Reconstruction talk:Old English/ueleda
RFC discussion: September 2016
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Was etymologically categorized as a Proto-Brythonic term and titled as Proto-Celtic; I am however not sure if Old English is any better than these, nor if it belongs in the Reconstruction namespace in the first place; this is based on an attestation of a proper name from Tacitus. Perhaps Proto-Germanic *weleda would be more proper (or, this being a feminine, *weledō??) --Tropylium (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
RFDO discussion: September 2016
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Tagged for speedy, but I'm moving it here. Reason stated is "No descendants given". I agree. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to be more misformatted though than made-up (as I just pointed out at WT:RFC). Going by the sources, this looks like an attempt to create an entry for a Germanic goddess Veleda mentioned by Tacitus. --Tropylium (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- If her name is only attested in Latin, the info should go to Veleda#Latin in an Etymology section. If she's a Germanic goddess, association with Proto-Celtic *welet- (“seer, poet”) is somewhat shaky though of course not impossible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- For a Germanic name, you'd expect the second syllable to have i, not e which did not exist in that position except before r. And as a result of that i, there'd be umlaut of the first syllable, turning it to i as well. —CodeCat 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, there are no descendants or derived terms given, while we have a general practice of not allowing "dead end" reconstructions. This reconstruction has no basis and is basically "let's imagine what if this word had been borrowed into Old English?". Furthermore, the word has a masculine/neuter ending and is indicated as neuter, which is highly dubious for a word for a female person. —CodeCat 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- If her name is only attested in Latin, the info should go to Veleda#Latin in an Etymology section. If she's a Germanic goddess, association with Proto-Celtic *welet- (“seer, poet”) is somewhat shaky though of course not impossible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The creator has moved the page into the main namespace and claims the word is attested. --WikiTiki89 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The redirect can be deleted and this RFD closed, then. —CodeCat 22:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- So...where is it attested? —JohnC5 03:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's referring to being mentioned in Tacitus. Regardless of the merits of that, procedurally you can't have a mainspace entry in rfdo. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Very true. —JohnC5 04:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- See wikisource:Germania_(Church_&_Brodribb)#VIII: "…Veleda, long regarded by many as a divinity." --Tropylium (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Very true. —JohnC5 04:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's referring to being mentioned in Tacitus. Regardless of the merits of that, procedurally you can't have a mainspace entry in rfdo. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- So...where is it attested? —JohnC5 03:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The redirect can be deleted and this RFD closed, then. —CodeCat 22:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)