Talk:-riks

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

• I see no unambiguous indications from attested forms (compare Category:Vandalic lemmas) that this is the correct form this suffix would have had in Vandalic (some latinisations have -rix, some have -ric);
• I do not know of an accepted orthography for Vandalic (reconstructions?) from scholarly sources nor one that is accepted on Wiktionary (due to the paucity of sources and dependence on mentions embedded in Latin texts in latinised forms);
• This entry should probably be marked as reconstructed in the first place if it is to be kept.

Still, perhaps I am missing something? (See also some of the last remarks at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Move to Reconstruction namespace if there is any scholarly source whatsoever to support this (and I assume there must be). If not, delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Mnemosientje, can you please figure out whether this can be sourced as a reconstruction? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Metaknowledge I won't be home until after the weekend, I'll see what I can do then. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Not finding anything with this spelling. The main problem is that the extremely fragmentary Vandalic material is entirely in Latin mentions (a handful of words) and Latinized names, which seems to have caused linguists and historians commenting on the Vandalic language to avoid trying to use some sort of distinctly Vandalic orthography. Instead they just comment on the strong similarity to Gothic (some seem to regard Vandalic as little more than a variant of Gothic, hardly a distinct language) and on the Proto-Germanic etyma. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Went ahead and deleted. If I find a scholarly source I'll re-add, but I don't think I'm going to - I've read a fair bit about the Vandalic epigram etc. and none seem to try their hand at these reconstructions. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply