Talk:πππΉπ²π²π π
Add topicPronunciation
[edit]@Mahagaja Are you sure about the pronunciation here? It seems to me like the cluster -π²π²π - should rather yield [ΕΙ‘Κ·] or something similar. β Mnemosientje (t Β· c) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje: π²π²π
stands for both /ΕΙ‘Κ·/ and /Ι‘Ι‘Κ·/, the latter coming from PGmc *-ww- by VerschΓ€rfung. βMahΔgaja (formerly Angr) Β· talk 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: Thank you, I was unaware. β Mnemosientje (t Β· c) 18:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: The page you linked to [1] in no way suggests the possibility that this word is pronounced /triΕΙ‘Κ·s/. On the contrary, it says "Ostrogothic Triggu(ila)*/Triuu(il)a* can confirm only absence of a nasal but may also lack /g/." It's the ones with etymological n that he's expressing doubt about, since /ΕΙ‘/ is occasionally spelled β¨π½π²β© but /ΕΙ‘Κ·/ is never spelled β¨π½π²π β©, meaning one can't completely rule out the possibility that historical *ngw has been denasalized to ggw. βMahΔgaja Β· talk 18:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja, Fungustober I had a discussion with Fungustober about this over at their talk page and to be honest while I am not sure either and think /ggΚ·/ is probably right, it really doesn't seem like a crazy idea to represent both viewpoints. Pointing only to Miller may have been a bit too little to that end, I agree, but please note the reference at πππΉπ²π²π
π° (triggwa), where I've expanded it a bit following your revert here. I intend to replicate that reference on this page too, because I really think we should at the very least note the uncertainty instead of pretending there is a clear consensus, but wanted to give you a heads-up here first and not edit-war if possible. β Mnemosientje (t Β· c) 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje: Thanks for pointing me to πππΉπ²π²π
π° and its link to SnΓ¦dal's paper. I'm not convinced by it, and still think that a dual pronunciation of π²π²π
depending on etymology is more likely, but you're right that we shouldn't simply ignore it, especially since he's not the only one who thinks the outcome of VerschΓ€rfung was /ΕΙ‘Κ·/. βMahΔgaja Β· talk 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja Truthfully, Snaedal seems hardly sure what to make of it either in that paper. Of the three sources I listed, Marchand is most certain of /ΕΙ‘Κ·/. Anyhow, I have restored the addition with the reference expanded somewhat. β Mnemosientje (t Β· c) 07:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje: Thanks for pointing me to πππΉπ²π²π
π° and its link to SnΓ¦dal's paper. I'm not convinced by it, and still think that a dual pronunciation of π²π²π
depending on etymology is more likely, but you're right that we shouldn't simply ignore it, especially since he's not the only one who thinks the outcome of VerschΓ€rfung was /ΕΙ‘Κ·/. βMahΔgaja Β· talk 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)