I seem to have trouble seeing the special characters on this page. I have tried changing internet explorer view settings (view... encoding...) and trying some of the various options and it does seem to change the dislay of these characters. However, I am not sure which one is the right one to use, or indeed if this is the right thing to do. Can anyone help me out? --Hauskalainen 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we might want to note that, in addition to being unnecessary, the use of the insular characters is technically incorrect in this context. They're included in Unicode for use as phonetic characters, but in actual Old English texts, they'd be nothing more than glyph variants of their respective letters (g, r, s, etc.) and thus should be represented by the corresponding "ASCII" characters. This seems like a potentially relevant note, as the relationship is somewhat different than that between ƿ and w. —Leftmostcat 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Starting the verb templates, I've come up with {{ang-conj}} to standardize these. AFAICT since {{ang-verb-weak}}, {{ang-verb-strong}} and {{ang-verb-anomalous}} don't specify any defaults, they can be merge into one, at least for now. I think it would be nice to have our declension templates as similar as possible to limit entropy. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
(After page move) Old English, from my experience of updating templates and all that is perhaps our worst formatted language. I have no real knowledge of Old English, but if it's a case of replacing
'''hūs''' ''m''
With
{{ang-noun|g=m|head=hūs}}
I can certainly do that. But yes, help notably from Widsith would be much appreciated. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ang-conj}} replaces the old conjugation templates, with type=strong, weak, anomalous and pretpres. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)In entries with palatalized sc, representing , I've been replacing sc with sċ. As I understand it, sc is almost never a cluster with velar c. However, I thought I should check with other editors to see if this is right, and if I should go on making replacements. Perhaps it's not right, because Northumbrian would have unpalatalized sc more frequently than southern dialects. Not sure. Eru·tuon 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
WT:CFI: "For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" (bolding adding)
So how about adding (old Anglo-Saxon) glosses to that list?
As an example, there is:
(Compare also WT:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#stæfleahtor). -84.161.1.61 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the West Saxon dialect has de facto been treated as the "standard" lemma dialect. However it may be worthwhile to codify this so we can simply link different dialects as alt-form entries to a single main lemma. Compare for example the situation at ælc/ealc right now; it's kind of muddled. It would be nice to have a standardization scheme like the one Old High German has, especially w/ regards to vowels which differ quite a bit between dialects, to make the spellings of main lemma entries predictable for users and to allow us to unify lemmas in one place as opposed to spread over various dialectal forms. (Of course we should absolutely have entries for dialectal forms, it's just nice to not have info shared between all dialect spread all over the place between these various dialect entries.) Thoughts? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
In December, WingerBot went and replaced all the IPA|ang templates with ang-IPA. Suddenly every initial h in Old English was changed from /h/ to /x/ (with the /h/ pronunciation following in parentheses).
I looked all over for discussion of this change, how it was decided. The new template simply refers onward to Wikipedia's Old English phonology article. There was no discussion there either. Wikipedia's Old English phonology article does not support for initial h. Finding no discussion anywhere, I thought I'd ask here. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we have one for West Saxon? There are codes for Mercian, Anglian, and Northumbrian already. 70.175.192.217 20:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If the contemporary source uses an alternative script should they/can they be listed under the "Alternative forms" heading, but linking to the modern roman-script entry? alt|ang|(normalized entry)|alt1=(original script)|ll1=9th C.|Mercian etc.. Would help explain why an entry that looks more like pulkzan in a charter is Wulfgar in the entry. likewise should runic forms have separate entries or should they be placed only under the "Alternative forms" heading and linked to the Roman transliteration rather than a runic entry. I don't think anyone is ever searching the runic form (unless they're going through the Corpus of Anglo Saxon Sculptures to create entries), although they may iike to know it. Griffon77 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The inflection templates account for long and short vowels in the root, but combine the Saxon (Wessex/Kent)and Anglian (Northumbria/Mercia) variants in one table, without explanation. While the templates follow the form of the tables in the grammars, the grammars then explain when and where the variations occur, the templates do not. Since the lemma form in the Anglian dialects is often different can we add a parameter for dialect in the template and split the variant forms of the stems appropriately? Griffon77 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)