Talk:lovon

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Entered by the same IP. Gerhard Köbler's dictionary says this term is unattested, but compound terms such as gilovon are attested. —CodeCat 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this about the form or the word itself?Korn (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean the 'form'? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, she could mean that there is no unprefixed form of lovon (i.e. it's about the word), or she could mean there is an unprefixed form but it would be lovan or so (different form). But having read her sentence again, I cannot see a single way why I would interpret the latter into it and wouldn't make any sense in OSX either. I have, however, found lovōn in http://www.lwl.org/komuna/pdf/Bd_01.pdf ; and since GML has loven I'd expected such a word to exist.Korn (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a mention though, not a use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So a verification would have to be a genuine OSX text?Korn (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well put. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This term almost certainly did exist, as it existed in Germanic and in the later descendants of Old Saxon, and borrowing is not very likely for a reasonably 'basic' word like this. But it's just unfortunately not found in any Old Saxon text in its pure form, only in derived form. So while we do know it existed, we have no attestations for it. —CodeCat 00:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your link Korn. It mentions that the word is found in the "Heliand" text, which is at wikisource:Heliand. The text 'lov' is not anywhere on the page, but 'loƀ' is: loƀodun on line 417, 2875, 3711, loƀode on 955, loƀoda on 1021, 2209, loƀon on 1404, 1570, 1634, 2227. ƀ is merely a spelling variant of v in Old Saxon, so I consider this clearly attested. Thank you! :) —CodeCat 00:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)