Reconstruction talk:Proto-Brythonic/gwɨðn

RFD discussion: October–November 2016

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/gwɨðn‎

Tagged but not listed. No reason to delete given, and I can't think of any, so a speedy keep seems appropriate. —CodeCat 20:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe User:UtherPendrogn was objecting to the barred i in the spelling. This sounds more like a matter for WT:RFM or the Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a regular part of our Proto-Brythonic notation, per WT:ACEL-BRY. —CodeCat 21:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The eth can't possibly have become any of the listed forms. Maybe ping me if you want a reason? Shocking, I know. Also, you being ignorant is hardly an excuse to keep it.UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, RFD is a public forum, in which you have to argue your case in favour of deleting it to the Wiktionary community. So go ahead. —CodeCat 21:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I did. You have a history of incorrect edits, like the insanity with you claiming ext would become a barred i when only axt forms one. An eth would not give any of the listed forms. See things like Godođin or Guineđ. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we also all enjoy the fact that CodeCat dishonestly tried to undo the rfd? Tssssk. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

She reverted your blanking of the entry, and, when you pointed out the issue of removing the rfd, she restored it. Please stop the grade-school-level ad hominems- you really can't expect people to wade past all of that to find the merits of what you're trying to say. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to learn how to make your case on the merits and stop discrediting yourself such lame and inept argumentativeness. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I did give it. UtherPendrogn (talk)

I said "no valid reason". Since Middle Breton, Middle Cornish, Modern Cornish, and one variant of Modern Welsh all show reflexes of ð, your stated reason isn't valid. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn hasn't given any reason on this page to delete it. Maybe on another page he has but I'm not searching every conceivable page for it. Oh and CodeCat actually listed it here which is the opposite of sneakily removing the rfd tag. In a nutshell, keep, from what I understand the exact spelling to use is being contested, not existence. Basically no deletion rationale has been given by anyone, so keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason would be "The eth can't possibly have become any of the listed forms." But I don't know what "eth" refers to. If @UtherPendrogn could kindly explain to those of us who do not know Proto-Brythonic, that would be helpful. When doing so, UtherPendrogn should imagine they are speaking to a lay jury, so extra clarity is required, and not much background can be assume. Strengthening claims with external sources would also be of interest.

Elsewhere, UtherPendrogn wrote: "The i is not barred"; "Proto-Celtic ū gives an unbarred i. It would only be close central unrounded if there was an a before it, giving Proto-Celtic axt." He also asked, "Where's the barred i in here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/seiθ, [...]"?

So this is where rationale has to be sought, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of languages with the letter eth. You can use google, can't you?

And there's no point in this, I'll just get overruled on pinciple anyway. It was the same with my correct statement that the i should not be barred, where this abject person got me banned. UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The RFD is a forum where you can make your case. If you make a compelling case, people can vote delete. If you avoid explaining things in clear terms to lay people, direct them to Google, and keep insulting people, you probably won't convince anyone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, my mistake, "eth is a letter (capital Ð, small ð) introduced into Old English [...]". So the claim probably is that ð in gwɨðn‎ could not have yielded Middle Breton guezn, Breton gwevn, Middle Cornish gwethyn, Cornish gwedhyn, and Welsh gwydn, gwyddn, which are currently listed in Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/gwɨðn‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No. 3/4 of those forms were added later after Angr realised that CodeCat realised her mistake but refuses to admit it yet again, like the barred i. And as I said, but clearly you can't or don't want to read it, people like Angr will vote keep on principle rather than do the right thing and vote delete. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Breton/Cornish e and Welsh y can only come from PBr *ɨ, not from *i < PC *ū. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

and ext forms eiθ and oxt forms üiθ. Only axt forms an ɨ as aɨθ. Not that you give a fuck, visibly. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Complete fucking bullshit anyway. Proto-Brythonic ė gives Breton e and Welsh y. Learn your own reconstruction. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you also object to *gwɨð, created by another editor whom I know to be very reliable (Anglom)? I know little about Celtic languages, but the morphological development of that word seems to largely mirror that of the one being discussed here. (Either way, this shit-stirring attitude does you no favours, seriously, be civil.) — Kleio (t · c) 15:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions. I don't object to that, word final ð acts differently. Here it's followed by an n.

And civil? Not after what these cunts did and keep doing to me. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He didn't make any assumptions, he asked you an honest question. Perhaps wildly insulting everyone within 40 feet is not the way to convince people of your point. Not that I think you have one in this instance, I think you're just enjoying insulting as many people as you can and the RFD is a spurious excuse to do that. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He assumed I would obect to gwith. Stated my case THREE times now. Eth before n would not do that. Don't question my motivations. I'm interested in the wors being rectified. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you making assumptions about my assumptions now? Anyway: CodeCat is a veteran editor who has contributed massively over the years. She is supported by Angr, who knows his Celtic languages from what I can tell. Of your brilliance, however, I remain quite unconvinced, and this discussion isn't really helping. Your claim, so far, is that "eth before n would not do that", but you haven't given a reason why that would be true. Do you have evidence, perhaps in the form of citations from scholarly literature, based on which non-Celticists could reach a decision? Because as it stands, it's your word against theirs, and I'm more inclined to trust the word of editors I know to be reasonable and experienced than that of someone who seems mostly interested in unnecessary drama. — Kleio (t · c) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First you tagged it for rfd, but posted nothing here. You also don't seem to have this page on your watchlist or aren't checking your watchlist, which means you keep getting surprised by what gets posted here. People tried to guess what your reason for deletion was. You then said it was because of the eth, but didn't say anything to support your assertion that eth wasn't possible. When someone else asked about a similar word which did lead to an eth, you refined your assertion to include word-final/not preceding an n. You still haven't given anything to support your assertions after three tries, even though people have done their best to get it out of you.

Your argument so far consists of basically saying "trust me, I know" and "everyone else is incompetent and out to get me". The inflammatory and poorly-constructed nature of the second totally undermines the first. You keep shooting yourself in the foot and various other parts of the anatomy, and then come up with elaborate conspiracy scenarios to explain why people don't take your assertions seriously. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The correct forms have been added now. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy. When people are pinged I'm not. When moving pages I added was brought up, CodeCat literally said "no one wants to deal with him". UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering that you routinely get hugely offended when people question your edits, call people names like "cunt" and "crazy bastard", accuse people of bad faith when it has nothing to do with the merits of your argument, and otherwise violate every standard of civility that applies to wiki etiquette, that sounds like a natural reaction. What's more, everyone else has responded with infinitely more restraint and tolerance. If you acted like this with total strangers in real life, there's a good chance you'd be missing teeth by now- or worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

My point was the reason you give is not a reason for deletion. If the eth is not possible in this position (which obviously I can neither confirm nor deny) then move it to the eth-less form. This was said right at the top of the page. That's a rename rationale not a deletion rationale. And since you've provided no evidence to back up your point of view, why would anyone support a rename under those circumstances? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)