User talk:Nicodene

I've seen you've based yourself on Hull's thesis in fusing rhaeto-romance and gallo-italic (as well as istriot) on most wiktionary pages. Is it actually consensual? Checking on google scholar only brings up 23 citations, which isn't a lot for a 40 years old thesis. 92.88.170.251 92.88.170.251 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) just to be clear, i wasn't signed in when writing thatΟυώρντΑρτ (talk)Reply

Separating them isn’t a matter of consensus either (see: Questione Ladina). As far as I am aware, there are zero innovations that unite Romansh, Friulian, and Ladin which are not also attested in neighbouring Gallo-Italic. Nicodene (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would not be a second independent episode. My use of "also" meant as an alternative, roughly equally likely and equally un(dis)provable scenario, not as an addition to the same scenario. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:7CF5:7CB:5C36:C8C0 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it is not independent of dunc, then one has to account for dunc as some kind of secondary development from *dunquam. The problem is that dunc is attested no less than eight times („achtmal“) in Roman inscriptions, and *dunquam zero times. Nicodene (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• (discussion moved to here)

Just a gentle reminder to check CAT:E: there are 12 Aragonese entries there because of your edit to this module. It looks like you eliminated a subroutine without removing the references to it elsewhere in the code. My Lua skills aren't enough to fix this myself even if I knew what you were trying to do. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for telling me. I've cleaned up the 12 entries in question. Nicodene (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see you've removed the MLE IPA descriptions for garms and call. I shan't bother re-adding them as I don't think the MLE pronunciation of vowels in the START lexical set is particularly distictive compared to general British English and the same is true for the CAUGHT lexical set, with l-vocalisation happening elsewhere in London and Scotland and to an limited extent throughout Britain, but I hope you don't make a habit of such deletions, especially with no edit summary. I'm not aware or a policy that all MLE pronunciations should be removed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I removed the transcriptions out of doubt about their accuracy, not out of an objection to MLE itself. Nicodene (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, that’s fair. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both DGLA and DALLA point to the form viérbene. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see. We can set the lemma back to viérbene then and have vérbene as an altform - unless there is good reason to believe that Von Wartburg made a mistake there. Nicodene (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lets ask @Fueyo221. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the DGLA you can see "vérbenes" and "vérbene" recorded in Arbón (which speaks Galician-Asturian) and Cuideiru (Cudillero), that speaks the Pixuetu dialect of Western Asturian, this last dialect is influenced by Galician. So I think it should be an alternative form from Cuideiru. Fueyo221 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oops my bad I read it wrong, it says Cu(Eo) not just Cu, so it's from Cuaña, not Cuideiru, sorry. Then it seems like the Galician-Asturian version. It should be included as a Galician form then. Fueyo221 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply