How did i never notice that the "Sharp s" ß is an ſs ligature?Griffon77 (talk)04:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Griffon77,

I see that you edited over my Old High German entry forBaldhere

If you wish to make an Old English entry for Baldhere then do so in a new entry. The name is attested in both languages.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk)18:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not. Forstemann explicitly states it is Old English (Ags=Anglo-Saxon). Forstemann is not a list of Old High German names, it is a list of old Germannic names, low German, High German, East German ... he doesn't differentiate. anything referenced to Pol. Irm or Pol. R is Latin adaptations of West (Low) Frankish. names he lists from Goldast are Latin versions without sources, which he lists even if he shows some doubt. If i look for Baldhere in the old high German manuscripts i get "Keine Resultate". Paldachar is ostensibly from -ger, not -hari. -char/-charius/-cherius generally appears in Latin forms of -Gmc harjaz from the 11th C. AFter Old High German.Griffon77 (talk)00:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jacob Grimm lists it only as Old English. the only references found by the MDZ are English, either English documents or references to an explicitly Anglo-Saxon name. None in Old High German.Griffon77 (talk)00:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay. An error on my part. Forgive me.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk)14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I did check before I changed it. most of Forstemann's sources are online and searchable, if you can interpret his descriptions. BNF (French national library}, MDZ (Munich digitization Centre), manuscripta.at, MGH, Leiden University Libraries Digital Collections, and a lot on archive.org, although their OCR is not as good. MDZ even has old english texts although they really can't read insular uncial script so the searching in those is less than useless,Griffon77 (talk)15:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Griffon77. You might've noticed that I reverted some of your edits on Proto-(West-)Germanic entries, ex.*Þeudōmēraz, to align with our formatting guidelines. In Germanic descendant trees, we use{{desctree}} for all inherited forms, and{{see desc}} only for borrowings. Since you're adding a lot of alternative forms for Middle High German, it might be helpful to create full entries for those forms as well. That way, we can avoid overloading the descendant trees, making use of{{desctree|noalts=1}}. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions! --{{victar|talk}}22:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done, for the probable lemma forms, and I fixed the all links for Ruedeger and Ruedger to match the MHG entry guidelines. Was it just the two?Griffon77 (talk)23:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess I wasn't clear earlier, but when adding inherited forms in descendant trees, like inRC:Proto-Germanic/Hrōþigaizaz, we shouldalways use{{desctree}} rather than{{see desc}}, which is reserved strictly for borrowings. --{{victar|talk}}08:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

the {{see desc}} is only for the latin borrowings. the entries as I left them should have the primary Germanic descendants without the alt forms and be the same as {{desctree|noalts=1}} {{see desc}}Griffon77 (talk)08:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't follow, but if you look at the descendants trees onRC:Proto-Germanic/Hrōþigaizaz,Ruodger,Ruedger, andRüdiger, that's how it should be laid out. --{{victar|talk}}08:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ruodberht is another example. It you're going to add many MHG alternatives forms, it would be best that you create MHG entries with them placed in that alternative forms section, instead of the descendants tree. --{{victar|talk}}09:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm working from attested forms with dates in the Monumenta Germaniae, I don't know which Middle High German form to add the primary entry under. Ruedger and Ruedeger must have been added to the descent tree by someone from the Middle High German Grammar, without checking the entry guidelines. I found Ruedger in another book with the date 1364 IIRC. Better if someone with more experience with the language decide which the primary entry should be.

Dietmarus is down twice because any entry page should cover both periods with

{{la-proper noun|Dietmarus<2>}} {{tlb|la|Medieval Latin|Renaissance Latin}}

and it seemed misleading to add it to one or the other in the desc tree with the dates that go beyond the defined variety.

I've been adding desctree for Germanic trees, but if that's the guideline, it's not being followed by most entries.Griffon77 (talk)09:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you're unsure which MHG form to use as the primary, you can referencehttps://www.mhdwb-online.de/ orLexer's Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch. --{{victar|talk}}19:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene,Mahagaja, thoughts on how Griffon77 is adding Latin borrowings onDietmar andRuedger? --{{victar|talk}}08:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I almost never work in OHG and MHG, but it looks OK to me. Maybe redundant to addDietmarus twice, once under ML. and once under RL. This is the first time I've heard of using{{desctree}} for inherited words and{{see desc}} for borrowings; my tendency is to use{{desctree}} if there's a manageable number of descendants and{{see desc}} if there's a large number. —Mahāgaja ·talk08:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Different languages certainly have different guidelines, but on Proto-Germanic trees, we use{{desctree}}, even with large descendant trees. SeeRC:Proto-Germanic/watōr, for example, who's tree structure is built with{{desctree}}. --{{victar|talk}}09:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Griffon77: Definitely don't use either{{desctree}} or{{see desc}} on terms that don't have descendants, as you did for GermanRudolf at Old High GermanRuodolf. (I just fixed it.) —Mahāgaja ·talk10:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

hmm, forgot to populate it it. according to all the other entries, it should have a stack of descendants borrowed by other languagesGriffon77 (talk)10:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

While you're here, OHG wiso "leader" was created with an etymology wisan + -o, but the cognates in ON and OE, and OS bal-wiso point to a PGmc wiso "leader" from wisana + -o (missing all the accents here).Griffon77 (talk)09:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like we need aRC:Proto-Germanic/wisō entry. --{{victar|talk}}19:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd have suggested creating a (simple) Latin entry to house that information, rather than cramming it into a desc section.Nicodene (talk)19:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

go right aheadGriffon77 (talk)19:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm good, thanks.Nicodene (talk)06:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please use citation templates when creating reference entries, seeC:Citation templates. Thanks! --{{victar|talk}}02:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did I misunderstand the guidelines? the other Reference templates generally don't call other citation templates.Griffon77 (talk)03:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If they don't use a citation template, like{{cite-book}}, it's because they're old and haven't been converted. Please also take note of how documentation pages are formatted. --{{victar|talk}}04:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The other two templates would made should probably be quotations,T:R:St.P.:LCV andT:R:goh:MGH:Sals, not citations. @Nicodene, you probably deal more with quotations and quotation templates than I do. --{{victar|talk}}05:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

no, there's usually nothing to quote, they are just lists of names. Template:R:St.P.:LCV does have some quotable text in other sections, but i'm not referencing those. I'd note how documentation pages are formatted but usually there isn't any to reference.Griffon77 (talk)05:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was using Cite-book, but the template creation help section seemed to say not to do that.Griffon77 (talk)05:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The OHG personal names you are adding are Proto-(West)Germanic constructions, and not formed in Old High German. As such, the etymology onPerhtmunt, for example, shouldlook like this. --{{victar|talk}}14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes they are West or common Germanic constructions, frequently they are new constructions in OHG or calques of a name in a related language. I can't usually find enough evidence to justify a West Germanic reconstruction, or to say if it was borrowed and where from. I know they are formed from OHG elements, so that is what I stick to. I'll post cognates if I can find them, but with no evidence they were formed in an earlier period, and not spread through contemporary migration and diffusion (which is frequent, especially with these monastic records), I'm not going to imagine they are inherited from a common ancestor.Griffon77 (talk)15:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your etymologies are misleading by implying the names originated in Old High German. If you're not comfortable reconstructing Proto-(West)Germanic forms, even formatting them as, "FromProto-Germanic[Term?]. Equivalent toterm +‎term.", would be much better. Or just leave the etymologies blank. Otherwise, I'll have to start removing them/tagging them with{{rfe}}, because they can't stay as they are. --{{victar|talk}}20:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, where are you getting your etymologies from? You gave the wrong etymology forBerhthold. --{{victar|talk}}21:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I gave thecorrect etymology for Berhthold. In some cases -wald alternates between -uuald, -ald, and -old, but that is not the case here. There is no record of a name Berhtald alternating with Berhtold in the record. Old English Beorhtweald, for different people than OHG Berhthold, dosnot make them the same PWGmc name. Why would it? It's simply capricious and narcissistic. "those Old High Germans were morons, mispelling a good English name like that". Are we expected to presume theyalways re-analysed "Berhtwald" as "Berhthold" when giving someone a name? That's preposterous, and if did, they created a new name from Berht and hold. nowhere is there a person named Berhtwald being renamed Berhthold retroactively. that happens in English historical records, where -frith is remodelled as ferth in later accounts, and then new names created from -ferth. but that isn't happening here. When they record the English name, they do it as Berhtwald, in Vitae Wilfridis, but they that was written by an English migrant, just like Wilfrid, anyway. But this is contemporary orlater than the first OHG records of Berhthold so can't have been an inspiration.Griffon77 (talk)21:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not misleading, they may well have originated in OHG. There'sno evidence they didn't in most cases. People form new names all the time. sometimes they catch on, sometimes they don't.imagining they all have a Proto-West-Germanic root is revisionist, and not how they are used and created. No-one was consulting a register of acceptable, existing German names like they have to do today.Griffon77 (talk)22:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If your etymologies are correct, and the names were indeed formed in OHG rather than P(W)G, it should be easy to support that with sources. Please provide them with all your etymologies going forward. --{{victar|talk}}23:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you have sources saying they weren't? Because I don't think you do in most cases. Forstemann doesn't give them, neither does Kees. Just the elements.Griffon77 (talk)02:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm referring to including sources for your etymologies. --{{victar|talk}}02:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

and I'm asking what's your source for *Berhtawald, because I don't see one, or any reference by Forstemann or Kees to a common Germanic or West Germanic reconstruction. they just suggest berht + wald/vald.Griffon77 (talk)04:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

LIkewise the MGH just gives Lemmatized personal name registers e.g. with entries such asathal/haith, they don't presume to reconstruct Proto-West Germanic sources.Griffon77 (talk)10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Restored to the original etymology with inline sources. Obviously no one is going to reconstruct PG names, but we can do that through other scholarship. --{{victar|talk}}18:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nope, still no reconstruction of Proto-West Germanic in the references. check the sources Forstemann gives. it's in a daughter language, a cognate of Berthold. you still have no source for reconstructing *Berhtawald, and Berhthold is still, at best an Old High German remodelling of Berhtwald as Berht+hold.

And for Diothad, you're just plain wrong. 1. There are no cognates, it is unique to OHG, no basis for reconstructing a Proto-West Germanic form. 2. the proto west germanic would be -hadu, not -had. had is a result of old dutch and OHG moving most u-declension nouns into the a-declension. Deothad, Hadapurc, Hadepurc, older HadupurcGriffon77 (talk)20:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

So am I understanding you correctly and you thinkC:Proto-Germanic given names should be deleted? --{{victar|talk}}21:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm dubious about the majority of names reconstructed as Proto-Germanic. Unless they are attested in Latin or Greek form before c. 200CE (and these are often difficult or imposible to reconstruct. in some cases they seem to be Celtic names for leaders of Germanic tribes), or like Agilaz are required for monothematic roots without any recorded prosaic use.Griffon77 (talk)22:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You should raise your concerns in theWT:Beer Parlour, as all Germanic terms with intra-Germanic cognates, extra-Germanic borrowings, or clear morphological developments, are currently valid candidates for P(W)G entries on the project. --{{victar|talk}}04:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

valid candidates does not equal "required"Griffon77 (talk)10:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a written guideline somewhere, or is this just your personal preference? Also for name elements -is there a standard for attested lemmas that serve as name elements only, with "traditional" or reconstructed meanings, or is that not yet agreed on? Gothic always marks them as reconstructions, but does so for all lemmas only attested as prefixes and suffixes, so that is not really applicable for Germanic languages with an established practice of marking forms as suffixes or prefixes

The 2nd Berchtwald in Forstemann is the archbishop of Canterbury, Berhtwald. Boniface aka Winfrid was from a monastery in Wessex. The first Berchtwalds he lists are given in Wikipedia as Berthoald (Cambrai, Langres) and Bertoald (Troyes) or Bertauld (Poitiers) (Note the division may be -oald, with the o representing the w of Frankish *wald in the contemporary latin orthography, as u was already /v/ instead of /w/). The map produced by Dr Pfeffer given in Euler places these bishops as all West Franconian, and the regular language early medieval Latin, not GermanicGriffon77 (talk)21:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Given we have a latinized Berthoald(us) in the early 7th C., how about "An alteration of PWGmc *Berhtawald (from *berht + *wald), as if from OHG berht + hold. Cognate with" etc. Happy with that?Griffon77 (talk)22:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we have a definition template for lemmas like mar, had, flæd, rih and ric comparable to{{given name}}, along the lines of{{name element|goh|from=gem-pro|meaning=}}, producing "a name element used in creating given names, from Proto-Germanic, traditionally meaning ..."Griffon77 (talk)22:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

How'sthis addition? --{{victar|talk}}00:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

are you in the middle of creating a new template for the Altdeutsche Namenbuch? or deleted it? "a merger" implies there was an existing Berhtholþ, rather this is folk etymology, re-analysing Berhtold from Berhtoald as Berhthold with an epenthetic -h- "as if" it was from Berht-hold. The epenthetic h is there, you can't claim it isn't.Griffon77 (talk)03:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it was moved toT:R:AdNb1. I'm paraphrasing Förstemann's remarks on names with-(h)old as a second element -- please see the cited source. No, an epenthetic-h is not evident as OHGt was often spelledth. --{{victar|talk}}04:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind you upgrading the templates, but did you find and fix all the links when you changed the name? Also you forgot the publisher is different and the page numbers aren't linked to the column number the same way. templates without template data are not helpful to other editors.Griffon77 (talk)06:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd also refer to Max Gottschald - Deutsche Namenkunde, who gives OHG components and almost never a reconstruction (except for *warinhari) preview only athttps://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783110890389_A19971539/preview-9783110890389_A19971539.pdfGriffon77 (talk)03:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The parameter|ll= in templates like{{affix}} is intended to be used as it is in{{label}}, and not for inserting entire etymologies. --{{victar|talk}}11:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

qqN then?Griffon77 (talk)13:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just split it up into multiple templates. --{{victar|talk}}02:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I generally do now, but fixing older ones will be quicker just changing ll to qq.

BTW, basing the Proto-Germanic and Proto-West Germanic reconstruction of Eormen, Ermen, Irmin on the later ON variant seems unsafe. This doesn't seem to reflect the extant West or East Germanic examples (at least as recorded by Procopius and Cassiodorus), which are generally Ermen, Erman, later Irmin (parallel to late Vandal and Burgundian reflexes of Germanic /e/: -mer to later -mir, -red to later -rid/rith, so Ermen to Irmin-?. That would make Irmin in OHG a southern innovation which has spread north after Proto-West Germanic, as the I- forms appear later and the older forms are invariably (H)Ermen, (H)erman-). Just running this by you as not my field, but a source relying solely by the ON lemmas without taking into account the East and West Germanic seems blinkered.Griffon77 (talk)06:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm taking the time to properly fix all your old entries with|ll= -- would be nice is you could help in that that clean up. As for PG*ermunaz, I recommend starting a discussion onReconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/ermunaz and pingingUser:Leasnam. --{{victar|talk}}08:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

i'm changing them as I come across them again.Griffon77 (talk)11:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This isn't fixing it. --{{victar|talk}}07:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Griffon77, you're still creating entries withetymologies inside|qq=. Please do not do this. --{{victar|talk}}22:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

And I can equally, no, more legitimately say, stop making up spurious West Germanic ancestors. it's generallynot where these names come from. You don't have sources, you're not basing them on surviving name records between 200 and 600, you're projecting based on your own personal preferences for Germanic words. Names are not like other lemmas. Neither the data nor the literature on Germanic names supports this. Why is this too difficult for you to accept?Griffon77 (talk)00:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Am I understanding correctly that you're refusing to stop adding etymology chains inside the |qq= parameter of {{affix}}? --{{victar|talk}}01:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, i'm not adding them. I'm just not prioritizing reworking the formatting. changing the incorrect labelling comes first. formatting can wait. Are you refusing to stop adding spurious etymologies?Griffon77 (talk)01:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

But you are, seethis link. --{{victar|talk}}02:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

a quick edit moving the existing etymology to the normalized form so that there is just one that can fixed later instead of multiple. I was originally following existing entries (which were generally not normalized and not marked as such if they were) and am now updating according to the entry guidelines. Too many still exist based solely on a listings in the Altdeutsches Namenbuch without critical investigation on whether Forstemann had edited the form (he regularly drops Latin declensions), given the correct citation, or what language was being cited. More were created from the Altbairisch Grammatik without rcognising the difference between regular nouns, given names and place names. someone else was making them up based on Stalinist propaganda still published in Belarussia. Unless something is egregiously wrong, I am not now reformatting or creating etymologies for existing entries. when I get back to creating new entries for attested names and the normalized forms I will do more detailed fixing of the etymologies with der and inh as appropriate. Or I can give up and leave all the misinformation in place? which is better you think? stop wasting everyone's time.Griffon77 (talk)03:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad we're on the same page with future etymologies.Believe me, if anyone's time is being wasted, it's mine, cleaning up entries. --{{victar|talk}}05:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be using{{inh}} in a lot of places where it should be{{der}} instead. So, for example, Old EnglishHerebeald is{{inherited}} from Proto-West Germanic*Haribalþ, but{{derived}} from Proto-West Germanic*balþ. --{{victar|talk}}05:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Simplyusing{{m+}} because you're unsure if you should use{{inh}} or{{der}} isn't the solution. --{{victar|talk}}22:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not, I was using it because it's the basic linking method in etymologies.{{m}} in etymologies{{l}} in definitions and below. "preferably" isn't "required". How many times have you been blocked already because you get into pointless disputes like this? I have been fixing entries with false or missing data, and all you can do is follow, criticize and add even more bad data. Somehow I thought It would be better to fix the labelling as fast as possible, and reformat some other time. There are a lot more entries that need fixing and improving, most far worse than these.Griffon77 (talk)01:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

To confirm, you're refusing to{{inh}} and{{der}} in etymology chains because you prefer{{m+}}? --{{victar|talk}}01:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Stop trying to straw man me. Read what I said "I was using..." does not mean "I insist on". Are you trying to get yourself another block? I will fix these,in time. the priority is changing the inline parameters.Griffon77 (talk)01:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not following. So you're creating etymology chains using{{m+}} that you'll fix later with{{inh}} or{{der}}? --{{victar|talk}}02:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, Iwas creating them with{{m+}}. I'm now fixing entries with the ll parameter, and will go back to older entries with{{m+}} in time. I'm also shifting etymologies and descendants from the alternative to the normalized forms without editing them. They can be cleaned up further later on.Griffon77 (talk)02:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there some reason you'rerenaming ====Inflection==== headers to ====Declension====? --{{victar|talk}}20:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

ConsistencyGriffon77 (talk)21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please expound. --{{victar|talk}}03:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nouns and adjectives have declension. the templates are defined as declension templates, the declension header is frequently in use. it's inconsistent to use bothdeclension andinflection interchangeably.Griffon77 (talk)04:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

plus that whole entry was confused to start with. the "reconstructed" forms were actually attested, the "unexpected forms" it refers to are entirely expected, as Max Gottschald explains medialw is commonly assimilated to a following vowel, and I don't recall a normalized entry (andevery ohg form with w was normalized by someone between the 13th and 20th C.).Griffon77 (talk)05:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Inflection is a more general term. Declension would be incorrect for verbs, as verbs conjugate and not decline. So if you're going for consistency, it would be to use inflection everywhere, which is what many languages have done on the project, but maybe consult the Beer Parlour before starting to change header names. --{{victar|talk}}05:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Declension is correct for Proper nouns though, and it's the consistent practice for other entries of nouns, adjectives and proper names in Old High German.Griffon77 (talk)06:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there are entries to change from ====Inflection==== to ====Declension====, then it isn't a "consistent practice". --{{victar|talk}}07:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aren't you being overly critical? "normal practice", if you insist "consistent" is "always the same" but i don't think people normally use it that way. It's too absolutist to be practical.Griffon77 (talk)07:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I am. You're a new user here. You should seek out community input before taking it upon yourself to systematically change header names. If no one objects, go for it, but it's about explaining your intentions. --{{victar|talk}}22:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping you would take note after Iposted this, but please don't move pages byblanking the original entry. That's a huge faux pas. Instead use the move tool. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}}03:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply