Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/gern

@Rua Regarding the derived/related terms thing: since these two were both already formed in PGmc proper (there are cognates in North and East Germanic), wouldn't they count as related terms, being inherited from an ancestor language in which they were formed instead of within PWGmc? I thought that's how we did derived/related terms, so I'm kinda confused now. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've always treated things as derived if they are synchronically analysable as such. The same way we include synchronic etymology where possible. Otherwise many English terms ending in e.g. -ly or -ness couldn't be listed as derived because they were inherited from Middle English. —Rua (mew) 10:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case I have quite a lot of Gothic entries to adjust in due time. I see WT:EL gives no relevant information so I guess there is no clear policy, but I can see the logic of your approach as well. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some guidelines on the issue then. We currently have WT:Etymology, which mentions "surface etymologies", but that doesn't go into synchronic vs diachronic etymologies, so perhaps a new section is warranted. WT:Derived terms just redirects to WT:EL, which isn't particularly helpful. Since derived terms are strongly tied to etymology (essentially they are the inverse), they should probably be covered on WT:Etymology as well, so the redirect should point to a section on that page. Same for WT:Related terms I suppose. —Rua (mew) 10:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)