Modern Greek sources edit

About some standard ModGr sources we use, if you would be interested to take a look. {{R:DSMG}} goes as far as Anc. If stated λόγ. < αρχ. or λόγ<ελνστ.. or λόγ.<μσν it is an internal learned borr. If stated [αρχ.] without the λόγιος (lógios, learned), then it is inherited. {{R:Babiniotis 2002}} [1] has older etymologies and much of it is totally updated at {{R:Babiniotis 2010}} [2], which does not make the distinction of inh v. internal.lbor (but he discusses it at his intro). But doesn't have any proper nouns (the 2002 has some). And for pre-1940 greek (all phases) there is wikt:el:Template:Π:Δημητράκος 1964 @arch.org with no etymol, no propers and a complex way of definitions by sense & period. But it is interesting, i think. The abbr[[[κ.]] = και implygin: ancient and... μτγν. = Later μεταγενέστερος (metagenésteros, μεταγενεστέρα) with an unspecified time span (depending on author). And for med, [3] where I check the true spellings with Ctrl+F because all older lexicographers change the accents according to their 'rules'. ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 02:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"first singular indicative" edit

You reverted this. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is there a way to determine if a given verb uses the third singular? This is definitely possible for Latin and most other langs I've worked on, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

On ἔφαγον (éphagon) the issue is that it's an aorist, not a present, not that the form is third person. But do any other headword lines for any other languages include a little explanation of what form is used as the lemma? Our entries for Germanic and modern Romance verbs don't say "infinitive" after them; our entries for Irish verbs don't say "imperative"; our entries for Old Irish verbs don't say "third person singular present". It seems unnecessary. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja Yes there are some. I am not sure which ones currently but there were complaints beforehand (e.g. by User:AG202, User:Sarri.greek) that language learners won't obviously know that a given verb isn't lemmatized at the infinitive but at some other random language-dependent form. It may seem unnecessary to you who knows Ancient Greek and Old Irish well, but consider the casual learner who comes across an Old Irish verb and has no idea what the given form means. It gets especially confusing e.g. when Bulgarian lemmatizes on the 1st singular present but the closely related Macedonian lemmatizes on the 3rd singular present. That is why I believe it's quite important to notate that the given lemma form is not the infinitive (which would be the natural assumption). Benwing2 (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still, I feel like it's overkill to mark every single regular verb that way. WT:AGRC and WT:Lemmas should both already explain what the lemma form of Ancient Greek verbs is. And no one should try to learn a foreign language using Wiktionary as their only resource. If someone is learning Old Irish, surely they have a textbook or a teacher that will tell them a lot more about how verbs work than we possibly can. However, if we are going to have this little description on Ancient Greek verbs, then at least there should be a parameter on {{grc-verb}} that will allow an editor to override the default setting. And maybe it's just me being nitpicky, but "first-singular" instead of "first-person singular" bothers me. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes (@Benwing2, I would like notes and exceptions to be made for what our Mahagaja says above. Not everywhere. My good administrator Saltmarsh, for basic verbs, gives a precise translation after the form.description. e.g. here+usage examples. Readers, students crave to copypaste it. Ancient Greek may have quotations + exact translations for some inflectional forms, but also grammatical identity of the lemma itself (sometimes it is not only 'nominative' but also 'acc, voc' of itself. I like very much the la.wikt boxes like at wikt:la:amat! ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"edit aorist template" edit

the accents for the infinitive and participle for both aorist forms of βαστάζω are wrong. it should be ά not ᾶ. but I don't know how to edit the template to correct those entries.

βαστᾶσαι, βαστᾶσᾰν, βαστᾶξαι, βαστᾶξᾰν, are all wrong. and should be βαστάσαι, βαστάσᾰν, βαστάξαι, and βαστάξᾰν. the accent on the future neuter participle may also be wrong

could you explain how to do this? or point me to someone who could? — This unsigned comment was added by L0ngh3nry89 (talkcontribs) at 19:26, 18 March 2024‎ (UTC).

@L0ngh3nry89: You have to explicitly mark the vowel before the σ or ξ as short (using a breve diacritic). I have done so here, in fact marking all the alphas as short. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! Now i know for the future! have a great day! L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

deleting content edit

Please don't delete content. If you prefer a different form of IPA, you may of course change the orthography, if that's not at the expense of inaccuracy. kwami (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: So what do you say /pᶴ/ and /kᶴ/ actually are? When I changed them to /p͡ʃ/ and /k͡ʃ/, you reverted, saying they're aspirated, but your notation doesn't denote aspiration any better than mine does, and Wikipedia's article on Osage uses /pʃ/ and /kʃ/ without the tie bar, which I find confusing as it suggests they're clusters rather than single phonemes. How about /pʰ͡ʃ/ /kʰ͡ʃ/? I really don't want to use ⟨ᶴ⟩, because usage of superscript letters in the IPA (other than the ones on the official chart, ⟨ˠ ʰ ʲ ˡ ⁿ ʷ ˤ⟩) is quite ambiguous. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
AFAICT they're just allophones of aspiration. How about /p͡ʃʰ/ and /k͡ʃʰ/, with the aspiration final? kwami (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami: Those look good! —Mahāgaja · talk 07:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
If they're allophones, why are they between slashes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
They're between brackets in the entries. kwami (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

German River Names edit

I appreciated your contributions on Main/Moenis, and I would be interested if you would consider others, eg Ems/Amisia. Krahe thinks he can dismiss all this stuff by saying "Old European Hydronymy" which gets him out of giving a real explanation. I thought of deriving it from the same root as Amme, thus meaning "sustaining river", what do you think? Amme is a Lallwort, thus much the same in all IE languages. I have more thoughts on rivers if you're interested. 24.108.18.81 23:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think in many cases Krahe is probably right that the ultimate etymologies are unknowable. It's not good to dive too far into speculative etymologies that have no basis in evidence. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cumbric translations edit

I've been working on checking translations by language code (see WT:Todo/Impossible translations), and I was surprised to find three entries with translations for Cumbric, language code xcb. As far as I can tell from the WP article, there don't seem to be any direct attestations- just mentions and place names. I've already removed the translation at summa cum laude, which seemed a bit far-fetched. The translation at Strathclyde looks like it was just copied from the Welsh translation. That leaves the translation at corpse.

I figured you would know more about the language than I do, so I thought I would ask you to take a look at those three translations as a sort of sanity check. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I bet I know twice as much about Cumbric as you, in the sense that 0 × 2 = 0. At any rate, I'll remove the translation from corpse, because it's almost certainly made up. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

bareia edit

Thank you for this! I thought, that bareia/grave accent should not be used in lemmatisations, but only corrected in the bodytext. Usually, I see a very bad title with bareiasat my browser. Has it been handled in some way? I now see correctly the bareia at μολὼν λαβέ. If things have changed, I presume instructions at Wiktionary:About_Ancient_Greek#Diacritics_and_accentuation need an update? How is it done? Which module does it?? -I tried so hard at el.wikt to intervene at wikt:el:Module:title, in vain... BUT: interwiki links are lost (because the other wiktionaries cannot handle bareias, and they lemmatise the usual tonos, and then, correct the bareias inside their pages) Could someone tell us?? Could this be applied at all wiktionaries? Thank you! ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 08:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. WT:AGRC says, "The grave accent, however, should only appear in phrases, clauses, or sentences (for instance, the phrase μολὼν λαβέ)", so that applies to φθινοπωρινὴ ἰσημερία (phthinopōrinḕ isēmería) as well. It doesn't need updating. And what module does what? If el-wikt doesn't display grave accents correctly, I don't know how to fix that. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

+ templates edit

I'm aware you dislike these templates, but I'd like to talk about switching Lower Sorbian over. At this point most Slavic languages use + templates, and most new Upper Sorbian words do as well. Furthermore, it's hard to say there's an active editing community for dsb at the moment - you have created many of the lemmas but it seems it has been a while since you have done much with the language. Vininn126 (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of an active editing community, why don't we just leave things as they are? I don't remove the + templates from entries that were created with them, so please extend the same courtesy by not inserting them into entries that were created without them. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I hear you; I feel like there's more arguments to switching at this point. You could argue that there's at least more people working in one way or another with dsb (i.e. reconstructions) that have an interest in it that generally prefer + templates. Vininn126 (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
But why? I can sort of understand their use in Indic languages like Hindi, where it's relevant to distinguish between words inherited from Sanskrit and words that are learned borrowings, but attested Slavic languages don't have learned borrowing from Proto-Slavic, so for any Slavic language, "from Proto-Slavic" invariably means "inherited from", making the + templates utterly redundant. The only exception would be s a loanword from a different Slavic language, but in that case it will be indicated. Even if I'm not doing a lot with Lower Sorbian at the moment, I did put in a lot of work on it when I created the entries, and it upsets me to see my hard work ruined. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is turning into an argument about their usage overall as well as ownership. Vininn126 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja Your hard work is not being "ruined" by the addition of the words "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from" - this is truly hyperbolic. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not just the redundant addition of those words, it's also the link to the glossary that uselessly and rather insultingly informs us that borrowed in this context means "borrowed" and inherited means "inherited". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said, that's not what the initial discussion was about - the discussion you wish to have, Mahagaja, has been had a thousand times and currently the rule is "discuss within a community". I don't see an active community but I do see a peripheral one more engaged in Slavic languages overall that prefer them. Please stick to the subject at hand instead of performing hysterics over stylistic preferences. Vininn126 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
And I already said that since there is no active community, just leave things alone, but you want to claim ownership over all the Slavic entries and do whatever you want with them regardless of anyone else. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that is a misrepresentation of what is happening - if I did I would have undone the edit and ignored you. I started a discussion and brought forth the arguments for keeping it. You changed the subject to "ruining your work" as if it's yours over a stylistic choice. Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your only argument for keeping the + templates in dsb is that it's used on other Slavic languages' entries, but that's no argument since (1) there's no cogent reason to use them in other languages either and (2) nowhere is it stated or expected that all languages within a family use the same entry format anyway. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja Thank you for replying to the discussion. You are right with point 2, however I have seen recent trends to use this logic in lieu of an active community - as they are still indirectly interested in that language. I believe there was interest in switching all Romance languages to + templates, if not already implemented, based on the same idea. Vininn126 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Romance languages are in the same situation as the Indic languages - they're descended from an attested ancestor that is also the source of a large number of learned borrowings. It's understandable that people want to specify whether a word is inherited or borrowed in that case (though even so, it's perfectly adequate to write "Inherited from {{inh|fr|la|...}}" rather than "{{inh+|fr|la|...}}"), but in Slavic, the only languages in that situation are Macedonian and Bulgarian vis-à-vis Old Church Slavonic. I really, really don't understand the obsession with the + templates and why some people are so dead-set on using them when they add no value whatsoever. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That again, is beyond the current consensus - that is about whether they should be applied, when currently it's based on preference. Please stick to the argument and stop reintroducing things that have already been discussed. Vininn126 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're the one who brought up the Romance languages. You can't compare apples and oranges and then say I'm straying from the discussion topic when I point out that you're comparing apples and oranges. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fine - however that still doesn't explain the fact that it's currently up to consensus. I don't see why a group of people working with a family who have a preference shouldn't get a say. Vininn126 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You keep mentioning "consensus", but where is this consensus? How can there be consensus with no community? TKW already reverted me on kóńc on the grounds that "consensus doesn't work that way", but I'm still not seeing any consensus to implement the + templates on Lower Sorbian entries. Was there ever even a discussion about implementing them on other Slavic language entries? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have explained to you many times - if you look at the current Slavic entries they use + templates. Did you miss that? Vininn126 (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
But was it ever discussed? Or do they use + templates because you added the + templates to them yourself? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Other editors do this as is their preference? Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja Editors don't have to ask you permission to add the plus templates, and the default position is not that you get to revert people over a minor cosmetic until they persuade you otherwise. That isn't how things work with anything else, because consensus doesn't work that way. Please get some sense of perspective, instead of trying to abuse the concept of consensus, because we both know that isn't really what you care about here: what you care about is trying to make it difficult for people to use a template you don't like. Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The default position is that editors do not change normal etymology templates to the + templates in the absence of clear consensus, because it is well known that they are highly controversial. Whatever kind of template was first used in an entry should remain unless there is consensus to change it. That's why I don't remove the + templates from entries that used them first, not even in Celtic languages although most Celtic entries do not use them. Likewise, I expect other editors not to remove the normal templates from entries that used them first, not even in Slavic languages although most Slavic entries do use them. Please stop with the personal attacks. Also please stop pretending that you don't care whether people use them, when everything you've said on my talk page, not just now but also last December, makes it clear you think fans of the + templates should be allowed to implement them wherever they want without worrying about consensus, while opponents of them should not be allowed to do anything to prevent their spread. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja They're not "highly controversial" except to a small handful of editors who've got really worked up about them. Most of us don't care that much, but I do care about your reaction to it in this thread. You're eventually just going to find that people won't give you the courtesy at all at this rate. Theknightwho (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, they really are. There wouldn't have been so many votes and Beer Parlor discussions about them if they weren't controversial. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja No - they were controversial a couple of years ago, but most people now really don't seem to care, apart from about five diehards like you. you think fans of the + templates should be allowed to implement them wherever they want without worrying about consensus, while opponents of them should not be allowed to do anything to prevent their spread No - as I have repeatedly said - I think you're abusing process to try to make your position the default, which is unacceptable. The default is that you don't revert editors over minor cosmetic changes. Also, you have forgotten that the issue last December was you replacing {{bor}} and {{inh}} with {{der}}, which was removing information from the entry, including categorisation; even Thadh told you to stop doing that, and Thadh doesn't like the plus templates either. Theknightwho (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you're confusing "don't really care" with "left editing whatsoever". Metaknowledge stopped editing less than a year after the introduction of the templates. Donnanz is still opposed, I'm sure. Fenakhay has not been active for quite a while. Danny wasn't even editing much back then. Do you think Fay Freak is fine with these templates now? You should also ask Jberkel and -sche, those are the only ones that remain and are still somewhat active. Thadh (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh Doesn't that reinforce my point that most editors in the community don't really care? I don't see any new editors having strong opinions about them. Theknightwho (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: That is an incredibly biased group and even there you didn't do any poll. You're essentially saying: "Nobody cares about the stink in this building. All those who did left and none of those who moved in is actively complaining!" Well, of course not, because those who don't want to smell the stink don't move in, and those who prefer not to have it assume that the rest is fine with it. Thadh (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was trying to avoid the conversation devolving into this. Why is it impossible to have a conversation about a specific language/group of languages without it turning into a screaming match? Vininn126 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh How is it biased to point out that very few of the current editors care about this issue? It's just a fact. The opinions of people who haven't edited in a long time simply aren't relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: This is almost a textbook example of selection bias: You're saying that within a population already impacted and filtered by this feature, there are more proponents than opponents, and thus the introduction (and retention) of the feature is/was justified.
Every controversial feature will over time stop being controversial because everyone who dislikes it leaves. Unless your goal is that Mahagaja, Victar, me, and everyone else who dislikes these templates stops editing, the argument that "nobody cares about them anyway" is not valid. Thadh (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's biased is your implication that the fact that most current editors don't care one way or the other means that the pro-+ side has won and the anti-+ side has to either roll over and accept it or leave Wiktionary. If most editors don't care one way or the other, then they shouldn't care if I revert the conversion of normal templates to + templates in the absence of consensus. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's it, I'm leaving this conversation. I can't even point to other editors who have a preference within a family without it changing into an over-the-top argument about the templates in general. What a waste of time. Vininn126 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: Everyone here is civil. This is a pretty important argument to have, as TKW is implying that Mahagaja (and by extension anyone) has no right to choose whether {{inh}} or {{inh+}} stays on a page, even though as you probably remember, when the vote on these templates failed and the templates were created anyway, it was assured that this would be up to the editors in question which series of templates to use, not someone "doing a minor cosmetic". Thadh (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh It's also a completely different discussion than what needed to be had. The current consensus is if a community agrees, it should be switched. Mahagaja entertained it somewhat - we seem to disagree on what constitutes a community, and then it turned into a discussion about the templates in general. I wanted to discuss Lower Sorbian specifically, which is why I am leaving. I also said nothing about civility. Vininn126 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh There is no controvery over whether we should keep {{inh}} (not {{inh+}}) on pages - Mahagaja is the only editor I have seen replacing it with {{der}}. I would appreciate if you both stopped trying to lump it in with the plus templates. Also, the vote you referred to was a "no consensus" by a narrow margin - it did not fail. Theknightwho (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry "failed to pass" is what I should have said. And nobody was talking about the {{der}} templates, that was a different discussion altogether. Thadh (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja So you're arguing that the impact of the plus templates is potentially so overwhelming that multiple editors have left over it? That might be the case for the perpetual drama surrounding them, but new users have expressed no opinions on them whatsoever. If they were inherently controversial, we'd see ongoing objections from new users as well (or those who would feel they can't edit because of them), but we don't. We just see a handful of old-guard getting extremely defensive about them, because this has become some kind of bizarro Wiktionary culture war issue.
Why would I feel anyone needs to leave Wiktionary over this? I find it baffling how you continually impute malice on the parts of other users over such a trivial thing. I just don't get it. Theknightwho (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I never said that the people who left did so because of this issue, but your incessant bullying of editors who do things differently from how you want them to certainly makes people feel unwelcome here. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja Stop mischaracterising what happened: I stepped in because you said your hard work had been "ruined", and I felt you were abusing procedure as a form of obstructionism after Vininn126 tried to start a conversation with you about this. You might not like that I said it, but it's not bullying, and I don't think I'm far off the mark, either.
What I'm annoyed about isn't anything to do with the plus templates themselves, and it's certainly got nothing to do with how I personally prefer entries to be laid out. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja I really, really don't understand the obsession with the + templates and why some people are so dead-set on using them when they add no value whatsoever. - the only person here who has displayed any strong feelings about the templates themselves is you. Please stop trying to characterise Vininn126 as irrational after they reached out to you as a courtesy. Theknightwho (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Vininn clearly has strong feelings about the templates or he wouldn't have come to my talk page to try to talk me into letting him use them. If he actually didn't care one way or the other he would have just let my initial revert slide. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please do not decide what my feelings are for me. Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja Not everyone is as experienced a lexicographer as you are, and not everything is aimed at you; nor should everything be designed around what you do and don't find insulting. Come on. If I see a blue link for something I know the meaning of, I simply ignore it.
Also, the only person claiming ownership here is you: Even if I'm not doing a lot with Lower Sorbian at the moment, I did put in a lot of work on it when I created the entries, and it upsets me to see my hard work ruined.
I really, truly could not care less about whether people want to use the plus templates - but the utterly absurd levels of opposition I see from a small number of hardcore editors is really, really silly. For whatever reason, it seems to make some people totally lose all sense of perspective. Theknightwho (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

-t edit

Will you please respond to my post on the etymology scriptorium? 90.241.192.210 20:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please respond. 90.241.192.210 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
i still dont understand 90.241.192.210 12:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Old High German had several different inflection types, each with a different vowel before the ‑t. In Middle High German, these vowels (which were all unstressed) all became /ə/, so the different endings all collapsed into a single ending spelled ‑et. In Modern High German, the e disappeared (except after d, t, and certain consonant clusters such as gn), leaving just the ending ‑t. For example, German druck‑t ((s/he) presses) is from Middle High German druck‑et, from Old High German drucch‑it, from Proto-West Germanic *þrukk‑iþi, from Proto-Germanic *þrukk‑īþi. And German beiß‑t ((s/he) bites) is from Middle High German bīsz‑et, from Old High German bīz‑it, from Proto-West Germanic *bīt‑idi, from Proto-Germanic *bīt‑idi. And so on for the other inflection types, and for the other endings that have become ‑t in modern German (the second person plural and the weak past participle). They come from a wide variety of different endings in Old High German, but they've all been reduced to just ‑t today. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Where did the Old High German inflection types come from? 90.241.192.210 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the Proto-Germanic inflection types, which in turn come from various Proto-Indo-European verb-forming suffixes. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
give me a example 90.241.192.210 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-janą and Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-ōną. Those pages discuss where the class 1 and class 2 weak verbs come from. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I edit

Why did you remove my transcription? HistorienCanadien (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because the pronunciation you added is not phonemically distinct from the ones already there. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply