Talk:𐌺𐌿𐌽𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌳𐌰

@Rua Hey, since you added the ety here way back and created the standardization section at WT:AGOH, I once more come to you with a question: the OHG form listed here is, from what I can tell, only attested in the Merseburger Zaubersprüche, which my Althochdeutsches Lesebuch tells me attests the form chuoniouuidi (plural). I have also seen the form you added in Köbler, but I wonder how that standardisation went: ch -> k is clear; uo -> u is not (cf. kuoni), and how does the -io- become -a-? (I want to create the OHG entry, but some concerns over standardization are preventing me, there are so many different forms attested in manuscripts sometimes and it is not always clear to me what a word is supposed to represent etymologically, such as here.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know either. uo > u is not standard, but a form with a legitimate uo couldn't be a cognate to the Gothic or English terms. So a bit of a catch there. —Rua (mew) 15:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I spoke too hastily. Apparently both kunawid and the form I listed are attested; the former as a gloss somewhere apparently. Which still doesn't explain this weird form! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)