Portal:𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰𐌱𐍉𐌺𐍉𐍃/𐌰𐌻𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰

𐌲𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌾𐌰 𐌳𐌿 𐌰𐌻𐌳𐌰 𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰
𐌷𐌴𐍂 𐌸𐌿 𐌼𐌰𐌲𐍄 𐌰𐌽𐌰𐌺𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌾𐌰𐌽 𐌰𐌻𐌳𐌰 𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰 𐌴𐌹 𐌽𐌹 𐌲𐌰𐌻𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌰𐌹𐌸 𐌸𐌿𐍃. 𐌰𐌻𐌻𐌰 𐌿𐍂𐍂𐌴𐌳𐌿𐌽 𐌸𐌰𐌽 𐌴𐌹 𐌽𐌹𐌿𐌾𐌰 𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳 𐌲𐌹𐍄𐌰𐌳𐌰. 𐌹𐌸 𐌸𐌰𐍄𐌰 𐍃𐌺𐌰𐍆𐍄 𐌹𐍃𐍄 𐌸𐌰𐍄𐌰 𐌰𐌻𐌳𐌰 𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳 𐌲𐌰𐌱𐍉𐍄𐌾𐌰𐌳𐌰. 
𐌲𐌰𐌲𐌲 𐌳𐌿 𐌸𐍉 𐌻𐌹𐍃𐍄𐌰 𐌸𐌹𐌶𐌴 𐌽𐌹𐌿𐌾𐌰 𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰.
𐌰𐍆𐍄𐍂𐌰 𐌳𐌿 𐌷𐌰𐌿𐌱𐌹𐌳𐍉𐍃𐌴𐌹𐌳𐍉𐌽 𐌸𐌹𐌶𐍉 𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰𐌱𐍉𐌺𐍉

On Loanwords
(Transferred from Portal:𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰𐌱𐍉𐌺𐍉𐍃/𐌲𐌰𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌾𐌰.)

I’ve seen numerous things in the dictionary that could really be changed. My biggest problems with it are:
 Do we really need a made-up word for countries? “Peru” is, in the list, “Igkaland”. This is a big problem, though, because not only Incans live there, even before the Spanish came. Also, it’s kind of strange to be going and making up new names for countries when they already have names. “Peru” should be “Paíru”, as a neuter u-stem noun. Of course, places in Europe can have their own names, and maybe some elsewhere, but we don’t need to go crazy with calques. I see “Vatican City” is “Papagards”. Okay, it seems nice, but wouldn’t something like “Baúrgs Watikanus”. It would make much more sense. I can help come up with better names, if you agree that it should be this way.
 On a similar note, do we need to come up with new words for characters in things like Game of Thrones, The Hobbit, etc.? Those characters already have names that aren’t worth making new ones.
 I think Gothic would have, if it had lived all these years, taken in a ‘’lot’’ of loan words. Since it’s surrounded by Latin and Greek, it would have been full of words from those languages, and Arabic would have brought a lot of new words in, too. It wouldn’t have stayed linguistically pure at all. Mostly Germanic, of course, but still not completely Germanic.
I don’t want to sound rude, but I think Gothic wouldn’t have stayed so pure, and even going as far as to make up ridiculous names for faraway places shouldn’t be encouraged here. (I can imagine a group of Goths when they just hear that the Spanish have set up a place called "Perú": "You call it Perú, you say? Then, we shall call it "Igkaland"! Now tell me, what kind of people live there, what’s it like, where is it?") --Shikku27316 (talk) 21:10, 22 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. We should however stay with Thiudiskaland for Germany, as this is how the Germans called themselves in the time of the Goths. Bokareis (talk) 23:37, 22 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
Well, like I said, locations in Europe should keep the names we're giving them, and all the other Germanic languages use "Thiudiskaland" anyway, so it works. I just needed to tell people that "Igkaland" is too obscure and ridiculous. Speaking of which, will there be a place where we put Gothic place names, kind of like an atlas? Or will this dictionary be the place for that? --Shikku27316 (talk) 17:37, 23 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for using these discussion pages for the dictionary. To the topic:
I can somehow understand that you have mixed feeling on those new created words. But I have to say I do not share them at the same extent. I don't know who invented the word 'Igkaland', but maybe it comes from the name in Nahuatl for Peru which is 'Incatlan'. I doubt the '-lan' has anything to do with 'land, country'. I see that this is a case where a new word should be taken and I am totally fine when the 'community' (let's call this a community ;)) isn't fine with a certain word. Gothic language development isn't or shouldn't be a one-man project, consensus among several 'speakers' is always more useful. I would be glad for new ideas on names, you can either post them here or on the respective discussion page if there's an article on it. 
To the second thing: I am judging since quite a time on this Wikipedia that 'names stay names'! Names like Amy Winehouse shouldn't be reinterpreted to make them more Gothic. I haven't finished it yet but I am working on a guide on how write foreign , espacially English, names with Gothic script. I think we should proceed here as all the other languages with script that aren't Latin. So: What has a name keeps it. To write that name in Gothic script there should be two maxims: Write it as similar as possible, but also transcript it as similar to the original pronounciation as possible. There must be of course more rules, and I am on it and I have it finished we can discuss it. Examples are 𐌻𐌴𐍉𐌽𐌰𐍂𐌳𐍉 𐌳𐌰 𐍅𐌹𐌽𐍄𐍃𐌾𐌹, 𐌼𐌹𐌺𐌴𐌻𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌶𐌾𐌴𐌻𐍉 and 𐍅𐌹𐌽𐍄𐍃𐌴𐌽𐍄 𐍆𐌰𐌽 𐌲𐍉𐍇. 
To the purism: Of course, if Gothic had stayed alive until now it would have undergone a lot more foreign influences. But not only would it have borrowed words it would also look totally different: See here. This is a approach to create a New Gothic, how it would like today if it had undergone natural language change. But concerning this matter it is hard to find a basis everybody can agree on because the revived Gothic language is a different one for everybody. It can either be the language spoken then, and only that. It can also be the language from then spoken coincidentally and suddenly today (like it travelled with a time machine) since some years to adopt and create new words from nowadays like mobile, fridge or microwave oven. (And even there are different movements: create new words on the basis of Gothic and with as much purism as possible to make words with the own lexicon and morphology resources, or allowing the process of foreign words incorporation or word borrowing). Another story is that Gothic survived throughout the whole time but didn't undergo structural language change but only adepted words from other languages in a natural way. That would be quite the scenario you are talking of. I myself think there is a way to reconcile all these. It is sure that nobody really wants the scenario with language change as seen in the link (only of course as a second New Gothic for it is fairly interesting). So it is just about borrowing and creating new words. And I guess the medio way is the best. It would be unnormal to keep the language clean of foreign influence. But on the other hand Gothic revival is a playground and a way to express creativity. So, by only adepting borrowed words the language revitalisation would be quite dull. I would always tend to be creative in the first instance, but when a word doesn't seem natural or too stilted I wouldn't dare to take a borrowed word that also correspond to the language's past, which means that a Chinese word would by pretty unlikely, Latin, Spanish, Greek or other Germanic languages would be very much more probable. And concerning the history I would say one should focus more on Spanish or older Spanish. Goths survived the fall of the West Gothic Empire, surely not as an ethnic group or language community until today, seen in some Gothic names of Spanish people. I guess they would have taken a lot of Spanish loanwords throughout the time. And of course Arabic as the Arabic Empire annexed Spain after the Goths failed.
Gothic place names should be first of all articles about that place. But feel free to create an article on special regions that summarise several names there and how they would be in Gothic. A Gothic atlas would of be great, but I guess we all are lacking time and ressources to do that. You can also bring words up for discussion in here. 
(Okay, this text got longer as I firstly intended, sorry. But that's it from my side.) Zylbath (talk) 14:46, 24 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
It seems highly unlikely that the Gothic word for "Peru" would be based on a word used by a native language of Mexico. The natives of Peru callit it "Piruw" or similar things, and so do all the languages of Europe, so there is no way "Incatlan" would find its way into Gothic. I really think Paíru is best here. About personal names, though, you're right, we have to transliterate them. I wasn't suggesting not doing that, as it's the only way. "Amy Wimehouse" would have to be "Eïmei Wáinháus", since this is the transliteration, and I'm okay with it. But, words like "fridge" or "cell phone", however, would get loanwords. It may not be creative, but it's certainly more plausible, and I think it would only make sense. I can't see how the Goths would immediately know that the German word for TV was "Fernsehen" and then calque that, so it's highly unlikely that that's what they'd do. They'd probably use a Spanish or English word, or even Italian for the Ostrogoths (and the two groups would eventually speak different dialects with influences from Spanish and Italian), so it would be, perhaps, "tēlēbisaúr" (tell me if I'm getting too slap-happy with the diacritics). Of course, there's always the possibility that they'd calque "televisor" anyway. The point is, it looks unnatural with this purism. Of course, we wouldn't randomly inject it with foreign words from all around the world, but some LAtin, Greek,  Spanish, Italian, and French would need to get in somehow. It's nothing to be afraid of, until it takes over, like with English. 
And, as for the atlas, what I meant is that we should have a place where we list the Gothic names of places. For example, we'd have the heading "Eitalja", and in bullet points below, it would say "Ruma", "Naiapoleis", etc....--Shikku27316 (talk) 17:19, 24 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
About Peru, I am totally on your side. That article can really be moved. 
About the rest: I'd say that Eïmei Wáinháus would be a bit too much. That would only be for the maxim to transliterate it so it fits the pronounciation the best. But most languages with different scripts, that somehow ressemble the Latin one, use a compromise between that one and that similar letters should be kept when the pronounciation isn't altered too much. That's why I would go with: 𐌰𐌼𐌹 𐍅𐌰𐌹𐌽𐌷𐌰𐌿𐍃. (There is also an old discussion regarding this on the discussion page of that article.)
Well, it is not always natural to borrow words for very modern things. Of course 'television' is a widely used term, but a lot of Germanic languages tend to use their own: German: Fernseher, Low Saxon: Kiekkassen, Sater Frisian: Fiersjoon, Fierkieker, Danish: fjernsyn, Icelandic and Faroese: sjónvarp, Norwegian: fjernsyn, Swedish: fjärrsynthet/fjärrskådning. Your English seems to be your mother tongue, so I would kindly raise the suggestion not to put so much realibility into English in this concern. English underwent so much foreign influence that more than 60% of its vocabulary came from Romance languages or Latin/Greek. It is quite common for Germanic languages to create words with their own morphological tools. So, I would suggest to do so with Gothic. Of course without carrying it too far. Creativity is of the essence and we should put it to use, at least a little bit. For example 'refridgerator' is a word that has this root almost only in Romance languages or English. Most of the languages use their own morphological tools to build a word for it: refridgerator (see translations). 
Another point is: We are facing two problems with Gothic: 1. We only have a restricted documentation, there are a lot of words not attested, and 2. it was spoken centuries ago where a lot of words or notions haven't existed yet. It is therefore advised to use the language's own possibilities to build missing words or reconstruct them by historic linguistics, as long as we don't know what they really used. We can't know whether they used an own word for something or not, but we have to assume it first. Putting tons of borrowed words into Gothic just because it isn't attested or existant when the Goths lived is a bit too easy and kind of not respectful enough for the language. There is a slight difference between that and the language purism as we have him for example in the Icelandic language. There they are deliberatly using own words for keeping the language 'clean' as an expression for something like language proud. In Gothic's case we cannot know what did happen or would have happened, so we must firstly decide for Gothic's sake before we just take words from other languages. But, as I said, this must not go too far and should be kept on a normal level, borrowing is always normal. But this question can't be answered universally, it has to be decided individually on each case. I would always go first with the language's own tools, but I would usually not provoke a quarrel because I am putting ideological or personal-emotional feelings in it. ;) Some words are just predestined to use it from other languages as they are internationalism and mostly everywhere in use. But Gothic has a rich morphology and unlike other old languages that system has been quite well attested, so, why not use it to some extent? Well, that's my epilogue for the day. I wish you a nice evening. ;)
Let me join the discussion. What I don't understand is why nobody here has brought up modern Hebrew. In my attempts to revive Gothic, I 'm thankfully using the only language which is actually revived, although the word order is different from the ancient one (but that's exactly the same with Gothic), which is modern Hebrew. I know some Hebrew and they actually have neologisms for words which the ancient Hebraic population didn't know, but they do exactly the same as I do, build on the old roots. We shouldn't be too stubborn on the loanwords, but we should also try in places where internationalisms aren't used, like with the word 'police', to use neologisms built upon old words. For example, in my newsblog in Gothic I used the word 'wardja' for police, because it is the best approximation of the word. A guard is a person which makes sure that the security is well and that everything is alright, so wardja is the best choice here. For library I have got an agreement with Benjamin Johnson to use the word 'bokahus'. The reason is that the suffix -hus is used for things happening in buildings and 'boka' is the root-word, from which the plural means book or books, so literally it means: 'house of the letter'. This is a very good neologism in my view and better than 'libraria' or something like that, as in this case there isn't an internationalism, German uses: 'Bücherei' or 'Bibliothek', Dutch only 'bibliotheek', Spanish 'biblioteca'. We can of course have 2 words here: 'bokahus' and 'biblioteka', we need to see where the word comes from and just as Wulfila we use the original Greek or Latin word, instead of inventing our own adaptation. I also think that we shouldn't rely too much on Spanish and Arabic words. We don't know which words the Goths would have taken over, so it's preferred that we stay pure and only in the case of internationalisms use loanwords. For example, 'tv' is present in all languages, including Spanish, so we could have this word as 'taivai' in Gothic.

We should also use what most languages use. Most languages use 'far' + 'seeing' for television, so we should use Gothic roots to form the same combination, because all other languages do the same, so the most logical conclusion is that the Goths would have done the same.

I also think that we should try to find some way to create a dictionary in a better way. Wikipedia isn't a good platform for this and I recommend that we use a different website for this objective. I could try to create one, but maybe there are already some possibilities to do this with websites. The reason why we need this is that for translation-work we need to rely on some kind of database or dictionary with words which is easy to use. Bokareis (talk) 13:43, 25 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

Well, for internationalisms that come from Arabic, and many words that are in Spanish and Portuguese, and maybe even Italian, which stem from Arabic can be Arabic-based in Gothic, too. Not every word we don’t know has to be a loanword (I think this is what Zylbath thought I meant), but just some common internationalisms. I think Gothic could have a bit more purity than, say, English or Dutch, but not as much as Icelandic. English was given so many Romance parts because of the Norman Invasion, and now, we have tons of words from them, so Gothic, which is surrounded by Romance languages, wouldn’t realistically be pure, had it survived naturally. I don’t want to step on people’s views that Gothic should be pure, but it’s unlikely that it would.
As for the dictionary, we could find something. I don’t know about Glosbe, since our new words would get in the way of the already attested words in their Gothic dictionary. However, it’s the only thing I can think of right now.--Shikku27316 (talk) 21:13, 25 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we need an alternative. As for modern Gothic. I think that just as modern Hebrew we should choose to build just from Gothic words to be most reliable to the Gothic language. If we lend randomly from Spanish or Arabic or Portuguese, we are creating a conlang, which is not what we want. We want a Gothic language and the only words from Spanish or Portuguese or Arabic which we are allowed to use are the ones which are attested to have been used by the Goths. I don't want this language to become a conlang in the real definition, it is only allowed to become a conlang in the same way as modern Hebrew sometimes is interpreted in it's construction. Just as modern Hebrew only uses semitic languages or Yiddish we should also only rely on Gothic and Germanic languages and culture, exceptions are for example the Greek 'paintedags', which was used by Wulfila and other Goths to describe Thursday. It is attested and although it's Greek and not Germanic it was definitely used by the Goths, so this is a correct word which should be used in modern Gothic too, instead of a modern invention like thundaradags, we should stick with what was actually used by the Goths. Bokareis (talk) 22:01, 25 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC) 

Hello. I didn't think that you would want every word to become a neologism, Shikku. ;) I guess we three are on the same wavelength in this matter. But as I said, it'll be hard to find a universal solution for that. We have to decide that on each word individually, I'd say. And yes, there are tons of better ways to make a dictionary than this. This was rather an auxiliary workaround. We would need a dictionary where everybody can submit new words easily, which then get displayed in an edit queue where everybody can discuss on it, together with a voting possibility. Furthermore every word should have a comment on what the creater thought about the etymology. (I am really really sorry, must've deleted it by accident. :( )Zylbath (talk) 11:37, 26 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Gothic should have too many loanwords, but it would make sense to have some. As for the dictionary, I don't know what we're going to do, besides setting up a website on our own. I have another question: Where can we talk about Gothic culture and the Gothic language revival project in general on here? --Shikku27316 (talk) 21:48, 26 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
Not really in a particular place, as Wikipedia isn't intended to be a language revival service. I have done an attempt at creating a Gothic language website which hasn't been used for months now, here: http://roel.tengudev.com/GutiskaRazda/ 
I stopped developing it. You can add new words by the way if you log in and go to new words and vote for them, and you can add existing words too. But I don't think this is ideal, as I haven't made my own template and this template is simply ugly and not fit for a general website for Gothic. I would like it if there was a webdesigner wanting to help us, as I can do some webdesign, but I 'm an amateur, not a professional. For the dictionary an existing dictionary website is preferred, I will see if I can find one. Bokareis (talk) 21:53, 26 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

You can talk in general about Gothic culture and the language in the yahoo group gothic-l. They have almost 500 members and there are very educated people and gothic culture and language experts. 
For the dictionary: Maybe when I have done my webpage transition from [www.vereindergotischensprache.de] to an English one I could implement a dictionary that would suite our desire. I know some informatics students, some of them are also members in our association for gothic. Maybe when I ask them nicely and give them a bottle of Korn they would lend me a helping hand. ;) Zylbath (talk) 09:05, 27 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
Alright, the dictionary idea sounds good now. UNfortunately, it will be a while before I can get involved in Yahoo groups, but, in the meantime, I can post my findings and ideas perhaps on DeviantArt and then somehow get this community to know about it. I'll also post translations on there, so, if you like, you can check to see if I have anything up whenever. --Shikku27316 (talk) 17:14, 27 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)
Zylbath. I made a word-add system at my website already and you can ask these students of course, but I have a ready-to-use code already. If you can send me which additions you would like, I can make those. I can also send you the code, because it isn't visible to other people (which is logical with PHP, but I also don't want my code to be stolen). You can find the page to add words here, but in order to try out the system you need to make an account, because I don't want guests to post spam-words, this is why I protected this by adding a limitation of needing to be registered. However, although I can code this I 'm terrible at lay-out and templates, in which I want to become better. If you can find students wanting to add a nice lay-out to the code, that would be awesome. Can you also tell me which additions would be good? Bokareis (talk) 22:13, 27 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

qiufrisahts/qiusahts
I don't really know where the 'qiu-' comes from but this word is now widely used on this Wikipedia, so we have to stick to that. But I would say that we should only use 'qiufrisahts' from now on, especially where it matters. Currently we have two categories 'qiusahts' and 'qiufrisahts' which makes no sense as they mean the same thing. In my opinion 'qiufrisahts' shows more of the real meaning, so we should stick to that. Don't you think? They can both stay synonyms, but like in categories, article names etc. one should be chosen. Kevin Behrens (talk) 22:36, 9 𐍅𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

category:𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰𐌱𐍉𐌺𐍉𐍃

 sundrawei 
We really have to find another word for 'privacy'. 'sundro-' is not bad as a part of it, but '-w-ei' isn't even a real ending. Kevin Behrens (talk) 14:26, 14 𐍅𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

 Correction 

It's azbageda, not azbegeda, for alphabet.

Please always put your signature after what you wrote. I just copied that from the page, so it was you who wrote it wrong ;) I changed it now. Thank you for the hint. Zylbath (talk) 01:41, 2 𐌱𐌻𐍉𐌼𐌰𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2012 (UTC)

 Alphabet 

What's the story behind changing the word for alphabet. (as in the etymology) Bleakgh (talk) 00:21, 29 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you can look it up on the niuja waurda page. "azbageda" had no etymological history as it is not sure where the forms "az, ba, ge and da" come from. Now the word is "ansubairka" according to the names of the both first letters of the gothic alphabet. Zylbath (talk) 09:20, 29 𐌰𐌺𐍂𐌰𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2012 (UTC)

 Afarland 

==> Afarland, na. - Africa; Afrika

Isn't it better to change this to:

==> Afrika, na. - Africa,

or is the ; Afrika meaning that Afrika is correct too?

Bokareis (talk) 22:22, 23 𐍅𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)

 Seido 

I understood that the new form is seida, but why should the -o be omitted?

seido - page (Reversal of Verner's Law + change of extension to agree with Gothic gender)

Changing everything back to seida at Polyglotclub.com is practically impossible, I don't even know in how many instances I used it, but the were a lot. I think it would take about 5 hours to change it all back.

Bokareis (talk) 22:23, 23 𐍅𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌼𐌴𐌽𐍉𐌸𐍃 2014 (UTC)