Reconstruction talk:Primitive Irish/ᚓᚊᚐᚄ
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Mahagaja in topic RFD discussion: August–October 2023
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.
Primitive Irish. Unneeded intermediate reconstruction between Proto-Celtic and Old Irish; only one descendant and no derived terms (such as personal names, which make up the bulk of the Primitive Irish corpus). —Mahāgaja · talk 13:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete unless personal names containing it can be found. I'm personally a bit nuanced with one-descendant entries. Unlike several others around here, I'm fine with having one-descendant entries unless one of the following apply:
- The term might not have existed in the ancestor in the first place
- It does not form a word family within the proto-language with another term (thus the entry cannot serve as a hub listing related terms together)
- There is not enough non-trivial information about the ancestor term that is not pertinent to the contemporary use of the descendant (thus making the entry 100% redundant with the descendant's entry)
- This term fails two of my criteria: there are no derivatives or related words listed for this entry and it does not contain any Primitive-Irish-specific information that ech doesn't. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This term is attested in two personal names: EQQE‿AGNI (eta: = Old Irish Echén) and EQODDI (= Old Irish Echaid). Ziegler, Sabine (1994) “*ekwo-”, in Die Sprache der altirischen Ogam-Inschriften [The language of the Old Irish Ogham inscriptions] (Historische Sprachforschung; Ergänzungsheft 36) (in German), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, →ISBN, page 103 —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made a template for this reference, which might come in handy for other Ogham entries:
{{R:pgl:Ziegler}}. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made a template for this reference, which might come in handy for other Ogham entries:
- @Mahagaja: This is a similar issue as the one discussed when the Proto-Italic entries were deleted. I personally think that intermediate reconstructions based on previous reconstructions/attestations are fine, and if they aren't that there may be a need to delete the intermediate language altogether, but obviously a lot of people doesn't share my opinion on this.
- In any case, I'm not sure that RFD for inidividual terms make sense unless there is already an agreement on this issue within a specific language (family) editor base. Thadh (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja I added some information. What do you think? I don't know how best to format it. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good now. Withdrawn. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)