry so I was thinking it'd be nice if you could add one too. :) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Haha yes, I'm working on it. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 11:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

changes to Template:desc edit

Hi. Just FYI, {{desc}} has changed a bit; please use |t= in place of |4= (the gloss/definition), and |alt= in place of |3= (the display/alternative form). This is because the template will soon support multiple terms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Haha, thanks. I noticed on my watchlist; your bot edited almost every page I've on it! ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 12:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

ƿ (wynn) in Old High German edit


I see that you're putting entries for OHG with ƿ (wynn) as a manuscript spelling. In which manuscripts is this attested in?

Thanks Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hildebrandslied. I'm working from the page User:Mårtensås/Hildebrandslied/man since I figure people might want to look up words from the linguistically archaic poem here. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 20:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ancestor of Old Swedish edit

Hi, regarding this change https://en.m.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=morghongava&oldid=67960492

What language is the ancestor of Old Swedish? I thought it was Old Norse -> Old Swedish -> Swedish --Christoffre (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The ancestor of Old Swedish is really Old East Scandinavian, and before that Proto-Norse. Old Norse as it is commonly known is really Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian, which is not the predecessor of Swedish. However, many people also use Old Norse to refer to all the North Germanic dialects spoken between roughly 700 and 1200, which is what leads to the confusion we see on Wiktionary and in many other places. A better division for the old languages would be having:
  • Proto-Norse = North Germanic runic inscriptions before 750
    • Old East Scandinavian = Danish/Swedish runic inscriptions before 1150
      • Old Swedish = Swedish texts (not including Scania) between 1150 and 1450
      • Old Danish = Danish texts (including Scania) between 1150 and 1450
    • Old Norse = Icelandic and Norwegian texts (runes and manuscripts) between 700 and 1450 for Iceland and 700 and 1350 for Norway. The reason for the broader span in Iceland is that Icelandic manuscripts often feature poetry that dates back long before the manuscripts themselves, some are dated as early as the 800s.
      • Middle Norwegian = Norwegian between 1350 and 1550
    • Old Gutnish = Gutnish texts (runes and manuscripts)
ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 20:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Came here to check after the post over at the Beer Parlour. Is there agreement on this terminology or are there different views on this among published linguists? I'm thinking about the West/East split, not the more recent Insular/Continental split. What sources are relevant here?
Peter Isotalo 16:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I haven't ignored your comment, I just haven't been sure how to respond to it. I don't care much think the concensus of published linguists matters much when people can research these things themselves. But in any case there is complete consensus that the only modern North Germanic dialect that descends from Old Icelandic (which is what the vast majority of Old Norse on Wiktionary is) is modern Icelandic. So the current tree on Wikt is without doubt incorrect. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 19:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well, let's get straight to the point, then. Here's the classification I get if I consult a somewhat general source on Swedish in Sveriges Nationalatlas: Språken i Sverige (editors Östen Dahl & Lars-Erik Edlund, pp. 9, 24):
  • Proto-Germanic
    • North-West Germanic (not Gothic and such)
      • North Germanic (with "early runic writing" as specification)
        • West Scandinavian
          • Faroese
          • Icelandic
          • Norwegian
        • East Scandinavian
          • Danish
          • Swedish
And with all languages with their "Old" variants before that. Gutnish is not treated separately here but is rather classified with the six standard dialect groups (South Swedish, Götaland, Svealand, Norrland, East Swedish, Gotland). This isn't the only source I can rely on, btw. I'm just using this right now as an example and since it's written by established scholars.
Granted that this is a quite general overview, it's still indicative of most sources I've seen on this over the years. Why should Wiktionary present your classification scheme over that of established scholars?
Peter Isotalo 20:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The modern Gotland dialect is heavily Swedish-influenced. Old Gutnish however is decidedly not East Norse, and that is not just my classification, it's objectively true and also something that very few people with experience with the languages would disagree with. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you want a published source: Old Gutnish Historical Phonology and the Old Norse Context by Sean Vrieland. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a good start. But "Old Norse" and "West Scandinavian" are not interchangeable (even if Gutnish specifically could warrant separate classification). If you want to be constructive regarding things like classification and terminology, you have to respect academic sources even if you don't agree with them. And make sure you can back up your own claims with sources. It'll be much more constructive (and helpful to readers) if we try to establish classification schemes that actually reflect existing research.
Peter Isotalo 22:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is a consequence of most Old Norse academic literature not being nuanced about the fact that it is often solely focused on Old West Norse and its more numerous sources. Since the dialect is often implied, Old Norse entries often are normalized to Old West Norse. The OWN/OEN/OG distinction is well-established in the field of North Germanic linguistics. 15:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Template:desctree at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/þat edit

Desctree isn't designed to take alternative forms as parameters. It used to just throw a module error if it found no Descendants section at the alternative form's entry. I got that changed because it doesn't make sense to throw an error in a different entry from the one being edited in the case of descendants being removed from a descendant entry. Now the error message is only visible when the edit window is open, and desctree adds it to a maintenance category for the language of the entry that the descendants were removed from.

The problem here is that desctree, which automatically extracts alternative forms from the entry, doesn't know what to do with alternative forms within an etymology section when a senseid is used. I added an Alternative forms header for that etymology, but desctree doesn't see it. I fixed it just now by moving the senseid to an etymid for the whole etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

RC:Proto-Germanic/wajamērijaz edit

Mårtensås, what's your reasoning for moving RC:Proto-Germanic/wajamērijaz to RC:Proto-Germanic/wajaimērijaz? -- Sokkjō 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Norse -ē comes from Proto-Germanic *-ai. This also corresponds with Gothic -a. There's no unstressed a > e in Proto-Norse so this is the only explanation I see. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
By what mechanism would *-ai be suffixed to the interjection *wai (woe!)? -- Sokkjō 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No idea other than that it's root-related somehow. *wajai- is just the form that agrees with the descendant forms. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 19:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think a more reasonable explanation is a progressive i-umlaut. -- Sokkjō 19:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
i-umlaut is never written out in Proto-Norse (or even runic Old Norse), and certainly not of this period, which is arguably even Proto-Northwest Germanic (there are no particularly Northern or Western innovations in the inscription). ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 19:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's much safer than fabricating a suffix in Proto-Germanic, as if no irregularities are ever seen in Norse runic inscriptions. -- Sokkjō 19:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is literally no Elder Futhark inscription that writes i-umlauted a with an e-rune. It just doesn't happen. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps, but Proto-Germanic wouldn't have suffixed *-ai- to *wai (woe!), not to mention **-ajai- being an invalid vowel cluster. @Eiliv, Mahagaja -- Sokkjō 21:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's clearly a vowel there in both languages though. Maybe it was -ē? wajēmērijaz and then raised to -a in Gothic? Is this valid? ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Schulte:2005 reconstructs the pronunciation of Proto-Norse ᚹᚨᛃᛖᛗᚨᚱᛁᛉ (wajemariʀ) as [ˈwæjeˌmæːriz], and from */waj(a)maːriz/,[1] and Düwel:1981 cites the "problematic" -e- as reason to date the text to much later[2]. -- Sokkjō 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What about the archeological dating, or the shapes of the runes? The Π-shaped e-rune is only present in very old inscriptions; I think a dating of C3rd is reasonable and this is before any umlaut is attested. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Antonsen 2002 (Runes and Germanic Linguistics):
The sequence niwajemariz has usually been interpreted to be ni waje māriz with a strange connecting vowel e instead of expected *a, which Krause (1966, no. 20) tries to explain as "ein behelfsmäßiger Ausdruck für die nach dem vorangehenden j leicht palatalisierte und geschwächte Aussprache des Vokals [i.e., -a-]" [an improvised representation for the slightly palatalized and weakened pronunciation of the vowel (i.e., -a-) after the preceding j] . There is no evidence anywhere in the older inscriptions that would substantiate Krause's explanation of the "connecting -e-", and the form wajaradas on the Saude stone (Ch. 4.3.1, Fig. 13) effectively refutes it. Marstrander's attempt (1953: 10-17) to explain waje as *wa(g)je must be rejected because it unnecessarily inserts something that is not in the inscription. On the Thorsberg chape we must divide the sequence niwajemariz into the phrase nī wajē māriz, literally 'not through woe famous', i.e., the one of immaculate repute' (cf. Go. wajamerei 'dishonor'). The form wajē is the dative singular of a neuter ja-stem, PG */waja-i/, cf. Ved. uvē, Av. vayōi.
This etymology fits with the sound changes of both Gothic and Proto-Norse; the dative singular in the latter is well attested and of North-West Germanic origin, so it should be expected at this time.
ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Proto-Germanic **wajai would be naturally restructured as *wāi, see {{R:ang:DOE|111}}, again, making PG **wajaimērijaz an invalid reconstruction. There is also no reason nor precedence for PG using a dative form in the first element of a compound word. Unless you can offer viable reconstruction, the only other solution is that the -e- is a North Germanic development. Perhaps the Norse is indeed two words separate words and ᚹᚨᛃᛖ (waje) is a rebuild dative, or whatever, but also the result of *wai +‎ *-ją would have been *waiją, or perhaps better yet, *wajją, not **wają. -- Sokkjō 03:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Antonsen's solution as I posted above is of course that it is not a compound word. If the reconstruction should be *waijai, then it is so. Also a Proto-Norse carver can probably not be expected to make a consistent difference between aij and aj, but he can be expected to make a difference between e and a. But to put it plainly, the Proto-Norse pre-form just cannot be *waja-. I think we have to mark this as uncertain in some way. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 12:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Proto-Germanic *waijai would've yielded Proto-Norse *wējē though... I've qualified the PN term on the PG page as so. Do what you like with the Proto-Norse etymology. -- Sokkjō 14:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
How would it? I've never heard of this rule. ai becomes ā in certain environments (before -r- and -h-), but this happens after the earliest inscriptions (cf. sairawīdaz, Old Norse sárr; faihidō, later fāhidō, Old Norse fáða) ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 14:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
My mistake, but I do indeed believe *waiją would have been rebracketed to *wajją, as there are no examples of *-aij- in Proto-Germanic. -- Sokkjō 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then there is no runological issue in Proto-Norse, since geminate consonants are never written with two runes. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 21:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but Proto-Germanic *-jj- has specific outcomes, see *ajją. -- Sokkjō 22:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

RC:Proto-Germanic/sagō edit

Can you sort out which are borrowed from LG from those that are inherited from ON on RC:Proto-Germanic/sagō? -- Sokkjō 07:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Eiliv went and deleted them all from the PWG entry, but if they are indeed all inherited, many are missing from ON sǫg and should have been moved. -- Sokkjō 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
All forms with long or rounded vowels are borrowed. Thus Swedish såg would be *sag if from sǫg since ǫ becomes a in Swedish, while å comes from earlier á. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 16:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cool, cool. If you get a chance, please fix those entries. Thanks! -- Sokkjō 16:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Status av urvästgermanska edit

Hej! För inte så länge sedan har du gjort artickel om ᚲᚨᛒᚨ på urvästgermaniska, och, sedan detta språket räcknas som rekonstruerad, förde det till en kod-fel. Därföre har man skapad en samtal på Ölstugan om urvästgermanska sin status. Jag kan pinga dig där om du int hittar fram om du vill. Oavsädd, har du några flera runinskrifter från Tyskland? Om man skal rekna urvästgermanska som ett vanligt språk här på Wiktionary, vill din kamb-artickell vara den enaste som är int rekonstruerad, vet du, medan alla dom andra vil ha stjärnor, och det vill se konstigt ut.

Jag har egentligen mera kunnskap om runor från 1300-1900-åren, så jag fick vansklighetar när jag skull hitta urvästgermanska runinskrifter på egen hand, men jag kommer ihåg att det var några kula run-grejor från norra Tyskland, men det va en kille som publicerade några foto av runorna, han sa att dom kan vara Urnorröna och oavsädd så var dom inte lätt att fatta (men han pratade väl int om alla runinskrifter från norra Tyskland då).

P.S. om du har en runinskrift, mon det vara viktigt att kommentera i fall en runa är konstig. Till exempel din artickell om kammen har inte en vanlig k-runa, men en som är spegelvändt. Så jag har skrevet om det där i citeringslinja. Sådan jag minnas om dom gamla runinskrefterna, hade några runor stor skilnad sig imellan från inskrift till inskrift, så det mon vara klokt att nämna det i fall Unicoden inte vill stödja formatet på en eller annan runa. MVH, Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hej! You have recently made an entry on ᚲᚨᛒᚨ in Proto-West Germanic and, since this language here is reckoned as reconstructed, it resulted in an error in the code. Be cause of it, there was created a discussion on Beer Parlour about status of PWG. I can ping you on it if you don't find it if you want. Anyway, do you have more such runic inscriptions from Germany? You know, if PWG is gonna be reckoned as a usual language on Wiktionary, the entry about comb is gonna be the only one not reconstructed, and the other entries are gonna have a star on them (asterix), so it's gonna be weird.

I have more clue about runes from 1300-1900-ish, so i've got problems when i tried to find the runic PWG inscriptions by myself, but I remember there was some cool runic stuff from northern Germany, but also the guy who published some of the photos said that it may be Proto Norse, and anyway it's not possible to translate the inscriptions.

P.S. also, if you have a runic inscription, it may be important to comment if some rune is weird. Like for exempel your entry on comb ain't get no regular k-rune, but a mirrored one, so i have added it in the quote section. I remember that old runic inscriptions have very big variety on some runes, so it may be a good idea to write more on it if the Unicode ain't supporting the format. Mä vänle hälsnenga, Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ett annat säkert ord med bevarat -a är ᚲᛊᚨᛗᛖᛚᛚᚨ, vilket återspeglar Proto-Germanic *skamilaz, Proto-West Germanic *skamil.
Som det är just nu innefattas nästan alla äldre runinskrifter, även de från norra Tyskland och Jylland, under "Proto-Norse". Ett fåtal inkluderas under västgermanska dotterspråk såsom fornhögtyska ("Old High German") och fornnederländska ("Old Dutch"). Under det senare faller till dömes Bergakker-inskriften. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply