Talk:𐌰𐌿𐌾𐌰𐌽

@Mnemosientje —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge The form is unexpected and the word is in fact unattested, as the IP who created the entry has themself pointed out over at User talk:SemperBlotto#Gothic aujan. Only a neuter a-stem noun could end in -an in the nominative singular, I think, which would imply a Proto-Germanic neuter a-stem *awjaną, which is nonsense -- also per the source cited, which claims a feminine PGmc ō-stem substantive "*aʒwjō ~ *axwjō". The expected Gothic form from our *awjō would be *𐌰𐌿𐌾𐌰 (*auja). The source cited claims the form *aujan on the basis of w:Oium, which (per Dennis Green cited over at Wikipedia, who is a pretty good source) apparently may be a dative plural of the hypothetical Gothic reflex of *awjō. But that dative plural would again not be *aujan, but rather *aujōm.

So, tl;dr -- it should be in reconstruction namespace under *𐌰𐌿𐌾𐌰 (*auja) if we believe the theory that Oium is indeed derived from a Gothic dative plural form of a reflex of Gmc. *awjō. The *aujan mentioned in the source is weird to me, and I cannot find it elsewhere. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 23:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted it and links to it accordingly. I find the reconstruction based on Oium to have a somewhat weak basis, but if it's found in mainstream scholarship, there's no problem with having a reconstructed entry for it, so long as it's morphologically sound. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply