User talk:Widsith/archive4

Could you check, fix, cleanup, etc. both etymologies of hinder? This word is an upcoming WOTD, and I'd like it to be a model page as well. So, please, make the etymologies sparkle as much as you can. Watch out for edit conflicts, though, since I'll be asking folks to help add/check translations. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there actually a "more hinder" or "most hinder" form? That seems counterintuitive given the word's etymology. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's OK, that happens quite often - the etymology gets forgotten. The most famous example is near, which etymologically is "more nigh", but nearer still exists. I mean I haven't really checked or anything. Widsith 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But even for hind, the superlative is hindmost rather than "most hind". Same for rear (rearmost). --EncycloPetey 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, you might be right. I'll have a look on Google books but it's not an easy form to pick out. Widsith 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, just to let you know that your recent edit to Mediawiki:Edittools broke them for all users, we are still unfortunately using an archaic system whereby our Mediawiki:Monobook.js has to be updated in parallel. I have patched the Javascript, and it seems to work for now - but I am hoping to replace the current Javascript entirely soon. If you are interested in how the future system may work, there is a discussion at WT:GP or more detailed information can be found at User_talk:Conrad.Irwin/edittools.js. Yours Conrad.Irwin 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, sorry. I didn't realise that. Widsith 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There mightn't be anything on the Greek Wiktionary sides a templated page, but that is a close translation. 71.51.113.204 09:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not for translations. Interwiki links need to be character-specific, i.e. for el:fluffy. Widsith 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I always work on French definitions the same way I work on English ones, and so I rarely work them as if they were glosses to begin with, because in many, many cases, the meanings do not fully matches (I mentioned it at the Beer Parlour not so long ago), and I believe here trépigner does not readily matches many English words. Most definitions in English also are not "full sentences", but I always capitalize and period them, if only because that's the way the word of the day is presented on the main page, which makes for a pretty strong case in my opinion. Circeus 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's what I call service!!! Thanks. Do you thank there is any potential for more or would it be just too conjectural? DCDuring TALK 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well none of my books even offer any further suggestions. The word itself was originally a nautical term, and they are notoriously difficult to retrace..! Widsith 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The word comes up a little more often in our post 9/11 world in its landward sense, which is why I looked at the entry and wanted more. Maybe I'll try one of the newsletter guys. DCDuring TALK 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi agian. Remember your comment about estanquieded? Here's another that I got on the phone when the lines were down for maintenance work for a couple of hours yesterday. "No se puede realizar la llamada por estar activada la facilidad de restricción". Great, aren't they? I thought the bank hadn't paid the bill! -- Algrif 11:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heheh. I like. Widsith 11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to look at Wiktionary:Requests for verification#-um? I have a feeling that if anyone can disprove me, it'll be you. Many thanks. Atelaes 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. ᾠόν has been created. I apologize that it took so long. Atelaes 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you. The text to this vote has been modified. Please reaffirm your support here or by resigning. DAVilla 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

kerfuffle (a future WOTD) has some Scots etymons, and I was wondering if you might have the time to bluify them. Thanks. Atelaes 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

ofersceadwian would also be nice for overshadow. Atelaes 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if there are any good public domain Old English dictionaries out there? A user from wikisource is attempting to expand their repertoire of lexicons. Additionally, a few of us are working on a way to write wikt entries from them (much faster than by hand). We've already got a digital copy of Lewis and Short, and if we can get a decent OCR, we may be able to do LSJ as well. Atelaes 09:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's Bosworth & Toller. It's a bit outdated now though, that's why I think Wiktionary is so valuable. Widsith 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. However, I think that, in general, outdated is better than nothing. If we do get bots to write entries for us, they will certainly note the entries as outdated an in need of human care. It would give our editors something to look at at least, until we get around to dealing with them personally. Many thanks. Atelaes 10:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I've seen you say here-and-there things to the effect of "spelling represents the pronunciation" which I disagree with. That is to say, genuine misspellings do exist. And wide ranges of usage guides do proscribe certain spellings in deference to the "correct" spelling.

Unfortunately, today I ran across the opposite problem, where a word is consistently pronounced a certain way is in direct conflict with the prescribed spelling. I have never heard that word pronounced the way our audio file currently has it (despite it matching m-w.com, and AHD.) I'm not sure what the best way to handle it, is. The possibility exists, that I'm way off base - and the word I pronounce that way is a completely different word that coincidentally shares the exact same meaning.

Could you please comment at talk:disingenuous?

--Connel MacKenzie 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tocharian script unfortunately is not present or Unicode, nor have I seen any proposals announcing it's soon presence. One day, when Unicode starts supporting it, all those entries should be tagged with {{rfscript|Tocharian}}. A lot of ancient scripts have been added to the Unicode standard over the last few versions (5.1 coming in March will support 3 more obscure scripts for IE languages of Anatolian branch ^_^), so certainly there is a potential for it's inclusion in the long term. Unicode 5.2 will hopefully even support Avestan and Egyptian hieroglyphs! Generally I think the only two cases when some sort of "transcription" Latin script is supposed to be used on wiktionary is for 1) languages that don't have their own native script encoded in Unicode 2) Languages that have no original writing in some sort of their native script, but were recorded by non-native speakers or their speakers where completely illiterate (the case of Crimean Gothic and Polabian and I presume some Aboriginal languages of Australia too). --Ivan Štambuk 23:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for these comments. My thoughts exactly. Widsith 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I wonder if you can help. I cannot find the correct template format for the entry tropecientos. It needs to show m and f forms, but plural only. I can't remember how to do it, and the template page is worse than useless! Cheers -- Algrif 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be for Lao script, right? If so, it would be good to redirect to {{Laoo}} since that appears to be ISO 15924 code for Lao script. Most other scripts inside Category:Script templates follow the same rule, when ISO code for script already exists. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I wondered why all the script Templates had been changing name... Widsith 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was going through User:Robert Ullmann/L2/invalid and I noticed a bunch of entries with the L2 Tamazight. A preliminary investigation reveals that you are the primary editor for a number of these entries, and I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter are. It seems to like we should do one of two things: Probably the best option is to simply rename these entries as Berber, as this seems to be the more common name, preferred by Wikipedia and SIL. Otherwise, we could change {{ber}} to Tamazight. However, the issue is complicated a bit by the fact that, while 639-2 simply has ber, 639-3 has tzm, tjo, and tia. So, if you know which division of Berber these words belong to, we should create the language templates for them, and change the L2's accordingly. However, it appears that the language division is a currently a matter of contention, so........ Your thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, the problem (as I understand it) is this. "Tamazight" is the name often used now for the whole continuum of Berber languages (code ber), but it's also the name of a specific dialect spoken in Morocco (code tzm). The sources I used for the entries here were from books I bought in Morocco, and frankly I was not entirely sure in which sense they are using the term "Tamazight". It seems likely to me though that the Morocco Tamazight dialect was the basis for them, because that's being used as a standard when it's taught in Moroccan schools etc. I hope this is some help... Widsith 10:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Well, tzm does indeed seem appropriate for what you've entered, and SIL titles this language as "Central Atlas Tamazight," which would seem to alleviate some of the confusion between this particular language and the Berber languages/Tamazight in general. So, I've created {{tzm}}. Please take a look, and if it is acceptable to you, I'll go through all the entries currently labeled "Tamazight" and change them to "Central Atlas Tamazight." -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if you had seen this and given it any thought. Sorry to keep harassing you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry I'm actually on holiday right now. YOur proposal sounds fine to me though!

The entries have been relabeled, and the old category marked for deletion. Thanks for you help. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hola, please explain to me why the changes/additions that I made to the word BODY (translations and the etymology) were reverted? and please leave a message in the future if such a change has been done, as to why etc. so that I may look over the problem and be given a chance to change or do what is necessary to be in confirmation that is needed... Thank you... --BigBadBen 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith,

I know little about Old English, but cannot help being amazed at the close connection with my mothertongue (Dutch). I am added some stuff to gebed and I wonder about two things.

1. In the southern, (Limburgian/Flemish) pronunciation the initial g is pronounced as a voiced palatal fricative (like a blow voiced version of ). Is there any chance that the dotted g was something like that before it became the y of yester and yore?
2. In Dutch the vowel of the singular and the plural are different (ɛ/e) and that is pretty systematic for this type of verbal noun if it stems from a strong verb. (It also holds for the dative, e.g. ten gebede.) Was there a vowel change in Old English?

Jcwf 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I didn't split this in 2 words because I'm not sure that martín on it's own exists. The only other I can find is martín del río, which is not normally referred to as simply martín AFAIK. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ciao4now. -- Algrif 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would give the wrong idea about the name. A lot of people would assume that it is related to the English martin bird family. It's not a big deal, but that sort of thing is really etymology. I'd still prefer leaving it as it was. -- Algrif 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly the Italian is martin pescatore - and the same situation arises, in that "martin" by itself doesn't mean anything. SemperBlotto 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

And also French martin-pêcheur. They all seem to be linked to the personal name Martin, although noone seems to know why. This is also the source of English martin, although obviously that now indicates a different bird altogether. Widsith 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I'll read the guidelines and correct as appropriate. J Milburn 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there no way to move pages on Wiktionary? Or do I have to be autoconfirmed? J Milburn 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Possibly you have to be an admin. I'll have a look at them.. Widsith 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. Could you also possibly fix hild? It was listed in my book as hlið, same as the Old Norse. The guideline you showed me says that should be listed as hliþ, as ð is not really used, but I didn't realise they were interchangable, and couldn't find ð in the toolbox anyway. J Milburn 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah! That explains it. I was thinking "slope" seemed an unusual interpretation of hlid. Widsith 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, yes, you're right. Misread. I'll fix that. J Milburn 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused by this edit, which replaces the precise RP pronunciation with another marked with the general, less specific "UK". --EncycloPetey 15:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's supposed to be more helpful, given that noone uses RP whereas the pronunciation given is based on a standard "southern England" accent used used across much of the country, as well as on the BBC etc. After all, "US" isn't that specific either! ;) There was some discussion of this at Wiktionary talk:Pronunciation....although I know nod ecision was ever reached on it.. Widsith 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see you deleted my additions to the definition of chemist as an alchemist, particularily one who believed in the doctrine of the three principles of Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury

While I admit to knowing little on the topic, I have been adding the s:Sceptical Chymist to Wikisource, and while in it are passages where he can be interpreted as using the term to discribe alchemists and alchemy in general, he equally uses the term to distinguish those who believe in the tria prima, based on the teachings of Paracelsus, from those who believe in the four elements (earth, wind, fire, water), based on the teachings of Aristotle (see the passage on chymist from the novel, which is part of a speach deriding the group, delivered by an Aristotelian, also an alchemist in the modern sense of the term).

According to the chemist definition, the term first appeared shortly after the death of Paracelsus, and so is consistant with being associated with his followers. Merriam Webster dates alchemist to the 15th century, which was close to the time of Paracelsus (early 16th century). My guess is (and it is just a guess and is very likely completely wrong) is that the word (alchemist/alchemy) entered the language, the shortened form of which became associated particularily with the philosophy of Paracelsus, and later, following Boyle's use of the term, with modern chemistry.

Regardless of conjecture, Chymist is used in the book to refer to a particular breed of alchemist, and not simply alchemists in general.--T. Mazzei 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Boyle was trying to draw a distinction not between different kinds of alchemists, but between what he saw as "modern" chemists, who saw matter as composed of four basic elements, and "old-fashioned" chemists (ie what we would call alchemists) who preferred to think in Paracelsian terms of three elements. Now he may distinguish different types of alchemist, but that does not mean that the word chemist (or chymist) ever had that specific meaning to anyone but Boyle. Hundreds of writers used the word meaning only "alchemist". Boyle may use it in a more specific sense, but that does not in itself change the inherent meaning: every writer defines their terms to a certain extent. If you can show that other writers used the word with the specific sense you suggest, then you might have a case. I am pleased you added the citations though, because he is obviously an important writer in this area, and in general we have too few cites from this period. PS, if MW dates alchemist to the 15th century it's wrong - the word isn't attested until 1514 (though it's still earlier than chemist). Keep up the good work! Widsith 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 1514 date would, I believe, make it contemporary with w:Paracelsus, strengthening the link. You got your "modern" and "old-fashioned" chemists mixed up. I agree he is distinguishing between these two types. What Boyle is actually trying to show in his book is that neither the antienter view of the Peripatetics of the world constisting of four elements, nor the more current view, based on the teachings of Paracelsus, of the world consisting of three principles was satisfactory to the discription of what made up mixt bodies. Now if a chymist was the same as an alchemist, I would think that a chymist could hold either view, but Boyle speaks of the "Chymical Doctrine" vs the "Peripatetick Doctrine". Now, Boyle could very well have been using the word differently than his contemperaries, but if so he makes no attempt to clarify. By the way, what is the policy for words that have been redefined by a single person (or small group)? As to hundreds of writers using "chemist" as "alchemist" in the general sense, it may be that (1) apon closer inspection they are talking about the same subset as Boyle, or (2) the meaning of the word shifted to become more (or less) encompassing as the distinction above became less (or more) important, or (3) it always had a general and specific meaning, like say Xerox, or Kleenex.--T. Mazzei 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Widsith -- I've long admired your editing here, but am wondering about this one. Are these really 2 distinct etymologies? Don't both the nominal and adjectival senses go right back to the same Latin root? -- WikiPedant 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes! Though by slightly different routes. Sometimes it is easier to put them under different headings and sometimes not; in this case I'm sure it would be possible to explain it fairly simply under one Etymology heading if that's what you'd prefer. Cheers, Widsith 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Widsith -- The OED supports this etymological distinction, but it has separate entries for the noun and the adjective. With a single, combined entry like ours, I'm inclined to think that the extra headings and levels add more visual clutter to the entry than the payback is worth. However, I'll hedge a bit. My feelings about the matter are far from overpowering. I won't try to change it. -- WikiPedant 04:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most often, for words where the noun and adjective have the same or similar Latin spelling, the noun developed as a substantive use of the adjective, so the connection as a single term would have been understood. In cases like that, I agree with you that merging etymologies make sense. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've put a chronological list at User talk:Dvortygirl#May WOTD. I mention this because some of the selections have no Etymology section at all. --EncycloPetey 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, thanks for procrastinating long enough to add an etymology and pronunciation to my verb entry. I recently started doing French translations for pay, and am coming to rely on Wiktionary for verb conjugations to some extent. As I've needed entries, I've cautiously added a couple of new ones, learning as I go along. Yesterday, I also started adding more shades of definition to entries that are sparse. Hopefully, I can be helpful to the community in this way. The Babylon Larousse I subscribe to doesn't have etymologies. If there's a way for me to pick them up, I'd be happy to add them. I looked at the IPA chart, I doubt if I'm qualified to add pronunciations yet. Is there a way to automatically generate them?

Best regards, Ellenfalls 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, we look forward to your further contributions! Some information on French etymology can be found in the Trésor de la Langue Française. Most words come from Latin of course, but you need to be careful to make clear when it is a borrowing. As for pronunciation, Wikipedia has a useful page at w:French phonology if you want to find out more. If you are working a lot with French, I highly recommend Peter Rickard's small but excellent book A History of the French Language, which is a great introduction to where French words came from and how the sounds have changed. Widsith 09:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was looking for the word epicaricacy, only to find it had been deleted. I'd like to put in a definition for the word, my workup is here: User:Evrik/epicaricacy. I found the archived deletion discussion. As you were a participant in the delete discussion, do you mind giving my work a review? Evrik 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! Evrik 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't realized that the Burton citation for epikairekakia was in Greek characters. My rationale for that entry (well-known work) goes right down the drain, but would apply to a Greek entry. No wonder CM hates this thing so much. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to invite you to participate in a community effort to improve the quality of common verbs in Romance languages. I've started a project page at User:EncycloPetey/Latin verbs. The plan to select (or have someone select) one or two new "verbs" each week for cleanup and expansion beyond the basic content. By "verb", I mean the corresponding entry across several Latin-descended languages, and not simply a single entry. Your help with French and Spanish entries would be much appreciated. See the project page for more details and the current selection (listed near the top of the page, as well as highlighted in the tables). --EncycloPetey 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to take a look at the new conversation which meco started here? My Germanic language skills are shit. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ha, I saw that and was hoping to avoid getting involved! But I will. Widsith 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see you're helping with Mutante's efforts to clean out the uncategorized page list. Were you aware of this list of the uncategorized Old English entries? --EncycloPetey 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No! Thanks. Widsith 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Panda10 has come across this entry while cleaning up. It claims to be a form of (deprecated template usage) ferlese, but that page doesn't list it. Most Google hits are surnames or typos for forest, but there are a small number of hits that seem to support its existence with some meaning, and I got one Middle English text as well. Can you help? I'm not familiar with the word at all. --EncycloPetey 00:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's obscure, but seems to be an old past tense form. The header could equally be =Middle English=. Widsith 07:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Remember, Ancient Greek and Latin lemmata of verbs are the indicative 1st singular, not infinitive. *wags finger* -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• The problem is I don't usually know what the indicative 1st person singular is, since all my reference books use infinitives as lemmata. All right, I can usually work it out for Latin, but I just don't know enough Greek. So it's not so much having infinitives over 1st-person forms, as whether you'd rather have infinitives or nothing. Widsith 09:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Well, you could use the on-line searchable Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek. --EncycloPetey 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

  All right then. Widsith 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Or you could just be lazy and add an {{rfscript|Greek|lemma spelling please!}} and let me do it for you. Either way. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Or better yet, use {{attention|grc|lemma spelling please!}}, as I check that cat more often, it's specific to grc (so those poor el folks don't get bothered), and you can subst la for grc and get EP's attention if you need it. Cuz really, I'm not going to take the time to figure out ang lemmata, so it's really not fair to make you figure out grc lemmata. :-P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll bear that template in mind. Widsith 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

with æ and a? O_o

and also, for estuary english, are we th-fronting the pronunciation guides?

additionally, what is the estuary english for "all", and what is the vowel in it that makes it sound like "school", and contains the same vowel as in the second half of the diphthong in "bowl". Sorry to ask these questions, but I am becoming more and more confused, and I don't want to make a mistake. Nwspel 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

sounds like /ɛ/ to most modern UK ears. Steve Bell, the Guardian cartoonist, actually writes As as Es when he's doing dialogue by the Royals, to represent this "posh speech". Imagine a toff from the 50s saying "Good Lord! I like your het, what!" The OED have stopped using (and so have I and some others, although it still exists in many UK pronunciations on Wiktionary, so we are in a bit of flux about this one right now). is pretty simple, it is a more open sound and basically it is the sound everyone uses in England now to say man, hat etc.

If you are confused by all this, I suggest you wait a little while before working on pronunciations too much. Native speakers can easily get subconsciously thrown by orthography, eg many Spanish-speakers swear they can hear a difference between B and V (which are both /b/). And diphthongs are notoriously hard to interpret. If you are hearing similarities between all and school, you are probably realizing /ɔː/ as and /uː/ as (both common phenomena in London/SE but not UK-wide) which makes them much closer together, and makes me wonder if you are from Bromley! Widsith 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks, that clears most of it up :) Nwspel 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am interested in your thoughts about the aesthetics of presenting countable and uncountable senses for nouns like this. I have been showing uncountable and countable on the inflection line and on each sense line. You chose to omit countable tab for the one sense and not to show uncountability/countability on the inflection line. Is it the esthetics and overemphasis on this phenomenon that leads you to the presentation you prefer? DCDuring TALK 15:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Err...well, often I assume that countability is "default", and only bother to mark up uncountable senses. But it depends on the word. Sometimes I think having a countability label on every line can look a bit busy, that's all. Widsith 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your edit from strict was not contributive to me, and you should know that strictness does, without doubt, hurt others. This is your first warning for reverting a non-vandalism edit. More of these ungrateful edits will get your talk page vandalized. And I DON'T WANNA DO THAT!!! FirstClasskid 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I came across this term as a definition for a grc word, and we don't seem to have it. Apparently, it means a ransom paid by a murderer to the kinsman of the slain. However, I don't have enough knowledge of the term to write a decent entry, and I figured it just might be something right up your alley. If you don't feel like it, it's not a big deal, as we do have geld. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

We have it in the form wergeld. I'm on holiday right now, but when I get back I'll have a look at some of these alternative spellings. Widsith 12:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply