Talk:𐌲𐌰𐍃𐌹𐌲𐌲𐌵𐌰𐌽

@Glésan Don't you reckon we ought to lemmatize at gasigqan for consistency, considering sigqan and dissigqan? We could then add a note to the effect of the two attested verb forms being spelled with a double <g>. There is alternation between <gg> and <g> in the differently prefixed cousins of this verb (and the unprefixed lemma) too, such as with dissigqan (Ephesians 4:26), but we lemmatize them all at the single-<g> form. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Still in doubt about this. There's so much variation, and it seems the -gg- spellings are actually the only attested spellings for quite a few words of the same root. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje Sorry for the late response. <ggq> seems to be the only attested form in <gasiggqan>, <saggqa> and <saggqjan>; both <ggq> and <gq> are attested in <ufsag(g)qjan> and <di(s)sig(g)qan>; and <sigqan> is only attested as such. On the top of my mind, it seems to me most reasonable to place each entry at the only attested stems (if non-alternating) to make them easier to find for users reading a Gothic text (that is, to have <gasiggqan> alongside <sigqan>). That would free us from the problem of placing an entry under a spelling that is nowhere attested, such as <gasigqan>.

In cases where the forms alternate (<ufsag(g)qjan> and <dissig(g)qan>), I agree that we should place it under <gq>, which is closer to the rules of Greek and is almost thrice as common in the manuscripts (Wulfila has 39 vs. 106 tokens). In either case, we would add a note note to all entries (alternating as well as non-alternating) to the effect of "This root is attested with <g> in certain lemmata, <gg> in others" etc.

Whether <gasiggqan> should be placed under <gasigqan> anyway for the sake of standardization is, of course, largely a question of how inclined one is to correct spelling variation, but as Gothic is poorly attested, I tend to find it problematic to make the only attested forms variant forms, especially as the variation between ggq/k and gq/k seems to be very widespread in the manuscripts. Hence, I would argue for a solution that is as close to the attested forms as possible, with clarification at the entries in the form of notes if relevant (perhaps under the headline of "related terms").

Hope that makes sense. --Glésan (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Glésan That makes sense, yes. A usage note on the affected lemma pages, mainly the ones with <ggq>/<ggk> (the "unexpected" forms), would probably do. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Or somewhere else, I'm not entirely sure. Etymology is a bit of a stretch, and we usually don't have free text under "related terms", so I guess it's kind of a toss-up.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje I have tried my hand at a usage note at the entry page which may perhaps serve as a model (if it is sufficiently clear). I too am somewhat in doubt whether "usage notes" is the proper place, but at it may, perhaps, be at least a temporary solution. --Glésan (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, might as well mention it somewhere, and usage notes happens to be a convenient dumping ground for relevant info that doesn't have another clear home in the standard Wiktionary entry layout. So yeah, as good a stop-gap solution as any. (Not that many entries are affected anyway.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)