Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012

Help wanted for updating Slovene templates edit

Hey Rua,

I know that you probably have a lot of work on your own and that you probably have little knowledge about Slovene, but you were the one editing or even creating most of the modules and templates, so I am turning to you in hopes of your willing to help update the modules.

I have recently updated Wikipedia articles about Slovene phonology (we're still deciding which changes should be included in the help page) and declension; conjugation will follow soon. The previous articles were really generalized and and left out many key features of Slovene. I have completely no idea about how to code, so I am in desperate need of help and I hope you would update the templates and modules so they would follow the updated articles. Your help would certainly be appreciated.

If you are up for the task, I'll explain more about what is needed to be updated – the new articles are way too long to force you to implement everything that is written there. Garygo golob (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Declension of PIE noun-forming suffix010:09, 6 September 2023
Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme1523:01, 18 August 2023
Template translation022:19, 17 May 2022
Your deletion of Module:accel/ro320:56, 11 April 2022
Potential for new compound words created by MewBot?014:24, 9 February 2022
How we will see unregistered users018:14, 4 January 2022
Completely unreadable116:31, 24 November 2021
Reconstruction:Proto-Samic/čëkë, Reconstruction:Proto-Samic/čājē015:45, 28 September 2021
Regarding rewilding317:45, 14 August 2021
Reversions of my edits to Proto-Norse words only attested in compounds022:51, 10 July 2021
Alternative forms on tveir218:07, 20 June 2021
Unexplained reverts410:15, 19 June 2021
hraiwą and hrawaz517:09, 21 May 2021
Module:gmw-nouns110:23, 6 May 2021
PWG i-umlaut109:03, 5 May 2021
Gothic andhafjan019:21, 26 April 2021
ontkenningspartikel en117:58, 14 April 2021
German words from Low German911:31, 23 March 2021
Crimean Gothic811:29, 23 March 2021
*klengan - to sound211:25, 23 March 2021
First pagePrevious pageNext pageLast page

Declension of PIE noun-forming suffix

First thank you for the pages about declension of proto-indo-european suffixes, it is a huge work and a useful and instructive one.
I would be interested to know where you take these declensions from, I'd like to read the authors, books or studies you used as sources, in particular for the Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-os page.
Thank you in advance,
Best regards
LitaElera (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

LitaElera (talk)10:09, 6 September 2023

Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme

The purpose of including reconstructions in Wiktionary is not to posit them with some claim of certainty, nor is it to say “here is a theory the details of which are unilaterally agreed upon,” but rather more along the lines of “there is evidence for the existence of this, though as a reconstruction it is by nature hypothetical,” as disclaimers such as {{reconstruction}} are clear about.

I fear that you are letting your personal range of experience and particular set of opinions get in the way of constructive discussion. The theory of Altaic for one is certainly not unilaterally accepted either, nor are the particulars of the phonetics of Proto-Sino-Tibetan or Proto-Afro-Asiatic, or even Old Chinese—hell, there is still much disagreement about PIE—but in the same sense that settling on a particular phonological model for the time being shouldn't prevent Wiktionary entries for these languages from existing, neither should disagreement about families like Altaic prevent there from being any inclusion of them, as is evident already. If the assumption is that there is something inherently wrong in describing such hypotheses, what is it that is wrong? This is not a matter of whether a scholarly interest exists (it most certainly does) nor a matter of whether there is consensus among any subset of scholars working on the areas in question (there is); instead, you are in danger of now turning it into an issue of neutrality. You did not provide any rationale for the deletions either in prior discussion or retroactively (and I can only guess that your expectation was that I come to you). Other than useless deletionism I do not see any grounds for it. It is not in the same ballpark as modifying or deleting PIE paradigms in favor of alternative models: in this case your choice has been to wipe the (only) information out of existence without hesitation. Regardless, I can only hope that future incidents of this form do not take this path.

 — J​as​p​e​t01:51, 7 December 2017

I suppose the reason for deleting them is that the reconstructions are founded on poor scholarship using questionable methods which very few people believe. Other than that, the entries are fine, I guess...

*i̯óh₁nC[5]04:41, 7 December 2017

“poor scholarship”

Such as what? And in what sense? Quality? (If so, what specifically?) Quantity? (If so, I agree that it is lacking. But there has been a considerable amount of work done since over century ago.)

“questionable methods”

Again, such as what?

“very few people believe”

That may be so. Sadly very few people, relatively speaking, have any knowledge of or interest in comparative linguistics. But, assuming you are referring exclusively to comparative linguists, I would like to know what counts as “very few”. Not that I am contesting that there are few: I would simply like a genuine reference point on which to base the observation of how many of the whole agree with the methodology used and conclusions drawn, and which whole. I don't expect that there have been many surveys on comparative linguists' opinions at large; however, as for the number of linguists who have worked on the areas in question, is it any less than for protolanguages such as those of Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian or “Altaic”? In each case the picture is overall the same: two, maybe three, large works which are regarded as the standard, separate and collaborative efforts among a handful of well-known names, and other small contributions by a larger number of lesser-known names. (Of course this description then also leads to the issue of defining “well known”: how much?, and, more importantly, by whom?) Whether the opinions of those who do not study these areas is just as relevant as the opinions of those who do is another question, though perhaps more relevant to the philosophy of ways of knowing. Both you and Rua are evidently very experienced, in the areas relevant to what you have studied, but there seems to be no objective manner in which to discern whose beliefs matter to what—other than the principle that Wikimedia administrators are granted the unquestioned last word!

I would be delighted, anyway, if Rua has any input to add.

 — J​as​p​e​t19:26, 7 December 2017

If the community approves of the addition of those languages, and assigns them a language code, then you are free to add entries.

Rua (mew)19:35, 7 December 2017

Ah, thank you!

I understand the issue now: One must first request a code, and hope the dice roll in their favor.

Hopefully the opposite logic won't then be invoked, i.e. “Why create a language code for something with no entries?”

 — J​as​p​e​t19:40, 7 December 2017

I don't know a single linguist who regards Nostratic as anything more than a bad joke. I think you're aware that there might be a reason almost nobody takes it seriously. But yes, it's definitely the work of a shady cabal of Wiktionary administrators trying to keep the truth locked away...

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds19:42, 7 December 2017

Well, it sounds like you might benefit from expanding your knowledge of linguists then. :)

As for your implication that I regard this as some sort of conspiracy, thanks for the laugh! In reality, though, work on the theories of such families as Nostratic and Indo-Uralic continue regardless of what Wiktionary or Wikipedia have to say on them (which are, respectively, nothing and almost nothing).

 — J​as​p​e​t19:47, 7 December 2017

People working on these theories is not the same as these theories being accepted as mainstream. I've seen enough hooey from the Nostratic camp to make me quite leary of anything coming from there.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:17, 8 December 2017

Template translation

Hello, I saw you created this template that I'd like to translate in French (mainly for Hungarian conjugation tables but it'd surely have many other utilities), do you know how I could ? It seems it was made in Lua and I absolutely don't know this language, wouldn't there be any way to copy it without having to code (I think just like with)?

Thanks in advance!

Ombreux (talk)22:19, 17 May 2022

Hey. I've seen that you've deleted that module with the reason "No longer needed, can rely on default rules". How do I activate those default rules for Romanian then? The links are not green when I go to a Romanian entry with missing inflected forms.

Fytcha (talk)19:28, 7 November 2021
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 20:55, 11 April 2022

For that, you have to edit the template itself so that includes the information needed to make the acceleration work.

Rua (mew)14:42, 9 November 2021

Can you give me some pointers as to how I can achieve that? Is there a guide? When I look through Module:de-noun which powers {{de-decl-noun-n}} and the likes for which acceleration works I don't see anything relating to acceleration.

Fytcha (talk)15:21, 9 November 2021
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 20:56, 11 April 2022

Module:nl-adjectives#L-275 shows how the acceleration is added.

Rua (mew)10:06, 10 November 2021

Potential for new compound words created by MewBot?

I saw that the page quédatelo exists and has been created by your bot (good work by the way!). However there is no page for the word quédatela, which in theory could be created by the bot as well. (I only don't know Spanish grammar very well, so I couldn't tell if there are any hurdles to this.)

MrBeef12 (talk)14:24, 9 February 2022

How we will see unregistered users


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:14, 4 January 2022

Completely unreadable

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 16:26, 24 November 2021

First time I hear such a thing. The abbreviations gen. et spp. are standard in botany and so used now in thousands of Wiktionary entries. The purpose is in particular to signify whether an organism name names just some species in the genus (which may be varying and not always certain), when one would use only “spp.”, or also the whole genus and various species in the genus; sometimes (in recent languages) it is only a technical term for the genus while species are always denoted with specific names or circumlocutions “X genus plants”. Due to the distribution of Pimpinella saxifraga, *bedrьnьcь means this particular species, and also, because there are a few other less important Pimpinella species in Eastern Europe, the term surely was extended to other species (back then already; because there is no specific reason either why it would have been restricted to a current understanding of a particular species), to denote a broader concept corresponding to what we now understand as botanical genus, as well as a concept of analogically denoting other species, therefore “genus and species” “and especially …”. But the genus Pimpinella does not have an English name, except ambiguous and now rare in this sense pimpernel – I searched in various fashions to find one, and Wikipedia at w:Pimpinella does not know a name either –, only individual species under it, which I gave for Pimpinella saxifraga, it is burnet saxifrage. What is there to clarify anyway if taxonomical names are given?

It is bewildering that you even expect that every plant name has an English name. This is not the case, the more you remove yourself geographically from English-speaking countries, and even in English-speaking countries at some level of detail – for even at the genus level, taxonomy may have been and still be controverted and not manifest to the unequipped observer, this especially true for the Apiaceae family. Cervaria rivini the Ukrainian бедри́нець (bedrýnecʹ) also means has a lot of synonyms, as you see on Wikispecies, and it took me some time to find the English vernacular name I have for it on the Ukrainian page, which is obscure and not understood by anyone, so actually any taxonomical name is understood better than English. Where you come from, in Indo-European studies, one often contents oneself with vernacular names, but this is bad practice, this is in more particular fields scolded in reviews: “As a general note I would like to mention that it is recommendable to add the Latin nomenclature to English plant names”. But not the reverse, where an English term often may not exist. I have quite a mass of Arabic entries now where an English vernacular does not exist, obviously some local desert plants, and as I have amplified to you it is principally possible for every vernacular name of an organism that an English name does not exist, and additionally often that any existing translation would need translation itself. It is just unlikely to occur that you can reconstruct something specific as far back as Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic that does not well translate to a vernacular name. For anything in the Common Era it is easy to encounter that one discerns quite distinctly a concept a word which has no vernacular correspondence – well-known but far away enough to lack reflection in our working language.

Fay Freak (talk)15:04, 14 February 2021
I would have said difficult to read because a bit wordy, but worth it.
DCDuring (talk)16:31, 24 November 2021

My bot replace L4 "Derived terms" with L3, but "Derived terms" shouldn't be L3. Would you add definitions for the two entries?

Crowley666 (talk)15:45, 28 September 2021

back in Dec 2016 yoj removed a passage I'd added ... see . I've updated rewild and seeking your input as to whether this is what you intended --> . Thanks.

Ceyockey (talk)01:59, 14 August 2021

This doesn't look correct either, but I'm a bit confused what exactly you intend here. Is rewilding in this sense a verb or a noun? And what does it even mean?

Rua (mew)13:23, 14 August 2021
Ceyockey (talk)15:00, 14 August 2021

Yes, that looks good.

Rua (mew)17:45, 14 August 2021

Reversions of my edits to Proto-Norse words only attested in compounds

Why do you keep reverting my edits like at Special:Diff/63127477? These are very important since they show that the words are not just reconstructed, but actually attested in various forms, which is very useful for learners. All you are doing is making the site harder to use by requiring more clicks to arrive at a given page and making information harder to find.

Mårtensås (talk)22:50, 10 July 2021

Alternative forms on tveir

Hello, I saw you removed the “alternative forms” in the article for tveir. Just to be clear, I fully agree with you on that they aren’t alternative forms. I added it simply to show the inflection in the various descendants trees, such as on Proto-Germanic *twai. Putting {{l|non|tvær|g=f}}, {{l|non|tvau|g=n}} next to {{desctree|non|tveir|g=m}} would place them underneath the whole descendants tree. If you know a solution to that, I'd be happy to hear it.

Eiliv (talk)16:23, 20 June 2021

I don't have a solution, but I'm not sure if we should be showing inflections in descendants trees anyway.

Rua (mew)16:34, 20 June 2021

Good point. I’ll move the inflections to their appropriate descendants trees.

Eiliv (talk)18:05, 20 June 2021

Unexplained reverts

J3133 (talk)12:56, 18 June 2021

Yes, you changed the ordering of the languages around for no reason.

Rua (mew)16:49, 18 June 2021

I changed a {{desc}} to {{desctree}} and along with that ordered them alphabetically (which others and I often do) instead of a random order.

J3133 (talk)23:42, 18 June 2021

But that order makes it inconsistent with every other (West) Germanic page, which use a north-to-south ordering for West Germanic. This is also the order given on WT:AGEM.

Rua (mew)09:36, 19 June 2021

This thread would not exist had you linked WT:AGEM or WT:AGMW in the edit summary, as I was not aware this order is not random and prescribed; I have edited the pages.

J3133 (talk)10:15, 19 June 2021

hraiwą and hrawaz

Both of these words are from PIE root *krewh₂-, thus they are related. So why did you revert my edit?

Mårtensås (talk)13:50, 18 May 2021

That's incorrect, there's no way that *hraiwą can come from a root *krewh₂-.

Rua (mew)20:05, 18 May 2021

See Kroonen's etymological dictionary of proto-germanic, p. 242. As I added in the etymology, it comes from (irregular) metathesis of *krów-yom > *króy-wom > *hraiwą.

Mårtensås (talk)21:41, 18 May 2021

That's very ad-hoc don't you think?

Rua (mew)15:14, 19 May 2021

Perhaps, but it fits semantically and there's a reliable source for it.

Mårtensås (talk)17:37, 19 May 2021

Even linguists can have strange ideas. I think this would be good to bring up at WT:ES.

Rua (mew)17:09, 21 May 2021


Stelio (talk)09:10, 6 May 2021

Yes, and I think that entry shouldn't have been created in the first place.

Rua (mew)10:23, 6 May 2021

PWG i-umlaut

Hi Rua ! Did i-mutation for 'e' carry over into PWG from PGmc ? For instance, I see that in the *jestu (yeast) Inflection table that the Dative singular and Nominative/Accusative plurals have *jestiwi instead of *jistiwi. Is *jestiwi correct for these cases ?

Leasnam (talk)03:50, 5 May 2021

I'm not sure, but I vaguely remember Ringe saying that alternations within a paradigm were eliminated. Maybe it was levelled in different directions though in different languages?

Rua (mew)09:03, 5 May 2021

Gothic andhafjan

I notice you rolled back some changes made to the definition of the above verb on 29 July. However, I think the definition rolled back was correct and the meaning should be "to answer, respond to, reply". The verb is currently using the definition that should be attached to andbindan.

PhilKnight21 (talk)19:21, 26 April 2021

ontkenningspartikel en

Ben jij bekend met gebruik van het ontkenningspartikel en in hedendaagse Noord-Brabantse dialecten?

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)14:37, 14 April 2021

Ik heb het nog niet gehoord. Maar in de steden worden de oude dialecten sowieso minder gesproken, het is wat meer gemengd.

Rua (mew)17:58, 14 April 2021

German words from Low German

Hi, as yet there are two etymological categories: "German words from Middle Low German" and "German words from German Low German". The words of the former category are not included in the latter one. I think there should be a category including all words from Low German, either by making a new category or by adding the "Middle Low German" ones to the "German Low German" ones. (I would prefer the latter because I've added several "German Low German" etymologies without paying attention to at what time they were borrowed.) - Could you do that? Or tell me how it could be done? Thanks.

Kolmiel (talk)20:39, 20 May 2014

That's not currently possible, and I don't know if it's desirable either. You should ask in the Beer Parlour what others think of it.

CodeCat20:53, 20 May 2014

Why would it not be desirable?? They are all words from Low German, whether they were borrowed in 1400 or 1600. I couldn't think of one reason why there should not be a list that unites all of them... But okay, I'll ask someone else.

Kolmiel (talk)20:04, 25 May 2014

They're not all words from Low German if some of them were borrowed in 1400.

I imagine the confusion arises because "Low German" is, in the minds of non-linguists, an imprecise term. Some people group Dutch Low Saxon + German Low German, some people group DLS + GLG + Plautdietsch, you seem to group GLG + Middle Low German, someone else might group DLS + GLG + Plautdietsch + MLG. But as a linguistic work, we can't use non-linguists' conceptualizations of these lects. After all, some non-linguists group some or all of the preceding lects into "German" (which in turn may or may not include Middle High German); they would probably expect a list of e.g. English words derived from German to include words derived from Low German. I don't know of any practical way Wiktionary could cater to such people, except the way we already do, which is that we have linguistically-based categories which people can, on their own computers, combine any way they want.

Tangentially, I note that it isn't even necessarily the case that all words derived from modern Low German varieties derive from Middle Low German: in some cases, a Low German variety borrowed a word from another language (e.g. Polish) in the post-MLG period.

- -sche (discuss)17:49, 2 June 2014
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 16:30, 7 March 2018

Okay. These seem to be "international" problems that I wasn't aware of. From a traditional German dialectologist point of view, Low German means those dialects of continental West Germanic that have not undergone the consonant shift -- with the exception of Low Franconian, although the very traditional view would also include Low Franconian in Low German. (Nota bene that there is a 18th or 19th century grammar of Dutch with the name of "Nederduytsche Spraakkunst".) Low German writers of High German used Low German words in High German texts. And whether they did that in 1550 or 1650 doesn't make much of a difference in my opinion. But okay... I've been adding quite a few etymologies marking words of Low German origin as from German Low German ( {{etym|nds-de|de}} ). How should I proceed in the future? Only use this tag when the word is attested in High German after 1600? And otherwise Middle Low German? Could we at least add an info to the lists saying "see also: words from German Low German" and "see also: words from Middle Low German"?

Kolmiel (talk)18:29, 2 June 2014

Btw, I do "admit" that I'm not a professional linguist. But this is the normal definition of Low German. Of course, also excluding Frisian which I forgot above.

How can I group Middle Low German and German Low German together? Middle Low German is an earlier form of Low German, which later may have split into DLS and GLG.

The point is that Low German has been spoken in northern Germany from the earliest days to the present. Over time words have made their way from the various dialects of Low German (because there has never been Low German as one language) into High German and later standard German. All of these are from Low German, in my point of view.

I'm not saying that there's no difference between Middle Low German and modern Low German, but nearly all Low German words in standard German date back to 15th ~ 17th century (the time when Low German adopted standard German). We're arbitrarily splitting them into two groups, just because one is attested a few decades earlier than the other.

Kolmiel (talk)18:47, 2 June 2014
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 11:31, 23 March 2021

Yes, if a word was borrowed before 1600, it was borrowed from Middle Low German, and if it was borrowed after that, it was borrowed from German Low German. Compare how béabhar derives from Middle English while gairdín derives from English, and how trousers derives from Middle Irish while keen derives from Irish.

We could add {{also}}s to the tops of Category:German terms derived from Middle Low German, Category:German terms derived from German Low German, Category:German terms derived from Dutch Low Saxon and potentially Category:German terms derived from Plautdietsch, linking them all to each other, and then do likewise for "Dutch terms derived from..." and all the other categories. Assuming we wouldn't have to modify the {{also}}s once they were placed, that wouldn't be the maintenance nightmare it might seem to be at first glance. (In any case, it'd be less of a maintenance nightmare than trying to conflate MLG and GLG, in my estimation.)

- -sche (discuss)02:56, 4 June 2014

Crimean Gothic

Hi. What was the reasoning for reverting my edit of schwalth? Why would the etymology be incorrect? I guess the reverting of malthata could be due to differing opinions on whether the ending is a verbal form or accustaive pronoun, although I'd have liked a short explanation in the edit summary. Also, when we're already discussing, what about the connection between mycha and Gothic mekeis? Wakuran (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wakuran (talk)01:38, 20 February 2013

I removed it because technically it isn't even an etymology. It only said "cf" (whatever that means) and some words in other languages, but that doesn't actually tell me anything about the origin of the word that "Unknown" didn't. Is the implication that they are cognates? If so, why not just say so? And why not actually list the ancestor *swaltaz, and the related verb *sweltanan that the other two are descended from to make the relationship more clear?

As for mycha, I don't know if it is related. It's possible. It's hard to determine any relationship when there is so little that is known about the language and the spelling is inconsistent.

CodeCat01:50, 20 February 2013

Yes, the format was bad, agreed. But I felt the reversal implied that the word lacked cognates and proposed relationships in other languages, which doesn't seem to be the case. I felt that there were stronger criteria required than for other Germanic languages. Wakuran (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wakuran (talk)08:55, 1 March 2013

Are we still agreed that this words needs some cognates listed? I think so, at least. It seems to be definitely related to *sweltanan.

Krun (talk)14:47, 4 March 2013
  • swaltaz seems like the most likely origin, because it fits with how verbal nouns of strong verbs were usually formed in Proto-Germanic. Can you find any other descendants of it?
CodeCat15:39, 4 March 2013

There is Old Norse sultr, Icelandic sultur (starvation) and Old English swylt (death); both seem to be zero-grade. Do we know enough about Crimean Gothic phonology to tell whether schwalth is o-grade (< *swaltaz) or whether -wa < *-u-? If the latter, it could be the same as the Old Norse word.

Krun (talk)11:19, 6 March 2013

*klengan - to sound

Edited by 3 users.
Last edit: 11:25, 23 March 2021

Hi CodeCat! I wanted to start an entry for the Proto-Germanic root *klengan and as I see are the most derivative verbs in strong verb class 3, but the reconstructed root *klengan does not end with -aną like all the other Proto-Germanic verbs in strong verb class 3. What do you think?

Here is a table of derivatives:

lang term(s)
Proto-Germanic *klengan, *klennjan, *klennan? (< *glengʰ- < *kel-)
Old Frisian klinga, klinna (3a)
frs klinga (3a)
North Frisian klinke (3a)
Old Saxon klinke (strong and weak)
Middle Dutch clingen, klingen, clinghen, clinken
Dutch klinken
English clink, clinker
Old English clynnan (weak)
Old High German klingan (3a)
Middle High German klingen (strong)
Middle Low German klingen
German klingen (3a)
Old Norse klingja (weak)
Icelandic klingja
Danish klinge (< klingen?)
Bigbossfarin (talk)15:12, 22 December 2014

e becomes i when followed by a nasal and another consonant, so *kleng- is not a possible root syllable in Proto-Germanic, it would be *kling-.

I can't say much about the verb type. According to the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands, this is in origin an onomatopoeic word, so it's not surprising that there are many kinds of derivation. What's more, the verb looks like it should be strong class 3, based purely on its shape/sound. So this could have actually caused it to become strong if it wasn't already. This means that the fact that many descendants are strong class 3 does not necessarily mean that the original verb was too.

There are also several verbs in your list which cannot be descendants of this. Those are the forms with -k- instead of -g-, which must come from a separate related verb with -k-. Furthermore, Old English clynnan, and probably also Old Frisian klinna (if it's the same verb) must derive from a different verb too, something like *klunjaną or *klunnijaną. Old Saxon klinke is not even a verb, as Old Saxon verbs always end in -an or -on.

CodeCat15:23, 22 December 2014

Thank you for your help, I think it is not possible in this case to determine if the words were originated by onomatopoeia or derived from Proto-Germanic. Further Ancient Greek klángē, Latin clangere and French clinquer seem to be similar too. ([1]) But I dispute a derivation of the PIE-Root *kel- (as in [2][3]). The special case that -k- appears instead of -g- is also mentioned here as "mit abweichender, wohl expressiver Konsonanz im Inlaut", but I do not know how plausible this is. Old English clynnan and Old Frisian klinna were designed to derive from *klennjan ([4]) and an Old Saxon klinke does not exist.

So as I see it seems to be really difficult to say here what derives from where so I would oppose to create an entry on the Proto-Germanic term at all.

Bigbossfarin (talk)22:17, 22 December 2014
First pagePrevious pageNext pageLast page