Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
Fram Wikipǣdian
  • Ealdhord: 1234
  • Sēo ēac Help:Innoþ.
  • If you cannot speak Old English but would like to learn, please read the tutorial on Old English. If you do not find it adequate, you could search for Old English lessons, grammars, readers, and so forth on the Internet.

ǷILCUME on þā Engliscan Ƿikipǣdie!

Hēr man mæg findan cȳþþe be manigum þingum geond middangeard, geƿriten on ealdum Engla gereorde, þe Englisc hātte. Micel biþ to rǣdenne þǣm þe ƿile.

• Geƿritu be þǣm Englum •
Angelseaxa ielduCyningasBēoƿulf
• Geƿritu be þǣm Ƿīcingum •
Ƿīcinga ielduHǣðenscipeĪslandǷīnland
• Missenlicu geƿritu •
Geƿritu mid sƿēghordum
Gecorene gemynddagas

21. dæg Searmonðes: Eormenlendisc Ȳþrīdung Dæg; Þēodlic Scrælinga Dæg on Canadan

Gelicnes þære Mameceaster Smæl -cale Experimental Searu

  • 217 BCŌðru Puniisc Gūþ: Þa Cartainisc þreat þærof ƿæs Hannibal heretoga fremmede micel ambush se ƿæs þæt mæste sƿylce þing in stǣre æt þære Trasimene Mere Beadƿe and in þæm stede hæfde Hannibal micel sige ofer Romƿarum.
  • 1898 – In blōdlǣsum dǣd in þære Speonisc–Americanisc Gūþ, fōn þā Geānedan Rīcu Guam of Spēnum.
  • 1919Ludwig von Reuter Scipheretoga scuttled þone Germaniscan Hēahsǣ Flēot in Scapa Flēote þe sƿylce scipu ne beon anām and betƿēox his fiendum beon bedǣled.
  • 1948 – Sēo Mameceaster Smælgrad Experimental Searu, middangeardes forma hordcofarungestrēon rimere, ran his forma rimere rungestrēon.
  • 1964 – Þreo civil rights workers were lynched be cynlingum þæs Ku Klux Klan neah Philadelphia on Mississippi.
  • Þēos Ƿikipǣdia hæfþ 4,471 geƿrita
    • Frignunga •
    HelpNīƿlicu ƿordHū secge ic...?Frignan frignunge
    Wikipædia biþ geræded fram þæm unceapsecendan Wikimedia Foundation, þe rædeþ syndrigum oðerum manigspræclicum and freore understandunge weorcum:
    Wordboc and wordgestreon
    Freo trahtbec and handbec
    Cwida Gaderung
    Freo frumgewritu
    Cynna Getalu
    Freo tidunga innungfruma
    Gedæled innungheddærn
    Wikimedian weorces drifung

    "Code" ƿord[adiht fruman]

    For Morse code, is rūn gōd ƿord? (ȝeƿrites titul "Morse rūn") Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 03:46, 27 Gēolmōnaþ 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Til is hit, hycge ic. Hogweard (talk) 17:16, 5 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I proposed that somewhere else already. (Actually, that might've been for "password" - not sure.) Ne ƿiþcēos ic.   Ƿes hāl!    20:50, 30 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Finnish[adiht fruman]

    Can someone add Finnish to the main page language links? Thanks in advance. -- 11:26, 5 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, sincerely Finnish user :). --Stryn (talk) 11:28, 5 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to the discussion about only having Germanic languages and Latin (and possibly Greek, French, and/or Norman)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:49, 5 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in the archive: here.
    I really don't think we need French or Norman, but that's just me and Ƿodenhelm, I guess.
    Espreon (talk) 04:40, 9 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We've room for plenty of languages there. It's not as if they are jostling for position. Hogweard (talk) 18:06, 9 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to close ang.wikibooks[adiht fruman]

    Someone has proposed to close Wikibec (ang.wikibooks.org). We need to revive the project if we want to save it! I'm scared that it will be deleted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:30, 30 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest copying everything there onto another wiki site. I had not heard of Wikibooks before, and I can only see one chapter of on book there, though more might be hidden in the labyrinthine corridors and shaded nooks of the thing. There cannot be much material to find and move: no need to be scared. Hogweard (talk) 09:38, 30 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I also do not see that there is much material there. If no one's working on it, well, closing is kinda reasonable? An independent wiki can always be started.   Ƿes hāl!    20:48, 30 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Awsome[adiht fruman]

    I notice they've got the multiple page versions now - awesome! But... how is one to make specific edits to only one page version? (Because, for example, although gw-ȝƿ is straightforward, gw-runes is not, nor is runes-gw, and there'll need to be lots of manual corrections, mostly to do with g and ġ, which were distinguished in runes, but not in Latin). Gott wisst (talk) 02:09, 11 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Wes hal! I'm the creator of the "transliteration" script. As you said, gw-ȝƿ is an obvious conversion, but runes are not. I can create some way of manually editing the rune version within a week-month (hopefully) if you would like. It could check for a manually checked /rune subpage and then, if the page exists, display that. If the /rune subpage doesn't exist, it could do an automatic transliteration. If you know JavaScript, you're welcome to copy User:PiRSquared17/spellingstyle.js to a page in your userpage and fix it. So far, it's not so great, but I feel it has potential. Another thing: I've been thinking about clearing out 'ȝƿ' pages which are the same as the 'gw' ones, but I run into many differences in the content (e.g., Rhodenīeg vs Rhode Īeȝ). Any suggestions are welcome. (BTW, I'm a "global sysop" so I can do any other minor tasks needed) PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:31, 11 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I would like. (It would also be good if you good allow for a page version for distinguishing "c" ānd "ċ", "g" and "ġ" (for beginners) in Latin alphabet - which would probably best be totally manual (that is, left blank until someone does it manually), because it's even more complex to convert than from Latin to Runic.)

    Unfortunately, all I know is Wikimarkup and some HTML and CSS stuff.

    Yeah, there are differences in different page versions (which reflect sloppy practice, divisions in opinion, and actual historically recorded variations in OE - but mostly just the first two). Some of the different page will be straightforward to clean up (because they'll be the same). Others will require a bit more in-depth...

    In that specific case of Rhode Island, the difference reflects a historical variation of practice in Old English (although the "n" on "Rhodenīeg" looks to me to have been arbitrarily thrown in by someone to make it look more "Anglo-Saxon") - the variable practice being how to divide words in writing. For example, in OE, one could just as well write "India land" as "Indialand", but it was a grammatically united compound word (because only the "land" bit was inflected). One could also just as well write "Francena rīce" as "Francenarīce", but here it could either be regarded as a grammatically united compound ("Franks'-kingdom") or two separate words ("(the) Franks' kingdom"); so the decision is in that case somewhat arbitary. And a standard practice has never been worked out for this Wikipedia (I favour writing them as single, compound words; this would mean "Rhodeīeg")... And then there's the question of whether or not the name should be more "Anglo-Saxonized" by changing "rh" to "r", since (as far as I'm aware), there are no examples of syllable-initial usages of "rh" in Old English (and there is here no phonological distinction between "r" and "rh" anyway).

    Anyway, I'll work on clean-up of diversified pages. Gott wisst (talk) 22:06, 11 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with this idea, but I have a question: what would happen if someone adds or modifies content to the main (gw) version, but doesn't change it in the rune subpage? As for "ċ" and "ġ", would it be better to just put these in the "main" page's text? I'd be fine with having a separate version including "ċ" and "ġ", but I don't want to have too many options (I had implemented really obscure things like macrons vs accents and yogh vs insular g, but I decided these options just cluttered the interface). The same question about outdated versions applies for the c/ċ thing. Any other suggestions are welcome. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:04, 11 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Regarding the outdating problem: If we got some set of templates going which would be included in the source code, and which would dictate specific ways of handling stuff for only the rune page, that would work, I think. For example, I write "gēar" in the source code, the "g" here being a historical "y" sound (distinguished from historical "g" sound in futhorc writing) - so I put the g in a template something like "{{hpg}}ēar" (template short for "historical palatal g"). I think the Chinese Wikipedia has something like this. This would also completely take away the need for the ability to edit the source code of only one page version.

    I take your point about ċġ (although both the Serbian and the Chinese Wikipedias have as many as four different page versions for a page). I myself would be open for "ċġ" to be combined with "gw" page versions (since there is nothing particularly puristic about "gw" orthography anyway - the main reasons I have seen for it are "ease or writing, modern scholarly conventions, and ease of distinguishing w/ƿ from p" - although combining "gw" and "ċġ" would completely demolish the "ease of writing reason" since writing accurately in ċġ often involves a case-by-case knowledge of etymology - so it's relatively difficult to write). To be honest, I myself do not particularly care to use ċġ (because I usually do have knowledge of the etymology), but I think there are other users here who do (like user:Wōdenhelm, I think), to make it easier for beginners (and I do see the point in that). As such, I should really leave it for someone who does care about to advocate it.

    Anyway, what about the template idea?   Ƿes hāl!    04:05, 13 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC) (Yes, I am Gott Wisst)

    I can't really see any merit in including dotted c and dotted g, even aside from the practical writing problems. They are not authentic and not used in anything but some of the basic primers now. There is even some disagreement about how the c or the g was pronounced in some instances and different dialects had different usage: the c's in wic, dic micel and cirice are soft in the south and hard in the north, for example. Hogweard (talk) 14:41, 13 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Also, there needs to be a way to exclude some writing from being converted in a certain page version (because, for example, you'd want to have separate articles on the letter "w" and the letter "ƿ").   Ƿes hāl!    04:32, 14 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    There already is a way: put something in the HTML/CSS class "nochange". A more practical way of doing this is to put something in {{noc|Do not change this stuff!}}. (You can try converting this page:
    [ gw ] [ ȝƿ ] [ ᚱᚢᚾ ]
    ). (-- PiRSquared)

    Before I do any more deletes, we should probably establish what the "base" article name should be in. I am fine with gw. Anyone object?   Ƿes hāl!    04:46, 14 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I would definitely agree with gw, but I will refrain from deleting until at least 1 other user comments (this could be Hogweard). PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:28, 14 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Also consider this: not all users have JavaScript enabled, so they cannot see the automatic conversions. Is this important? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:32, 14 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I'd say go ahead and do the deletes, now that the script is working. We will need an easy-to-find guide somewhere for anyone who needs to switch the thing on. Hogweard (talk) 23:30, 14 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Cool. Here's instructions from eHow: [1], and for Google Chrome: [2], and here's one that includes Opera: [3] Gott wisst (talk) 01:08, 15 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Also, while I'm about it, how about standardizing what happens when we need to do something equivalent to Modern English "Roanoke, Virginia"? I advocate putting it in brackets, as in most other Modern European language, and as we do for every single other category to specify the meaning of the word.   Ƿes hāl!    07:18, 15 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    The help page should be updated. Should we recommend/say that source code be written only in gw?   Ƿes hāl!    04:27, 16 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    There's no harm in letting people write using wynn/yogh because we can automatically convert it. However, writing the main source of pages in runes should be discouraged, because there are some problems (like eth vs thorn). If we have to choose one version as a recommendation, I'd choose gw over ȝƿ (because it's easier to type and works on every font). PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:00, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Okay. Gott wisst (talk) 21:16, 19 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I notice that when you first enter an article, you get the actual source-code version (e.g. in some cases inconsistently gw/ȝw), which can look messy. Is there any way to make it so that when a person first click on an article, they get, for example, the more tidy fully gw version?   Ƿes hāl!    21:40, 21 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    The best way to get me to do something is to bother me about it on m:User talk:PiRSquared17. I'm sorry I have been putting this off for so long, but I'm busy with other things ATM. Hopefully it's not much of a problem. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:45, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Not too troublesome. Thanks for saying so, though. Did you see that I did modify that Rune page you asked me to look at?   Ƿes hāl!    09:40, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    This? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:33, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, that. Gott wisst (talk) 05:43, 16 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    The G issue[adiht fruman]

    I have observed that in this wikipedia articles the g letters are transliterated to ȝ (that was mainly used in Middle English). Wouldn't be more correct to transliterate them to Ᵹ (that was mainly used in Old English)? --12qwas (talk) 02:11, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    That would make sense. After all, insular g is what we want, yogh is just an approximation for people whose computers don't display the insular g character. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:13, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    "...for people whose computers don't display the insular g character." Like mine (though isn't it the browser?). This of course brings up the debate of even using ȝ/insular g, since in OE times it was simply the local way of writing g (as evidenced by the fact that it was used even in locally written Latin documents). As opposed to "ƿ", which was clearly of distinct derivation to Latin "w".   Ƿes hāl!    03:44, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    BTW, here a fantastically accurate OE font. Don't know if this is useful or not: http://www.fontspace.com/peter-s-baker/old-english-fonts   Ƿes hāl!    04:48, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Um, how do I get Unicode insular g?   Ƿes hāl!    04:58, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I use Code 2000. It works perfectly, it allows me to see runes, gothic letters, insular g, and almost everything. This [4] is a link where there are several fonts, try the Code 2000, but be careful and don't try Code 2001, because when I used this one, my computer couldn't show some letter that code 2000 indeed could. --12qwas (talk) 12:16, 17 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Insular g in Unicode is U+1D79 (). There is a capital letter version too, which seems odd, U+A77D, though that does not come out on my machine. (Unicode characters can be found on the Unicode search page.) Hogweard (talk) 16:18, 23 Solmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    New front page[adiht fruman]

    We discussed the problem of the somewhat eye-soreish front page before... Could yall have a look at what I've put in the sandbox and give opinions? It's quite minimalistic.   Ƿes hāl!    04:15, 7 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    And it's now actually scaling OK.  Ƿes hāl!    20:24, 7 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    We ought to settle what is right and what is wrong with the front page. We cannot imitate the New English Wikipedia as we simply don't have enough dynamic content, so we'll have to fill the space with fixed links and things.
    We should try to reflect Anglo-Saxon culture. The Latin one uses a title which imitates a temple inscription, and a statue of Caesar. On ours we have just the reproduction Sutton Hoo helmet, which is a bit big and starey perhaps. I was wondering about somehow using an illuminated letter containing, perhaps, the picture of Ezra writing in the Codex Amiatinus, though the latter image is somewhat faded and I am not a good enough artist (or indeed any sort of artist) to touch it up. We could have a set of images.
    The colours need to be bright to accord with Anglo-Saxon art (the colours of hedgerow flowers, I was told, as the dyes come from them). Hogweard (talk) 10:38, 8 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I assume you did look at the sandbox? As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to fill space. If used okay, space can be a nice visual element. I'll have a look at some images of Anglo-Saxon documents and art.   Ƿes hāl!    21:15, 8 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    So long as everyone is happy with the background colours, content, and layout, I propose we now put the design up. I can update the decorative pictures as I continue to reinstate them. Hwæt secgaþ gē?   Ƿes hāl!    10:23, 22 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Have a look at the Cornish Wikipedia front page; quite effectively local. The Bavarian one is less pretty good too (now I don't have to feel guilty about our picture of "typical Bavarians").
    I like what has been done to our front page but if we want to fill some of the blank space (and squeeze the "on this day" bit more into proportion) then we could think about more front-page links to Anglo-Saxon / Dark Age culture, if we have the material to which to link. Hogweard (talk) 18:26, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    We could focus on creatving such material for a while - do a drive. After all, it is particularly relevant to OE. I am continuing to touch up the so far partially touched up illumination elements.   Ƿes hāl!    20:17, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Hey, looking at the Cornish Wikipedia, I belive we be able to use the same technique to have a vellum background for our front page.   Ƿes hāl!    03:51, 14 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I asked at the Nedersaksies Wikipedia for the code they used for that background image (like on the Cornish Wikipedia), adn this is the answer:

    "Moi. Dan kö'j t beste in Wikimedia:Common.css kieken, en dan met name:

    table.veurbladtabel {
      background:url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Bargerveen_after_sunset.jpg/1450px-Bargerveen_after_sunset.jpg') no-repeat left top; 


    So I'll see what I can do with this. Gott wisst (talk) 02:59, 17 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, so what we actually need to edit is this Wikipedia's "MediaWiki:Common.css" file. I believe I need admin authority for that. However, I believe that with this it will be possible to get a vellum background, if anyone's interested. Yay!Gott wisst (talk) 03:15, 17 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    If you want, I can do this for you. Just tell me the exact changes to make. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:29, 17 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I've had a further brainwave. Using this technique, I believe it would be possible to do some more elaborate, illumination-like borders around the edges (albeit somewhat simpler, than, say, the borders found on some pages in the Lindisfarne Gospels), and they would still scale quite well. This is because: Using this technique, zoomed in, you can only see a part of the image; but as you zoom out, you see more of the image; so, you could have top, horizontal border that, horizontally, looked farily constant (vertically there could be more variation - it could look more elaborate in all than the stock standard CSS borders, and could fir the theme well) and was deliberately of excessive length, which would join right up against the borders for the side of the page; and as you scrolled out, it would simply show more of the length of the image. And in the corners, you could have fairly elaborate decorations. It would take a bit of work to organize, of course.   Ƿes hāl!    10:48, 17 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, PiRSquared17, could you put this code at the bottom of the MediaWiki:Common.css page:
    table.hēafodtrametbred1 {
      background:url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ang/4/46/H%C4%93afodtramet1.jpg') no-repeat left top; 
    table.hēafodtrametbred2 {
      background:url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ang/8/86/H%C4%93afodtramet2.png') repeat left top; 
    The first bit is the vellum background, and the second bit is a bit more experimental... just to see if my idea will work.   Ƿes hāl!    09:51, 18 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Dōn. If it doesn't work, I'd suggest trying it without any macrons. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:27, 18 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    So, as can be seen, I've put the vellum background on the main body of the hēafodtramet. How does everyone find it? Need a slight shade adjustment? Redder? Greener? Etc? Because this is the simplest part of the task ahead, I want to get it over and done with, I guess. Also, do we want a vellum background also on the top and bottom bars? If so, do we just want this same one, or A slightly different shade, to keep the slight highlight idea that is currently in place going? I kinda like the highlight atm... But in the long run, with the idea of an fully elaborate-bordered page, the top and bottom bar may not be best to keep their highlights.   Ƿes hāl!    10:00, 19 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    It's looking good. Hogweard (talk) 16:51, 22 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Bad news - I don't think I can get the side-border images to automatically scale vertically to the height of the rest of the table. I can get the top and bottom borders to scale to the width, though.   Ƿes hāl!    23:17, 1 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    What's the point of having a wikipedia in a dead language?

    You would've done better to ask the boys and girls over at Latin, since their Wikipedia is pretty much the most vigorous, successful, and prominent example of a "dead" language Wikipedia; but perhaps the backlash would've been too much, or perhaps you already have. However, we do use OE (for myself, I use it not just here), and therefore do not like to say it is dead. You could also have gone and trolled the Esperanto Wikipedia and asked what the use was of having a Wikipedia in a constructed language, but I think you shouldn't.
    To specifically answer your question, representing myself only: Because I enjoy reading and using Old English. Þæt is se intinga.   Ƿes hāl!    05:12, 17 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    It is an honest question and robustly put, which is as our ancestors would have appreciated. I see the Old English Wikipedia as an educational project; we can all learn screeds of Old English from the poems and texts left to us by our ancestors but the Wicipedia makes us stretch ourselves to make that language come alive.
    Picking new words for concepts then unknown is pushing the boundaries a bit, but it gets you thinking; a rare commodity amongst Wikipedians.
    There are no native speakers left, although on occasion I find myself thinking in Old English for a phrase or two; sometimes it has the best expressions. The dialects of the West Country shires have a great deal of it; just two hundred years ago commentators were claiming West Saxon was alive and well there though perhas with some exaggeration. There are a great many re-enactors about who re-eanct life and battles of the age, and some of them get into it more than just dressing up and camping for a week or so; you should see their homes! This is much the same for language; live it and speak it and you come to understand it better and bring it to others.
    There are more many motives for building the OE Wikipedia than there are users. The language is part of all of us who are descended from the people of that age and a cultural jewel; in the Dark Ages, English was the only living language in Western Europe to be written down, as everywhere else they used degraded Latin, as if their own tongues were somehow inferior, but no one of us will let Englisc be seen as in anyway inferior to any Latinate tongue. You could cynically say "there is a Latin one so there must be an Englisc one", but we are not dependent on Latin: Englisc is a living influence on the world through its descendant language. Hogweard (talk) 12:22, 17 Hrēþmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Why is there no Old Norse Wikipedia? I want so read a Wikipedia in MY ancestors' language. Aleof (mōtung) 01:05, 4 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    System message tidy up[adiht fruman]

    Looking at the system messages, it's not exactly a tidy affair. I'd like to tidy them up over at trasnlatewiki.net, but some stuff needs to be resolved.

    • Use imperative or infinitive for "computer commands" - I favour imperative as I know of no precedent in OE for using infinitive as a command or for suggestions or anything like that
    • It will be in gw? (I'm fine with this - perhaps at a later date we could get some further automatic page conversion for ȝƿ and rūn.)
    • I suggest that translating "save" as in "save page" as "sparian" is ridiculous, since that means "sapre, show mercy to" or "refrain from using" (so "sparian tramet" means "refrain from using page" or "show mercy to page"); I propose instead "hordian" - "store, put into storage".
    • Should "page" be "tramet" ("page (of a book)") or "sīde" ("side/flank (of a building, of a living creature") (both words are currently in use) or something else?
    • Should "file" just be "fīl"? (I prefer something like "gewithord".)
    • Date format (I don't know if this is actually an issue for system messages): In OE, the only documented date format I am aware of was very full, e.g. "se V dæg Hlȳdan þæs D gēares" - "the fith day of March of the five hundredth year" (that is not a historical example, but I can provide one on request). This is obviously a bit annoyingly long to write. Can anyone provide an attested shorter format? I suggest using the principle that ordials could be used as nouns (where it is already understood what they stand for), and just do "se V Hlȳdan þæs D" (since we would know what they stand for), which could further be shorterened to "5. Hlȳdan 500." using Roman numerals and the idea that definitive articles are non-essential.
    • Any other issues anyone knows need to be resolved?

      Ƿes hāl!    22:29, 1 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I would use infinitives in those contexts since it seems that's what languages with distinct infinitive forms, including German and Icelandic, typically use in these new (and... strange) contexts.
    I would prefer tramet since it's attested for 'page' and fits in with some sort of book metaphor (yeah, I imagine Wikipedia as some sort of weird tome).
    As for 'file', I think that gewithord (or a similar compound with hord) would do.
    For "file", is that a storage location, or an envelope, or a piece of work? If the latter, i would use "geweorc". Hogweard (talk) 08:36, 9 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I am aware of the Roman-style dates used in ASC, and I guess I wasn't counting them as "Anglo-Saxon"... I prefer "native(r)".
    That is "file" as in "computer file" or more broadly "one single collection of data" (hence why I offered "gewit-hord" - "collection of knowledge (data)", albeit "gewit" may or not be the best word for it), like the images that we upload to Wikipedia and put on article pages.   Ƿes hāl!    22:48, 9 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Good point on "file", and you are right that gewit would be wrong. In Icelandic they use skrá, which I think is equivalent to the Englisc ymele.
    "Ymele" meaning "scroll"... However, consider Dutch "bestand" - "archive" (and words with similar meanings in other languages, including English itself with the word "file) - which is why I proposed a compound ending in "-hord". The reason I said "gewit" is maybe not the best for a component for, for example, "gewit-hord" (as a proposal for "file") is because it seems to mainly have the meaning "mind", "intellect (refinement or sophistication of the mind)", "understanding" - as opposed to MnE "file" in the sense of "compilation of data", which word "data" seems to me more similar in meaning to "knowledge" (as in, "what may be known" or "what is known") (because a computer "knows" the data it has stored on it, which is compiled into files - as opposed to a computer having "a sophisticated intellect which is compiled in a file", which might be a "gewithord").

      Ƿes hāl!    12:17, 10 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Aye; ymele is indeed a scroll or leaf of paper (as opposed to ymel, which is a canker-worm, or perhaps a bug!) It seems singularly apprpriate. What we need is someone who speaks "Ancient Geek". Hogweard (talk) 12:50, 10 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, so far on system message tidy up:
    • It will be in GW
    • Infinitive will be used for "computer imperative"
    • "No one seems to have specifically objected to my proposed shorthand date format, so that will be implemented if relevant
    • "Ymele" for "file" (I am... okay with this)
    • "Tramet" for all instances "page"
    • "Hordian" for "save"

    I will start working on this ASAP unless someone objects.   Ƿes hāl!    22:59, 29 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    That looks good to me. I'll be off WP for a while so I must leave you to it! Hogweard (talk) 12:57, 30 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    [I have moved the discussion on dates down to here]

    Date format (I don't know if this is actually an issue for system messages): In OE, the only documented date format I am aware of was very full, e.g. "se V dæg Hlȳdan þæs D gēares" - "the fith day of March of the five hundredth year" (that is not a historical example, but I can provide one on request). This is obviously a bit annoyingly long to write. Can anyone provide an attested shorter format? I suggest using the principle that ordials could be used as nouns (where it is already understood what they stand for), and just do "se V Hlȳdan þæs D" (since we would know what they stand for), which could further be shorterened to "5. Hlȳdan 500." using Roman numerals and the idea that definitive articles are non-essential.

    I guess something like "5. Hlȳdan 500." would be fine, but perhaps we should give the day number a case morph — if the ordinals' different case forms are distinct enough from each other. And I guess that could be paired with a clever abbreviation of "gēares" or perhaps even something like "es" (I think this is valid).
    Espreon (talk) 19:21, 8 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    By "case morph" I assume you mean something like "5ta Hlȳdan"? The reasons I don't like this idea are: #1. "1." with just a dot after it is more similar to the historical OE practice, which was a Roman numeral with a dot on either side of it (no declension written...); #2. The case thing is messy with with non-word-representative written numbers (like Roman or Arabic numerals) - for example, we could say that "5" represented the word "fīf", and then that "5ta" represented the word "fīfta", but what about "2", whose ordinal is "ōðer"? You end up not marking it as distinct from the cardinal. Also, what to do with composite numbers? In spoken OE, unlike Modern English, we would say the number "1,923" as something like "þūsend nigon hundred þrēo and twentig" - not in the same order as the digits written in Arabic numerals. Likewise, the ordinal form of this would be something like "þūsendoða nigon hundtēontigoða þrēo and twentigoða", and we see a further quirk - the "þrēo" is not even given an ordinal ending. So, would we write the ordinal for "1,923" as "1,923" (because last digit is "3", which is here not given a distinct ordinal form) or "1,923oða" ("-oða" being the finally placed ordinal ending of the number as spoken, but not the suffix of 3, the finally written digit - confusing?).

    All that (reason #2.) to say: Arabic numerals are a specific written number format that do not actually represent how OE numbers were said out loud, and in OE it is particularly messy to mix the methods used in spoken language to mark ordinals with this written number format which does not even represent how cardinals were spoken.

    And reason #1: Using just a dot to mark ordinals is more similar to historical written OE practice (albeit not exactly the same).   Ƿes hāl!    00:23, 9 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah, you got what I meant... though I now see that I shouldn't have used that term (sorry about that). For ōðer, I guess I was thinking of having something like "2er" or something. And I completely forgot how things get more complicated when we get to the bigger numbers. Yeah, I came up with a bad idea. Oh well.
    Espreon (talk) 03:13, 9 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Dates in the ASC are frequent but use the Roman style, so .xii. kalendas martii for example ("seven days before the kalends of March"). Hogweard (talk) 08:36, 9 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Do we have any source for dates which are not written by monks with an eye on Ancient Rome? Hogweard (talk) 09:35, 10 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I was pretty sure I'd seen a fair number of such Anglo-Saxon-er dates, but so I far I have (only) re-found many non-comprehensive dates (e.g. "...þām fīftēoðan gēare..." - "...in the fifteenth year..." and "Under ðam fíftéðan dæge Kalendarum Octobris..." - "During the fifteenth day of the month of October...") (I am still searching). Of course, using normal grammar rules it is extremely easy to come up with a construction like "þȳ nigoðan dæge þæs Ǣrran Gēolan þæs 800. gēares" - "on the ninth day of December of the 800th year". However, even though it is blatantly obvious that no Anglo-Saxon would have trouble understanding that, it would be more satisfying, I suppose, to have historical precedent example... But it is also good to be concise - hence why I suggested what I suggested, which is concise, and does fit Anglo-Saxon grammar (even though is not "maximumly distinct and explicit" in what it is trying to communicate) (unlike "9 Gēola 2013" which totally overrides normal Anglo-Saxon grammar rules, because it neither recognizes that Anglo-Saxons did not normally use cardinals as ordinals (some ordinal constructions included cardinal forms, such as "se þridda mann ēac þrittig" or "se þrēo and twentigoða mann"), nor does it recognize that nominative is not the appropriate case to use to show that a particular day belongs to a particular month...).  Ƿes hāl!    12:17, 10 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    While we could not write "se an Geolmonaþ", with numbers it is another matter. Arabic numerals may stir debate but they are practical - in the ASC there are plenty of instances of (Roman) numerals used either as a cardinal or an ordinal number without any addition.
    Dates generally:
    • Her Aldfrið Norþanhymbra cining forðferde on xix kalendæ Ianauriis on Driffelda
    • Her Brihtwold ærcebiscop forðferde on Idus Ianuarii
    • Her Ianberht wæs gehadod to ærcebiscop on ðon xl dæg ofer midewinter 7 Friðewald biscop æt Witerne forðferde on nonæ Mai. se wæs gehalgod on Ceastrum on xviii kalendæ Septembris þam vi wintra Ceolwulfes rices. 7 he wæs biscop xxix wintra; þa man gehalgode Pyhtwine to biscop æt Ælfetee on xvi kalendæ Augusti to Hwiterne.
    • forbearndon Beorn ealdorman on Seletune on ix kalendæ Ianauriis
    • ðære oðre tid on niht on xvii kalendæ Februarii
    • to candelmæssan iii Nonæ Februarii

    Years numbered as AD are throughout the ASC as side note to date the entry, but an example in the text (which also has an ordinal regnal number as a numeral) is:

    • Ðes writ wæs gewriton æfter ure Drihtnes acennednesse dc lxiiii þes kyningas Wulhferes seoueðende gear. þes ærcebiscopes Deusdedit ix gear.

    Another ordinal in numerals is:

    • Þis wæs gedon æfter ure Drihtnes acennednesse dc lxxx þes kininges vi gear æðelredes.
    I would like to see an original text for these rather than a transcription though.
    Hogweard (talk) 12:47, 10 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I have no problem with using Arabic numerals, because I am aware of the practicality.

    I acknowledge that (to my knowledge) in OE there are not (any/consistent) examples of distinguishing between cardinal and ordinal numbers when written as Roman numerals, even though to the best of our knowledge they did make a spoken distinction (that is, they would have read "se vi dæg" as "se sixta dæg"). However, I think we should make a written distinction, to avoid ambiguous situations like "se 1 mann" ("the singular man") and "se 1 mann" ("the first man"), or again "þā 2 hādas þe cōmon" ("the two people who came") and "þā 2 hādas þe cōmon" ("the second (group) of people who came". I used to not distinguish between ordinals and cardinals in writing, but I believe I cam across some ambiguous things that could be written, like the examples above. That's why I advocate distinguishing between ordinals and cardinals in writing. Do you agree that we should distinguish between ordinals and cardinals in writing Arabic numerals?

    And of course, there are very many non-formal-format, "natural" date or time reference examples from OE that I could give that support my idea of, for example "se seofoða dæg þæs þūsendoðan nigon hundtēontigoðan twā and fēowertigoðan gēares" for a grammatically correct and explicit, comprehensive date format from which to work to come up with a grammatically correct (albeit not historically preceded) short-hand format. I am aware that Roman-style date format (including Latin words) was the main one(/sole attested format in the context of a formatted date) used in OE, but I do not see that being used on this Wikipedia, nor do I particularly want to use it, because it is from Latin, and it seems to me rather untidy to have this little smudge of Latin grammar rules and vocabulary the middle of an OE sentence. Also, OE was perfectly capable, with its own grammar and vocabulary, of having a format of its own (as is shown by the many written "natural speech" examples of non-formal-format date or time-reference) (I believe that the only reason they did't was because of pre-existing standard church practice, which church provided very many of the OE documents we have today). Furthermore, the Roman-style dates in OE are not in line with modern practice - they worked off counting how many days from a benchmark day a date was (as I understand it) (and as such, in that format, it is fine to have the number for the days as a cardinal ("one day before the calends of March" not "the first day before the calends of March"), but that is not the format in use currently on this Wikipedia, and so is not relevant), rather that what day of what month of what year the date was (which is the overwhelmingly standard modern practice, and which does have examples of being used in OE - maybe just not in formal date format... only in "natural", speech-representative writing. I assume that you also do not want to use Roman style format. If you do, though, please explain.

    BTW, "on ðon xl dæg ofer midewinter" and "vi wintra Ceolwulfes rices" are "natural speech" examples of part of what I am advocating, in that they are examples of date or time-reference given in natural speech that does not step on OE grammar. It does not exemplify my advocating a distinction between ordinal and cardinal.

    Also, in those last two examples you gave, unless those were spoken out as Anglo-Saxon numbers rather than in Latin numbers or as letters, I would also merely regard them as Roman-style date format, which is what we are not currently using, anyway. I would suggest that they were probably not read as Anglo-Saxon numbers (e.g. "...Drihtnes acennednesse six hundred and eahtig...") because we know from other formal date formats, that the month name and the word "kalendae" were clearly written, and therefore almost certainly almost spoken, in Latin. As such, I extrapolate that the day and the year were also read as if in Latin, and if for example the "xii" (representing the the number of days before...) in, for example, "xii kalendae" was actually spoken as Anglo-Saxon numbers, it does not obviously represent the method(s) used in all/pretty much all explicity clear examples in OE of written natural speech date or time reference - that is to say, there is nothing that I am aware of that would lead me to believe that "xii" was actually read aloud in Anglo-Saxon as "tƿelf daga" and that "dc lxxx" was read aloud in Anglo-Saxon as "six hundred and eahtig", whereas there is stuff that explicity suggests to me that it was read aloud in Latin.

    But you said that the example you gave also provided an example of regnal number. This fascinates me, as it has been illusive to me for ages (although I have found an example of an ordinal being used with a proper noun, like "se ōðer Iohannes" - "the second/other John" (note that that wasn't the historical example that I found - I'd have to do some digging to find it)). Could you please clearly point out the example? I couldn't find it.

    I would also be interested in seeing the original text.   Ƿes hāl!    23:51, 10 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I'd like to see this resolved.   Ƿes hāl!    21:50, 15 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I have found a few images but it's past midnight and I have no time to do a lengthy review. All are from the Peterborough Chronicle and thanks to the Bodleian Library. See what you can make of Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=2&trs=187 this one, or Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=5&trs=187 this one. In Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=3&trs=187 this one there is an interesting mix: "111,000" is written .c.xi. þusend.
    Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=1&trs=187 This one has a cardinal and an ordinal number and makes no distinction in the numerals ("in the 45th year").
    Chronicle years are written very clearly Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=18&trs=187 here in red. The first date (as in date in the month) is Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=22&trs=187 here, and another Laud Misc. 636;sort:Shelfmark%2Csort_order;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=165&trs=187 here. (The scribe seems to have taken to writing a little <superscript>o</superscript> over numbers by this stage.) Anyway, do have a look. Hogweard (talk) 23:11, 16 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for the images. Summary so far:

    • We use Arabic numerals
      • No one seems to have a problem with this
    • There are attested long and comprehensive natural-speech date formats in OE ("se x dæg Hrēðmōnðes" kinda thing)
    • But shorthand date formats are desirable for writing (easier to read and write)
    • The only shorthand date format used in OE appears to have been, I guess at the time fairly internationally standard, Roman-style.
      • We are currently not using Roman style
      • I do not want to use Roman style, and no one else has said that they do
      • I do not think that Roman style should be regarded as a precedent for any non-Roman-style date format we use, because I think probably it was treated as a block of Latin within OE when read aloud, not as OE (e.g. they did not read the dates using OE words, but rather Latin words)
    • We are currently mostly using an apparent immitation of the style used in many modern languages - "number month number" (as in, "1 Gēolmōnaþ 1999")
      • While I have no problem with the "day (of) month (of) year" format" in general, no consideration at the moment has been given to OE grammar in this format
    • No one has presented evidence that written ordinal numerals were distinguished from written cardinal numerals in OE by anything but context
      • But I still think we should anyway, to make it easier and clearer to read
        • I think we should use a dot to mark ordinals - nice and simple, and does not bring up any messy issues that mixing natural speech writing with written numerals does (also, although not OE practice, it is more similar to the OE (non-)practice than appending a suffix taken from natural speech). Actually, this is a common international practice (German, Finnish, Czech, Norwegian, Turkish, and Polish, that I can see from Wiktionary) (not that I regard common international practice in itself as a particularly good argument - its just an added benefit)
    • In short, I propose that we do distinguish ordinal from cardinal (using a dot), that we do give consideration to OE grammar in our shorthand date format, and that we do cut corners where grammatically possible
      • considering all this, I suggest a shorthand date format likes this: "4. Æfterran Gēolan 1992." - "(the) fourth (day) of December (of the) 1992th (year)" - because stand-alone ordinals can be used standalone as nouns (and given the format, we will understand what nouns they stand for), and the dot method for marking ordinals does not take into account declension (the alternative being a messy solution)
        • Note that this is actually simply a shortening of the longer natural-speech OE format (shortened using grammatically precedented methods - using a stand-alone ordinal for a noun instead of an ordinal and a noun)

    Anyone have issues with any of the suggestions? If so, say away (and please explain why). Gott wisst (talk) 03:54, 17 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    That is a good summary. Hogweard (talk) 11:10, 18 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    ȜǷ enhanced by Beowulf font[adiht fruman]

    As I understand it, that main reason we have ȝƿ, is because it looks more like "authentic" OE script than gw (that's the main reason I support it being there, at least). Of course, it doesn't actually go all the way, and for that it is somewhat inconsistent. However, I have a found a great font here: http://www.dafont.com/beowulf1.font, which is lifted from Beowulf, and therefore does represent "authentic" OE script. I think we should have this as the preferred font for the ȝƿ page slot - go the whole hog on authenticity. It would not be too hard to have a link to this font for download, and it's not like it would reduce accessibility.   Ƿes hāl!    23:05, 11 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    It's a good, authentic font: I have it on my computer at home and a couple of years ago I somehow persuaded the IT folk to let me instal it on my office machine. I don't use it for memos though (well, rarely). You could try it, if it can work just by being on the WP machines. If it needs a link and a download by every casual user then it's too far from the "accessible by all" idea of WP.
    Actually the reason we have ȜǷ is that one particular user insisted that w is inauthentic and has no place here outside proper names. He was insistent on yogh too as an expression of the soft g (and would not be persuaded that it is more inauthentic than w). We stopped short of warring over dotted-c. He found support for his opinion, getting a bare majority of the then active users on his side - it got very hot on ang:, as you may recall, and the ȜǷ / GW alternative was a compromise we settled on. I don't know how he would react to an actual authentic font, and I don't intend to stir him up by asking! I'm not going to stand in the way though. Hogweard (talk) 18:16, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    It would not compromise accessability at all, because there would still be the gw version, and if one font doesn't work, and a fallback isn't specified on the web-page, than the user's default browser font takes over.
    If that particular person wishes to, they can participate in the discussion. However, if they advocated ƿ on the basis on authenticity.... well, this is the next step along the way, I guess.   Ƿes hāl!    19:53, 12 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    The font would have to be installed locally (on the user's computer). Unless you want to see if we can do mw:Extension:WebFonts (mw:Extension:UniversalLanguageSelector). Other than that, it's a simple change. Do you want to make this the default or some kind of setting? PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:25, 16 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    For now, I would like to simply set it as default - and the font's very informal "license" would seem to allow for that - "This package is provided free of charge to students and scholars of Old English. You may give it away (please keep this document with it), but you may not sell it. You may use it in publications without obtaining permission." (I would say we fall under the "publications" category). Note that for this to work well this will require editing the conversion script so that macrons are instead converted into accute accents, because that it what this font uses for length marks; and wynn instead should stay as w, and yogh should stay as g. Would it be possible to also have a backup conversion to be as it is now, in case a person doesn't have that font, doesn't want/know how to install it, but would still like ȝƿ?
    In the long run, it would be good to have it as a webfont, but according to that page on Wikimedia, they only support freely licensed fonts. In that case, I would need to contact Peter S. Barker to see if he were interested in formally putting the font under one of the licenses that they'll accept, or I'd need to painstakingly assemble a font myself (or someone else would need to).   Ƿes hāl!    23:07, 16 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, perhaps a easier to achieve and implement solution would be: small g (nothing happen to capital G - because OE capital G looked quite like normal modern Latin alphabet capital G) to small insular g (ᵹ); small d to insular d (ꝺ) (again, nothing happen to the capital); small s to insular s (ꞅ) (not capital); small to insular t (ꞇ) (not capital); small r to insular r (ꞃ) (not capital); small f to insular f (ꝼ) (not capital); small y to dotted y (ẏ) (not capital); and of course, small and capital w to small and capital ƿ. And: All macroned vowels to acute vowels (because that more acurately represents how the marks actually used in OE looked - and it's authenticy of look that the current ȝƿ page version exits for, as I see it, really). Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find an undotted small i - that would be ideal since OE small i wasn't dotted. Again, this would not at all reduce accessability because there would still be the gw version of the page (and the source would be gw).   Ƿes hāl!    10:44, 16 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Delete this project[adiht fruman]

    I'm contribute in the spanish wikipedia. The Wikipedia in dead languages no exist, this project in aenglisc have been deleted. --Geógrafo23 (talk) 18:11, 26 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    There are other Wikipedias in dead languages, like the Latin Wikipedia. Also, this project has been proposed for closure before. You can do it again if you really want, but I doubt it will end up closed. The project would not be deleted if closed. Rather, its contents would just be unchangeable (except for stewards). However, I hope that doesn't happen. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:21, 26 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    User:Gottistgut‎ is now a temp admin, to expire 2013-10-30[adiht fruman]

    Anyone else want to become an admin to clean up the wiki? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:39, 30 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    WikiLang[adiht fruman]

    Have you all heard about WikiLang? I think it's a good idea... Have a look. Maybe it'll be good for this project.   Ƿes hāl!    10:28, 7 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I'm supporter 2. ;) I started the demo (m:WikiLang/Main Page), so I might be able to help with some stuff. Or just ask Zylbath, the proposer, from the Gothic WP. ;) You could discuss new words there or document other things about Old English. Feel free to add to m:WikiLang/Old English (which I see you've started!) any content you want. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:18, 7 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    You can also start m:WikiLang/Germanic like m:WikiLang/Algic. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:15, 7 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Hello. It is never too late to support us. ;) Just come over, write to organisations, spread the word so we can get a lot of recommendations by linguists. I really see a big need in that project. Thank you. Zylbath (talk) 09:32, 14 Winterfylleþ 2014 (UTC)

    British Library online OE manuscript facsimiles[adiht fruman]

    Just thought I'd let you all know that the British Library has quite a few high-resolution facsimiles of various OE manuscripts available to view online, including Beowulf, Judith, the Leechdoms, that Latin grammar book, the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Royal Gospels, incomplete OE Hexateuch, and more (as well as many other old manuscripts, including Leonardo's diary...). It's an impressive goldmine. See here: [5]   Ƿes hāl!    04:43, 6 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Place names resolution[adiht fruman]

    There are a few unresolved issues regarding place names/words on this Wikipedia:

    • Translation of "new" as a seperate word. The only precedent practice I know of regarding, for example "new" in place names in OE, would be its antonym "eald" in "Eald-seaxe", which was compounded rather than treated as a seperate word. This same compounding happens today in German and Dutch. Modern Icelandic, on the other hand, does have a seperate "New". Either way, the adjectival form of place news with "new" should definitely be compounded, because otherwise "nīwe" becomes an adverb, so uncompounded adjectival form of "Nīwe Sǣland" would be "Nīwe Sǣlendisc" and would actually mean "newly Zealandic", not "pertaining to New Zealand". Same goes for languages, acutally, "þæt Nīwenglisce word" ("the Modern English word") not "þǣt Nīwe Englisce word" - "the new Anglo-Saxon word".
    • Compound placenames ending in "īeg" (or "ēa" or "beorg" or "munt" or "burg", etc.): Now, there is no doubting, for example, that "Cōc Īeȝ" is for purposes of grammar one word only. So, should it be written as one word, also? The only downside I can see to writing it as one word is that otherwise familiar nouns from Modern English or whatever language become less instantly recognizable recognizable in OE writing, for example, "Rhodeīeg" is not as instantly recognizable as "Rhode Īeg". I tend to writing as one because it reflects the grammatical situation, and "Cape Tūn" (or, if you want, "Næss Tūn") looks in my subjective sight worse that "Rhodeīeg".

    Input, please.   Ƿes hāl!    23:25, 21 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You make good points for both. I say just do the proper/correct thing, and make them all compound words (unless there's good reason not to). Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 02:20, 22 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems most consistent with the texts I have seen. There are exceptions, such as Bradan ford (Bradford on Avon) or in Her dræfde Eadgar cyng þa preostas on Ceastre of Ealdanmynstre 7 of Niwanmynstre. The Northumbrians are variously Norþhymbre and Norþanhymbre, but you never see westernan Seaxe. The Chronicle has no niw- names that I have seen but place-names like "Newark" (presumably Niwweorc) suggest the names were compounds, as otherwise or the niw would be declined. Hogweard (talk) 11:34, 23 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So then, do write, for example "Rhodeīeg"? Also, do write, for example, "Nīwsǣland"?   Ƿes hāl!    06:56, 26 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, [mumble talks into hand] probably, though New Zealand might also be þæt Nīwe Sǣland; "the new Zealand", just as Asia Minor appears in texts as Seo Læsse Asia. Hogweard (talk) 12:23, 27 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be. I suppose, then, there is precedent either way. So, which way to go?   Ƿes hāl!    21:18, 27 Sēremōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Main Page[adiht fruman]

    The new Main Page design is absolutely gorgeous. I love it. It's the best we've had. Also, was there substantial reason/agreement to change the title to Hēafodtrament? (I don't oppose the change... just wondering) Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 22:22, 11 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Ēalā, þæt is gōd. My work paid off... Although I'm still working on some of the elements to further tidy them up/improve them. Re: Tramet. See "System message tidyup" section above.   Ƿes hāl!    22:46, 11 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Reviving discussion on the main page, some of my earlier intents for it are somewhat confusticated. But what I know I can do right now:

    • Further refine the touching up of the rest of the graphical elements
    • Add an illuminated "E" (I know of no illuminated "AE", nor can I contrive how I might assemble one without masses of hard work) to "Ænglisc Ƿikipǽdia" (WOULD PEOPLE LIKE THIS? I CAN DO A HALF-QUALITY DEMO EASILY ENOUGH ON REQUEST)

    However, I had intented also to add an all-around decorative border. The horizontal part and corners of the border can be implemented easily, but the vertical part is much harded to implement. See Wikipedia:Sandbox for my best attempt so far (and feel free to fiddle with it).

    In the absolute failure of any attempt at well-scaling top-to-bottom decorative vertical borders, we might still be able to implement the horizontal borders usefully. Also, because the page has a minimum height it can shrink to, we could just ad a non-expanding length of vertical border, leaving it only attached to the top (possibly bottom?) left or right corner - it might look okay.

    A further idea I have had about the front page would be to put the word "Ænglisc" above "Ƿikipǽdia", nestle the image in the top-left of the page, and remove the sutton-hoo helm picture. I will get round to demoing this on the sandbox - no one need comment on it seriously until then.   Ƿes hāl!    12:11, 14 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    An illuminated "E" should do fine: most of the texts I have seen say "Englisc" not "Ænglisc".Hogweard (talk) 22:54, 14 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, go for E. The only reason we have Ænglisc, is because I'd requested it, as we were the only Wikipedia which did not have our name in the native language, but I'd before seen discussion that it was done as Anglo-Saxon to prevent Englisc from being confused with English. I figured just for that one reason, Ænglisc would be distinct enough, yet still native. Any other instances, I think Englisc would be preferred. Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 23:57, 14 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, working on it. NEWS: I have devised an okayish all-around border for the main page. Please see the Sandbox. It is about as good as anything I could hope to achieve using actual images, as well. What ya'll think of it? --  Ƿes hāl!    03:30, 17 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's quite lovely. Good work!
    Espreon (talk) 04:12, 17 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I should say, I've now added two more examples to the page - for different border colours. Just scroll down to see them. I am personally favouring the green border...   Ƿes hāl!    04:15, 17 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Hey everyone, speaking of the main page, I've noticed that the welcome line has "Hēr mōt man findan cȳþþu..." where cȳþþu is accusative. Shouldn't it instead be cȳþþe? Or is there something I am missing? --Tentwotwenty (mōtung) 02:36, 31 Hrēþmōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    Good point: yes it should be. Hogweard (mōtung) 12:57, 31 Hrēþmōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    Request for Adminship at Ƿiciƿordbōc[adiht fruman]

    Hello, everyone.

    I made a request for adminship at Ƿiciƿordbōc not too long ago. I'm just putting this here so that it'll actually be known.

    See this.


    Espreon (talk) 23:51, 17 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Fonts again (add Junicode to "Universal Language Selector"?)[adiht fruman]

    Hello! With the recent deployment of mw:ULS, we have a way to enable font options for users. In the sidebar of any page, you will see a small gear. If you click it and choose "Fonts", you can select the one you want to use. It is possible to configure fonts on a per-wiki (or per-language) basis, cf. bugzilla:46693, bugzilla:42421. Would anyone object to adding an option (not necessarily the default) to use Junicode[6] or another OE font? I think it needs to be a free font (as in freedom). Are there any other fonts we could use? Is Beowulf free/open source? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:24, 21 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I definitely would support this. I do not think Beowulf is released under a widely recognized free license, but there is a fairly permissive, informal kind of license attached to the package: "This package is provided free of charge to students and scholars of Old English. You may give it away (please keep this document with it), but you may not sell it. You may use it in publications without obtaining permission." (The rest of the document has nothing to do with permissions, but I can send it to anyone who wants to see it.) I would think that Wikipedia loosely falls under the classification of a publication. But if that's not good enough, we might be able to contact Peter S. Baker and ask him to release the font to a more formal free license.   Ƿes hāl!    11:16, 21 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think it falls under the definition of "free" (as in freedom) if you can't sell it. But I'm not entirely sure what the WMF requirements are for this kind of thing. I'll ask. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:25, 21 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Some answers on the FAQ. Also asked on the talk page. It uses LiquidThreads, so I'm not exactly sure if you can reply from that link. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:29, 21 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    As I mentioned to PiRSquared on IRC, it would be cool to have a way of invoking Junicode's insular(ish) mode[7]. Maybe a "Junicode (Insular Mode)" option beneath "Junicode" in the font selector or something in the "gw ..." selector thing.
    Espreon (talk) 19:41, 21 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I think we can do this, but don't quote me on that; I don't grok fonts. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:29, 21 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Any more comments? Should I just request Junicode and ask whether Beowulf is okay? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:05, 22 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Licensing, I think Junicode is good to go; after all, this is a publication. Pi, the freedom issue, think of it as being the Linux GPL instead of the BSD license. (and if for some reason y'all need to contact Peter S Baker but can't get in touch, I could go to UVA and talk to him in person, but one of you needs to reimburse me for gas money). And rather than the Beowulf font, I'd prefer a font that imitates the letter forms (for that purpose) but in the style of something modern and "website friendly". I know I've seen one like that before but I can't remember its name. (and, reason being, Beowulf isn't very legible to 21st century eyes, at least I think so) Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 06:32, 22 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Go for Junicode - it's simplest right now (although I myself am fine for the legibility of Beowulf).   Ƿes hāl!    22:44, 22 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    This'n (although I myself don't feel it's necessary) Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 23:39, 22 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    That one, yes. Not so much necessary as a marked improvement on ȝƿ.   Ƿes hāl!    20:03, 23 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I got bored of waiting for a response from the ULS people, so I have created a bug to do this, per advice. It seems that nobody is against adding an option for these fonts, if possible. Comment here, if you have a Bugzilla account. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:50, 24 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Patch for review[adiht fruman]

    See bugzilla:51917. This means that it has been implemented. We are just waiting for it to be deployed (or not). PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:10, 31 Mǣdmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    It has been merged. Just waiting for an update. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:25, 7 Wēodmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Good job implementing that.   Ƿes hāl!    11:00, 4 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    (belated notice) Junicode now available! Wikipedia:Stylistic and font options for review.[adiht fruman]

    Please review, comment, edit, etc. Wikipedia:Stylistic and font options. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:04, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    For the convenience of others, here are points I have made to you on IRC:
    • We can see the font change and it switching to insular mode when a page is being loaded, and each step takes a noticeable bit (but not outrageously long to me) of time
    • It sometimes fails to stay in insular mode when moving to a different pages... especially special pages and "editing" pages, from what I've experienced so far
    • When going back to the selector to change the font while in insular mode, the selector will tell you that it's set to "Junicode" rather than "Junicode-insular"
    Also, I noticed that when you switch from Junicode in insular mode back to the system default, it will simply switch to normal Junicode. Though, when switching from normal Junicode to system default, you should end up with a mix of normal Junicode and the system default, like this.
    Espreon (talk) 05:36, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I will work on some of these issues, depending on the response to the question directly below. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:00, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    ["question directly below"] I'd like the community's imput on this: does anyone actually want non-insular Junicode? I think so, but I'm not sure. If not, there is a much simpler solution than the JS I have in place now. If you wish to retain both options, however, this is a good solution. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:00, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I'd keep it for those who wish to read from computers and devices that have inadequate font support for OE Latin and runic texts and can't do anything about it for whatever reason and don't want to have to read insular text.
    Espreon (talk) 17:41, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I myself have no use for it, but if it improves accessibility as Espreon suggests, then I think keeping it is good. BTW, I also am experiencing these same bugs as Espreon.   Ƿes hāl!    11:15, 4 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Also, now that there is this Insular Junicode, I think the yogh-wynn page version is now redundant... or at least, when a few of the bugs have been ironed out. Anyone else think so?   Ƿes hāl!    11:20, 4 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Nah, keep it. It's good that both modern script and ancient script are available for viewing ȝ and ƿ. Even in the short time the new font's been up, I've found myself using both. Also, when you choose either Junicode version, the runes work perfect. (and, any way to make Junicode a bit bigger?) Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 04:16, 5 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I'm working on these issues, but unfortunately I'm busy with other things as well. I know I promised some sort of improved rune stuff a year ago (IIRC), and never had time to do it, so I will do this, which is higher-priority now. If you want any other technical help, please ask. By the end of the month, I hope to have the ULS selector working well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:16, 5 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    If it's possible (and not a pain to do), perhaps setting Runic to always appear in Junicode would resolve it for good. I know Junicode actually has the runic glyphs, whereas most other typefaces do not (which is why Runic glyphs never show up when using the browser's default typeface; the default will almost never have runic glyphs available to show). Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 23:47, 5 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    Done! PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:05, 6 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Project Names, Namespaces, and Other Things[adiht fruman]

    Hello, everyone.

    Awhile ago, I noticed that the project name variable for our setups on Wikipædia and Wiciwordbōc were set to their New English defaults: "Wikipedia" and "Wiktionary". The contents of this variable is used in places like the window title (in the bar above the area that has stuff like "File", "Edit", "View" and so forth) for the browser. So, as byspel, when reading Ænglisc sprǣc, you will see "Ænglisc sprǣc - Wikipedia ..." in your browser's window title. Unfortunately, we cannot change this variable ourselves; I believe we need Gottistgut—an admin—to send a request to have it changed, and since we need to request that it be changed, I thought we should discuss what we want it to be.

    First, do we really want it to be something like "Wikipǣdia" and not something like "Wikiwisdōmbōc"? Also, do we want to use wici or wiki? Finally, do we want to use w or wynn?

    And since I mentioned what goes in the browser's window title, do we want to do what the New English Wikipedia does and have our slogan included? If we included our slogan, you'd see "Ænglisc sprǣc - Wikipedia, sēo frēo wisdōmbōc ..." in the window title when reading Ænglisc sprǣc, as byspel.

    Finally, at Wiciwordbōc, I need to have the equivalents of Wiktionary's "Appendix:" and "Appendix talk:" made. I guess I'd use "Ætēaca:" for the former and "Ætēacgesprec:" for the latter.

    Tell me what you think.

    Espreon (talk) 05:19, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    No objections to the extra namespace at Wiktionary. The project name should be up to more knowledgeable people, so I won't comment on that.
    Technical notes:
    For all changes requested (except the title "the free encyclopedia" slogan, see below), file them on Bugzilla. See m:Requesting wiki configuration changes. Note that you do not need really to be an admin on the project to do this, as Espreon mentioned. You just need consensus.
    1. To change the site name, for either project, file a request. Tell the devs to change the $wgSitename setting to whatever value you decide. Make sure you tell them which project the name is for (Wikipedia vs Wiktionary).
    2. Requesting to add a namespace is similar. You should tell them what the associated talk namespace would be.
    3. Any admin can change the slogan in the window title currently, but please get consensus first. See MediaWiki:Pagetitle, and compare to the source of the English Wikipedia's.
    Thank you for asking the community before requesting these changes. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:23, 1 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I am happy with the current "Wikipǣdia" arrangement, and would be happy to put that in in the tab title thingy. I do not mind either way regarding the slogan - if it is too long, it simply won't show, which is fine. I would use a w rather than a wynn for "Wikipǣdia", since we have recently agreed using the gw standard for sorce code.
    No. All hail Ƿ.
    For Wiktionary appendix, yes, I think ætēaca is good. But regardsing talk page, I am/was in the process of standardising "talk" to "mōtung" ("conversation") on Wikipǣdia. Gotta get back onto that...

      Ƿes hāl!    11:12, 4 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    All right. I think I recall being told (by you, maybe?) that some believe that vowel length tends to rot in compounds, but I myself have never found this in anything I have read. So, do we want stuff like "Ætēacmōtung" or "Ætēacmotung"?
    Espreon (talk) 01:04, 18 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's Hogweard's ideal. It is observed to have happened already, I think (but am not sure), by the time of Middle English. If this is the case, that would suggest that such had happened in later OE. But I prefer to go for an earlier OE, because it maintains more distinctions; as such, I prefer to keep long vowels in compounds. So as far as I am concerned, "ætēacmōtung" is definitely better.   Ƿes hāl!    07:06, 18 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    bugzilla:56634. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:33, 6 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Runic keyboard[adiht fruman]

    Hi. Would having a runic keyboard mode be useful at all? If so, and one already exists (or you can design it), it can be added to ULS. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 6 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    At the moment, I'm not sure that it would be useful. At least one already exists, but it is based on a german qwertz layout.   Ƿes hāl!    22:27, 19 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    I think we should not start mass-deleting rune pages yet. Or, if you do, at least add them to a list so we can restore them later, if we want. Yogh/wynn is pretty useless though, so we should delete those pages. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:06, 21 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Gottistgut: can you give any recommendations for a keyboard for OE with thorns, eth, macrons perhaps, and anything else one might need? I saw some suggestions on the help page, but I'm looking for a specific one to add to ULS. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:53, 26 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    standard category pratice[adiht fruman]

    Hey, I think it would be good to have standard category practice, so we can at least know what we're aiming for.

    I think it should be standard practice to apply only the most relevant of a hierarchy of categories to a page (so, for example, in article on Nīwe Sǣland, only apply "Nīwe Sǣland" category, not also "Awstralasia" and "Eorðe"; or on articles on particular people, only "Sangeras" category, not also "scēaweras" and "menn"; or again, for "Niðerlendisc sprǣc", only "Westgermanica sprǣca" not also "Germanisca sprǣca" and "Indoeuropisca sprǣca" and "Sprǣca").

    If you look at various large-language Wikipedias, this seems to be the standard practice (for example, on the German, Spanish, and English Wikipedias).

    What do you people think?   Ƿes hāl!    09:37, 25 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    And it probably goes without saying that all categories should use "gw" and macrons (as opposed to acute accent), since this is the new standard here. I've seen a few categories with the wrong format. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:04, 26 Hāligmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Declension of Wikipǣdia[adiht fruman]

    Hello, everyone.

    I am planning on having this site's internal project name set to "Wikipǣdia" soon, but before I file the request, I need to know how we want it to be declined since, apparently, the software that runs this website allows us to specify declined forms of the project name.

    There are at least three possible ways to do this:

    It could also be treated as indeclinable, but I do not think we want to do that.

    To be honest, as long as it is declined, I'm happy; though, I will say that I'm least fond of the idea of declining it like a Latin noun.

    What say you?

    Espreon (talk) 15:34, 1 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    I've treated like a place-name in -ia. Sweet states that those place-names like Germania, feminine and ending in "-a", take "-e" in the oblique cases, so Germania in accusative, dative, genitive is Germanie.
    The translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History has Breten is ... gesett betwixt norþdæle and westdæle Germanie, Gallie and Hispanie. Mind you, it also says of the Peohtas þa wæron cumene of Hibernia, Scotta ieglande Hogweard (talk) 16:18, 1 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    It seems that placenames ending in -ia are also occasionally declined like Latin first declension nouns:
    • "Ecbyrht becuman wolde on Germaniam . . . ac hé ne mihte; ac Wihtbyrht ðyder becom ..." (from this)
    • "Swǽfas forhergodon ealle Galliam" (from this)
    Of course, I'm just noting this for those who are interested.
    Espreon (talk) 17:30, 1 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
    As the examples show, it there was no one overwhelming practice in OE. I myself dislike using the Latin declension. For an example of all of the four practices mentioned being applied to the same word, see Italia, which is variously treated as indeclinable, sf, wf, and Latin declined. I myself somewhat prefer sf.   Ƿes hāl!    20:41, 1 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    bugzilla:56634. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:33, 6 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Renewal of Adminship at Wikiwordbōc[adiht fruman]

    Hello, everyone.

    As my adminship at Wikiwordbōc is to expire very soon, PiRSquared17 nominated me for renewed adminship.

    The request can be found here.


    Espreon (talk) 06:56, 24 Blōtmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)

    Of the use of "Englisc"[adiht fruman]

    Does the term refer to Modern English, Old English or just English in general on this Wikipedia? I'm asking because I have trouble deciphering the main page. I have translated it to say:

    Here one may find knowledge about many things in this world and on this world written in Old English who hate English.

    I am obviously not translating it right, perhaps someone could provide some insight.

    We write as though Old English were contemporary, thus we still use Englisc to refer to Old English while calling Modern English Nīwenglisc, following other Germanic languages. We would perhaps only use Ealdenglisc to refer to Old English if absolutely necessary, like if we were trying to communicate with speakers of other Germanic languages (that happen to not speak Modern English) and wanted to ensure that we are not speaking Modern English; and yes, it has been done before; see this video (but do note that guy's Old English is terrible).
    Also, we refer to other modern languages without tacking Nīw onto the names, thus we call Modern Dutch Niðerlendisc rather than Nīwniðerlendisc and would call Old Dutch something like Ealdniðerlendisc.
    As for that part of what's written on the main page, it can be translated as something like "Here one may find knowledge about many things in this world and beyond this world, written in the old English language, which is called Englisc (Old English)".
    Now, do note that hāteþ means 'is called' as it's a form of the verb hātan; it's like the German and Dutch verbs heißen and heten. The Modern English equivalent would be hight, but it didn't survive into the contemporary tongue. The word that would mean 'hates' would be hataþ and plural 'hate' would be hatiaþ or hatigaþ, which are all from the verb hatian
    Finally, please sign your posts.
    Espreon (talk) 23:33, 7 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A straightforward translation would be "...in the language of the ancient English people, which is called Old English." "...þāra ealdena Engliscena..." means "...of the ancient English people...": þāra - "of the"+ealdena - (weak genetive plural) "ancient"+Engliscena - "English people" (actually the adjective "Englisc" used as a substansive to mean "English person (people in plural)", just as you can do in Modern German, and also with a more class-encompassing way in Modern English (e.g. "the rich and the poor" is talking not just about one person, but whole groups of people - in OE meaning of such substansive adjectives could be singular or plural depending on the declension: se ealda - "the old man" but þā ealdan - "the old people").

    Good job trying the translation, though. Practice makes perfect.   Ƿes hāl!    10:08, 13 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, on the use of "is"[adiht fruman]

    "is" refers to "ice" in Old English while it refers to "is" in Middle English, yet we use it on the Anglo Wikipedia. This is an inconsistency.

    No, is means 'is' in Old English while īs (note the long vowel) means 'ice', though do note that the Anglo-Saxons rarely marked vowel length.
    Also, even if things were they way you see them, we are not beholden to Middle English.
    And again, please sign your posts.
    Espreon (talk) 23:37, 7 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Is" was frequently used in Old English. Have a look at this entry of the verb wesan for examples of is in usage: [8]. Biþ was also used, but apparently often with a slightly different meaning (future time, or habitual action).   Ƿes hāl!    10:11, 13 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hē is ceald = He is cold (to the touch), while he biþ ceald = he is cold (hearted). I think that's the simplest way to explain the differences. The bēon form somewhat survives in AAVE. Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 04:43, 14 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wynn/W, Wiki/Wici, and *mōtung/*motung Equivalence in Namespace Names[adiht fruman]


    Yesterday, I put in two requests.

    The first one would make variants of "Wikipǣdia:", "Wikipǣdiamōtung:", "Wikiwordbōc:", and "Wikiwordbōcmōtung" with wynn and c all valid aliases, thus, as byspel, "Wicipǣdia:", "Ƿicipǣdia:" and "Ƿikipǣdia:" would all be equivalent to "Wikipǣdia:". All requested variants can be seen by clicking the aforementioned link.

    The second one would make *mōtung and *motung equivalent in the core namespace names, thus, as byspel, "Bysenmotung:" would be equivalent to "Bysenmōtung:".

    Share your thoughts if you wish to do so.


    Espreon (talk) 06:44, 20 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why the wynn one would be necessary or useful in this case, since wynn here is now purely cosmetic (which is all it really needs to be). Source text is gw, and typing w is pretty much universally easier than wynn.   Ƿes hāl!    08:30, 22 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told, I requested it under the belief that we still had a lot of redirects that had things like "Ƿicipǣdia:" in their names and that having wynn aliases implemented would allow us to get rid of most of them without "repercussions", but a quick survey shows that we don't have too much. Though, still getting them implemented should make making wynn redirects (for those who still do; I at least still do) to pages in the Wiki* namespaces a bit easier in that you wouldn't have to deal with putting something like "Ƿicipǣdia:" in the title. Plus it would provide some form of futureproofing, since if wynn were to ever be used in place of W in the source text again, I think they would simply have to switch the w versions for the wynn versions in a certain file.
    Espreon (talk) 14:46, 22 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 04:14, 1 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told, I too would rather have wynn used in the source, but apparently, we don't want it in the source.
    Though, PiRSquared claims that he can get us a bot to convert stuff for us if we want... ...
    Espreon (talk) 04:18, 1 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said before, unless there is some great good, some advantage in typing "wynn" (perhaps it gives a buzz...) over "w", it need not be done, and indeed it is easier to do otherwise. All the while, we can still have the happiness of of reading "wynn", and feeling all the more authentic for it.   Ƿes hāl!    20:30, 5 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, move Þunor to Thunor, then? Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 03:19, 6 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are actually distinct uses for "th" and "þ" for much of the OE period. See, for example, "Thomas". Furthermore, it would be more troublesome to implement "th", since "þ/ð" is the status quo. To be honest, I don't particularly object to ƿ being in source code (since I have a rather nice OE keyboard layout solution already for myself, custom assembled by myself), but:
    • We don't need it (since we have fine solutions for more more authentic writing practice already)
    • It is simply more work to implement it
    If you can get someone onboard to implement w to wynn in source code well (that is, entirely) (not me - I am tidying up the myriad of legacy inconsistent practice and bad grammar on here, and would not know how to do it, anyway), I would not oppose it.   Ƿes hāl!    19:59, 6 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination for Adminship Here[adiht fruman]

    Hello, everyone,

    PiRSquared nominated me for adminship here, and so I put this here so that it is known.

    Please vote and share your thoughts here, if you wish to do so.


    Espreon (talk) 22:51, 29 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    en:Cœnred of Mercia[adiht fruman]

    There's a current discussion on the naming of Cœnred vs Coenred on this page. I invite anyone to post their own input on it there. (while we're at it, we could make an article for him here too) Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 21:52, 3 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proppose to delete rune alphabet conversion script[adiht fruman]

    Hello, sorry for writing in New English. I proppose to delete the conversion script to the rune alphabet, because nothing write in rune. My computer haven't the script for view correctly the rune letters, and, transform this alphabet in "squares".

    PostData: You can see this discussion is in New English, because I proppose also close this wiki. Thanks, 12:39, 21 Hrēþmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)

    If you truly wish to test out the runic conversion script without having to install a font that covers the runic range, you can have your browser use Junicode through the ULS by clicking the gear next to "Languages", clicking "Stæfcynn", and so on. It works perfectly fine for me on this public Mac.
    As for proposing the closure of this wiki, I suggest that you find a better use for your time and that you not try to render all the time and energy that was put into this site wasted.
    Espreon (talk) 13:31, 21 Hrēþmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)
    I can delete the script if you want. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:09, 25 Hrēþmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)
    You don't need to do that.
    Espreon (talk) 15:13, 25 Hrēþmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)
    Erm, as it is, the conversion script:
    • Does add something valuable to this wiki (although it certainly is not perfect - getting it to that stage is not on the priority list, really)
    • Doesn't really drain resources (human or otherwise)
    • And can be viewed by pretty much anyone who can be bothered learning how
    • Furthermore, it is not even default
    If all you are doing is "putting it out there" as to closing this wiki, then I reject that proposal, briefly.   Ƿes hāl!    07:46, 28 Hrēþmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)
    I propose deleting this proposal. Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 04:08, 29 Hrēþmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)

    Anglo-Saxon language and Gothic[adiht fruman]

    Hello fellow users,

    I 'm currently the only person which does a lot of contributions to the Gothic wikipedia and one of the few with some knowledge of Gothic grammar and vocabulary. I 'm trying to revive Gothic, but I already realize that this is a fail-project, because there is a very small community concerned with Neo-Gothic and the only serious modern literature in Gothic which I have found is a translation of the work of Karl Marx. The archive still exists, the website where it was not anymore. I see how similar Gothic is to old English though, and with my first language, Dutch, it shouldn't be too difficult for me to learn Anglo-Saxon as I have listened to it and I understand it for 95%, so basically I already speak some version of Anglo-Saxon on daily basis. I wondered if any people here might be interested in a revival of Anglo-Saxon? If so, I might contribute to that, I think that Gothic is a bit too unknown for this purpose.

    Bokareis (talk) 22:36, 22 Sēremōnaþ 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not think of it as a "fail-project," as you put it; doing so only dooms it to failure.
    Though, the problem with Gothic, I reckon, is that there probably is that there most likely is no present-day form of the no modern-day people that would easily see itself as Gothic in any way since the Goths' descendants have shifted to, for example, Romance and have merged with many other peoples. With Old English, though, there are plenty of native English speakers with Germanic roots, and so there are lots of people that could somehow identify themselves with the English of Anglo-Saxon times. And even native English speakers that do not have Germanic roots may simply be interested in learning an earlier stage of their own language (or maybe even, if you will, connecting with their "linguistic ancestors") or are seeking an alternative to the Anglish movement.
    And so there are groups of people with stronger connections to Old English. With Gothic, on the other hand, those who do have actual connections to the Goths or Gothic are more likely concerned with preserving their current non-Germanic/non-Gothic languages and pitting them against whatever large, immediate threat: for example Asturian or Catalan against Castilian.
    I do not think that Gothic is not worthy of study and revival; rather, it is just far harder to get people into it, like you observed.
    As for bringing back Old English, we would indeed like to do so. Many of us wish we could use it more in everyday life. Please do try to help (after reading up on Old English grammar, of course). There's this, Wikiwordbōc (which allows for new words, provided we agree on them and label them as new creations), ##Anglisc on Freenode, some software translation projects, for things such as MediaWiki, The Battle for Wesnoth, KDE (the latter two are sort of on hold, but they could always be brought back to the forefront of our doings), and so forth.
    And, of course, if you're wondering about something, ask away. We are here to help.
    Espreon (talk) 00:03, 23 Sēremōnaþ 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It basically is more active here, that's why I got the idea to try it here.

    You have an active Freenode channel? I started an IRC channel for the Gothic language and shared it at a Gothic Yahoo group. The first weeks there was 1 visitor which never talked, now no one visits it anymore. Even I don't visit it because nobody comes! :D

    As for Gothic, I think that, as the Goths have lived in Spain, Italy, Ukraine and other parts of Europe, a big group of people is interested. You are right that a lot of people won't feel themselves ethnically related to the Goths, but I 'm Dutch and I have more in common with Frisians and old Anglo-Saxons than with the old Goths, the reason why I learn it though is because I 'm finished with our knowledge of a Germanic language from the 4th century, we would really be able to speak a REAL medieval language if we would bring it back, from the early medieval times, unlike Latin which is a language from antiquity, but not really a language of the ordinary people from old times. Furthermore I found especially some Spanish people which are pagans, which according to their website have a by the government acknowledged religion now, which was surpressed for 1600 years and which want to speak Gothic. I tried to register at their website but for some reason I never got any acceptance e-mail, maybe they don't like people which only speak Spanish as a later language and not as their native language. :S

    I 'm currently translating Polyglotclub in Gothic to make the language more visible and have it being used at another website, not only Wikipedia, and I also tried with some other Gothic revivers to ask Twitter if we can work on a Gothic translation for their website translations and I tried some other ways, but it's really hard to find opening ways to revive the language.

    Old Anglo-Saxon however would be interesting too to revive. Maybe more interesting, as we have for Gothic just a Bible, so we would just know how people in medieval times approximately spoke, but can't use it further really. Reviving Tocharian is useless, because little is known about it and although it's old we don't have a lot of known material, Hettite neither, as we would need to learn cuniform and that's too complex for a modern language. Which other languages are left to revive? Hebrew is already revived and modern Israelis can read ancient Hebrew texts up to a certain extent (I really wonder how they interpret them with a partly artifical modern language, modern Hebrew is a very interesting language, as it's partly the old Hebrew, but so many elements are added to it from exisiting languages in the time of Elizer ben Yahuda that it is a half constructed/artificial language), Latin is already spoken in certain places like Universities and people never really stopped speaking it, Ancient Greek is really not used anymore, there isn't even a Wikipedia so the chance is too small, as for Gothic and Anglo-Saxon, those two languages have chances. Gothic would be interesting, especially for people studying Indo-European, but when people learn Anglo-Saxon, maybe even as a first language, they can also read all kinds of old English texts. The only people having Anglo-Saxon as a first language I know of is a person from a family where he/she and the brothers/sisters were brought up with Anglo-Saxon instead of English, because their father was a teacher of Anglo-Saxon and liked the language more then the English language of his country.

    I 'm not sure though if we shouldn't first focus on languages like the Celtic ones to survive before we start reviving old ones.

    As with Old English. Do you know our Dutch word 'ingang'? It's exactly the same in old Anglo-Saxon, I thought it was really surprising how these kinds of words are exactly the same in my native language.

    The only real work I have done so far is writing an article about the Skeireins https://got.wikipedia.org/wiki/%F0%90%8D%83%F0%90%8C%BA%F0%90%8C%B4%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8D%82%F0%90%8C%B4%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8D%83 And building a website currently.

    Bokareis (talk) 18:07, 23 Sēremōnaþ 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wes hāl. I am moderately familiar Gothic, and could advance my knowledge of the language pretty much any time I choose. However, personally, the reason I don't give time to Gothic is that Gothic has a relatively narrow recorded vocabulary - massively less adequate than Anglo-Saxon (which as tens of thousands of recorded words). With OE, we already need to use a significant amount of new words and phrases for modern stuff, but with Gothic, we would need very many new words even to talk about stuff the Goths would have been well familiar with. Also, I have finite time, and am learning multiple other languages besides OE.
    As for OE, I enjoy learning and using it. I have started OE translations of various more modern works, although I haven't really completed anything much. I've set my sights on Beatrix Potter, because that's pretty achievable.
    As for revinging OE, yes, I am interested in there being modern community of users. I do not expect that there will ever be a very large community for OE, but it is not like there needs to be (actually, there doesn't need to be any community for it at all - it has already served its purpose well in ancient England; but I enjoy using it nonetheless). Modern usage of OE is for those people who are interested.
    You know of native Old English speakers? This is news to me - I'd be interested in learning more. If there was a Wikipedia-acceptable reference for this, we could ammend the MnE article on OE to state that there were native speakers.
    BTW, you are most welcome to make contributions. It would endear me greatly if you paid attention to detail in your grammar usage, but so long as it is basically understandable, relevant OE content that didn't diminish the quality of already existing content, it won't be thrown out.
      Ƿes hāl!    09:40, 28 Sēremōnaþ 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that anyone on the planet in today's world would be a native OE speaker would be massive news in linguistic circles. See if you can somehow contact them and invite them here. Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 04:24, 29 Sēremōnaþ 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I 'm sorry for my late answer.

    This is where I found it: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2953.htm

    Unfortunately, antimoon doesn't seem to have a message system. You can try to contact Girl89, but I wonder if she will answer you. According to the members her syntax of English is different from normal modern English so obviously growing up with Anglo-Saxon changes how you speak modern English. Her father is a teacher of Anglo-Saxon in university, a way to try to contact them is to look for all Anglo-Saxon teachers in England, for example by e-mail, and ask them if they possibly taught their children Anglo-Saxon. If you find the right one and he wants to get in contact, something interesting could be here. Though, I think you should first look if they WANT contact, you shouldn't contact them if they don't want to. Bokareis (talk) 23:51, 11 Mǣdmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)

    Well, thanks for the info. I myself don't intend to undertake such a method of search...   Ƿes hāl!    09:33, 14 Mǣdmōnaþ 2014 (UTC)

    Font Switcher[adiht fruman]

    Hello, I am from the Gothic Wikipedia and I have somewhere already spoken to someone who created your Font Switcher at the top of every page. Is there anybody that could explain me how it works? We would like to implement it on our Wikipedia for Gothic and Runic script, too. Thank you. Zylbath (talk) 10:32, 14 Winterfylleþ 2014 (UTC)

    The point[adiht fruman]

    What is even the point of this project? I don't even understand? Who even speaks Anglo-Saxon or would have a real reason to come here? What, are there time travelers who need to introduce people from the early ages of English to Wikipedia? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:44, 18 Winterfylleþ 2014 (UTC)

    Because dead languages are not just dead, they still have the right to be taken care of. That is why we have a Latin Wikipedia, a Gothic Wikipedia, an Old Greek Wikipedia etc. Even dead languages bear knowledge that is not available for the modern ones. And by these projects the corpus of such a language can be increased by a lot more texts. And doesn't even the fact that this Wikipedia exists and grows prove the point? Zylbath (talk) 13:15, 18 Winterfylleþ 2014 (UTC)

    Category best practice[adiht fruman]

    It has come to my attention that:

    • Some categories are excessively specific for the current scope of this Wikipedia
    • Some pages have an excessive number of categories
    • Some pages have redundant categories, for example, both "lēode" and "weras" ("weras" should be a subcategory of "lēode" anyway)

    I suggest that:

    • Use more general categories rather than more specific categories until the number of articles within a category grows large enough to justify breaking it down
    • Only use a handful of categories
    • Do not use redundant categories, at all

      Ƿes hāl!    23:02, 9 Se Æfterra Gēola 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why write an encyclopedia in Old English? No one speaks this language anymore... Antiv31 (talk) 02:51, 4 Ēastermōnaþ 2015 (UTC)

    I do.   Ƿes hāl!    00:22, 5 Ēastermōnaþ 2015 (UTC)
    Eala ðe fēa sind mines gereordes sprēcendas, ac mid lufe begimaþ we scopena cwide ðe hit wrīde.
    What do the months mean? IllogicMink (talk) 09:28, 20 Ēastermōnaþ 2015 (UTC)
    • Æfterra Gēola - January ("latter Yule")
    • Solmōnaþ - February (unclear literal meaning for "Sol")
    • Hrēðmōnaþ - March ("month of glory"); Hlȳda - also March ("loud (month)", apparently because of the weather)
    • Ēastermōnaþ - April ("Easter-month")
    • Þrimilce(mōnaþ) - May (lit "three-milking month" because according to Bede the English used to milk their animals three times a day due to plentifulness)
    • Ǣrra Līða - June (literally "earlier mild (month)", because the wind and clouds were generally mild in this period); Sēarmōnaþ - also June (literally "dry month")
    • Æfterra Līða - July ("latter mild (month)"); Mǣdmōnaþ - also June (lit. "meadow month")
    • Wēodmōnaþ - August (literally "weed month", because weeds grew lots)
    • Hærfestmōnaþ - September (lit "autumn-month"); Hāligmōnaþ - also September (lit "Holy month" because that was a time of ancient Germanic pagan rituals)
    • Winterfylliþ - October (lit. "winter-filling (month)", because Winter was coming)
    • Blōtmōnaþ - November (literally "sacrifice month", due to ancient pagan practices)
    • Ǣrra Gēola - December (literally "earlier Yule")

      Ƿes hāl!    21:21, 21 Ēastermōnaþ 2015 (UTC)

    • Ah, that's pretty cool. IllogicMink (talk) 07:39, 5 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2015 (UTC)

    Shouldn't you correct this wiki?[adiht fruman]

    I 'm the current admin of the Gothic wikipedia and the past weeks I spent on correcting all articles. I read the part in "The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and beyond" about this wikipedia and I just wonder why articles with mistakes are accepted and not corrected here? If I would write "Old English would be a languages in ancient Bretanio." that wouldn't be accepted, and I consider learning Old English, but why would I do that with this wiki? To teach myself incorrect declensions? Bokareis (mōtung) 14:13, 8 Se Æfterra Gēola 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Because we are all fallible and none of us has learnt the old speech from the cradle as we might wish we had. We do try to correct things as we go along though, in spite of occasional differences over whether a strong or weak for adjective is appropriate, and preferences for earlier or later, or for West Saxon or Mercian forms. The education is in the effort. Hogweard

    (mōtung) 14:56, 8 Se Æfterra Gēola 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anglo-Saxon is missing[adiht fruman]

    Anglo-Saxon is missing from this page:
    Thank you, Varlaam (mōtung) 06:31, 19 Se Æfterra Gēola 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'll get a translation in there. Thanks   Ƿes hāl!    07:39, 23 Solmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)
    Now we have it there twice! It appears once as Englisc and once as Ænglisc, using slightly differing wording (is "Ðǣr is" much attested, when not pointing to an actual location?) Hogweard

    (mōtung) 13:24, 23 Solmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)

    Hm, excellent points. What is the point of the page?   Ƿes hāl!    08:00, 24 Solmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)

    Page creation rights[adiht fruman]

    I think we should restrict new page creation to registered accounts. I am not aware of any non-account users making any kind of decent new pages on here, but I sure as hell am aware of non-account users making crap and crap that is just bothersome. What say you?   Ƿes hāl!    07:38, 23 Solmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)

    Yeah that would help, we don't want annons to do it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (mōtung) 18:11, 27 Hāligmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)

    Runic script[adiht fruman]

    Hello, I would like to ask what happened to the switchers that used to appear on top of pages, allowing to use standard latin, yogh-wyinn, or runes? It was really a great feature, and I feel sad I cannot use it no more. Asþont (mōtung) 11:07, 10 Hāligmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)

    It's still there: the little "[ gw ] [ ȝƿ ] [ ᚱᚢᚾ ]" line appears at the top of every page automatically. Hogweard (mōtung) 15:42, 10 Hāligmōnaþ 2016 (UTC)

    Can someone make Wikipedia in Old Norse?[adiht fruman]

    I don't know where to ask but since Ænglisc is a "dead" language i thought I could ask here. I really want to read Wikipedia in Norrǿna(Old Norse). Aleof (mōtung) 01:05, 4 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    Such a proposal has been rejected in the past, but if you prepare the ground better (basically, work hard and get other enthusiasts to work hard over an extended period) then you could get over the issues that blocked it last time. See if there are enthusiasts in Iceland if you can: they will have the skill set and cultural grounding.
    Read the rejection page:
    Then look at the request page and various others I found:
    If you do not put the work in, it is not going to happen.
    Hogweard (mōtung) 08:49, 4 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)
    There's an SVG logo waiting for an Old Norse Wikipedia if it happens.Hogweard (mōtung) 07:21, 7 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)
    Shouldn't it been a ´ over the i like "VÍKIPEÐIA"? I really hope they make a Old Norse Wikipedia. Icelandic is very similar to Old Norse but they use many of the words with differnt meaning than in Old Norse and they have softer consonants like in ON: þat Is: það, ON: Ek Is: Ég, ON: At Is: Að. They also have new words in Icelandic that they didn't have in ON like fræði. Also, Icelandic doesn't have the ǿ. They use both æ in words that used æ in ON and words that used ǿ in ON. The ǫ in ON is ö in Icelandic. My dog Solrun is cute so I can call her Solrun the cute. In ON that would've been Sǫlrún in sǿta but in Icelandic it would've been Sölrún hin sæta. That's why it's important to make an Old Norse Wikipedia. Sorry for bad English. Aleof (mōtung) 17:17, 7 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)
    Also, something more. The last "I" in that Old Norse logo should be a "J" because you know, the word "valkyrie" (those who sends people to Valhall) is "Valkyrja" in Old Norse. In Old Norse, that "I" would've been pronounced as a "J" and there's no words in Old Norse with I pronounced as J. The logo would be best if it was VÍKIPEÐJA.

    Jeg kan endre logoen i kveld, men kan du bygge et lag som bygger denne nyen Víkipeðja? Hogweard (mōtung) 09:36, 9 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think I'm the right person to build a team to make the Old Norse Wikipedia. I don't know any people with the required knowledge. Aleof (mōtung) 20:46, 9 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    Ƿ, Ƿ and more Ƿ[adiht fruman]

    I know why the wynn is not used so much in articles due to it's similarity to Þ and P, but I think it should be used on the front page. At least in the headlines.

    Now, this is the sentence on the top of the front page:

    WILCUME on þā Engliscan Wikipǣdie!

    This is what I peronally think would been best:

    ǷILCUME on þā Engliscan Ƿikipǣdie!

    I'm sorry for broken English. I'm not from England, but from Norway. Aleof (mōtung) 06:34, 7 Þrimilcemōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    What about: ǷILCUME on þā Engliſcan Ƿikipǣdie!

    KATMAKROFAN (mōtung) 13:59, 13 Winterfylleþ 2017 (UTC)

    Oh yes! That would've been even better! I forgot that old (and wonderful) s. Aleof (mōtung) 22:21, 16 Blōtmōnaþ 2017 (UTC)

    Question about the title of this wiki.[adiht fruman]

    Concerning the title "Seo Freo Wisdomboc" (excuse the lazy orthography); I was wondering why the form freo is being used here. boc is a feminine noun, as correctly indicated by the article seo, however the form freo is neither the strong feminine adjective form (which would be freu according to wiktionary) nor the weak (frewe from equal source). Since I highly doubt such a glaring error would be allowed to remain in the title of the wikipedia, I figured there must be some explanation for this. I am open to education and looking forward to a response. -- 09:30, 28 Winterfylleþ 2017 (UTC)

    The correct forms are frēo or frīge. I can't find the "freu" you mention from Wiktionary, but you will see -e ending grammatical forms such as strong nominative/accusative masculine plural, which should usually be phonetically the same as weak feminine nominative singular (they both end in -e), as "frēo" and "frīge".   Ƿes hāl!    00:05, 17 Sēremōnaþ 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Old English was like any other language, because new english sounds nothing like a other language at all.

    That's so true lmao :) --DefenderTienMinh07 (motung) 20:10, 1 Þrimilcemonað 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed changes to the 4 alternative scripts[adiht fruman]

    1. I'd like to propose that: ȝƿ and (insular g)ƿ page versions be removed - neither of them have much purpose. They don't have internally coheret rationals (yogh was not a distinct letter in OE, and as far as insular script goes - that was basically a "font", which you can see via the "language setings" cog).

    2. I'd also like a propose that a ƿ+no-macron version be added. Short of font change (which is available), this is the most accurate representation of historical OE writing practice.

    3. I'd further like to propose that all source be written in gw with macrons, for simplicity sake.

    4. I would like script changes to affect the sidebar, if possible. I don't know how to implement that. I might do some digging.

    5. I would like script changes to have "permenance" - that is, if you choose one script, and go to a new page, that page is in the script you have chosen, instead of the default script of the page. (Again, I don't know how to implement this, and will need to do some digging.)

      Ƿes hāl!    22:24, 10 Mǣdmōnaþ 2019 (UTC)

    How to learn OE?[adiht fruman]

    I have decided to learn OE seriously now. How do i learn the language without watching 2016 YouTube videos? 19:31, 6 Eastermonað 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a good challenge, and an enlightening experience. You could start with: First Steps in Old English by Stephen Pollington or the classic, Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer (the link is to Amazon: get it fast before Amazon decide it is not woke enough for their exclusive shelves!)
    However you should also read poetry, the Chronicle etc, all available online, and also in several well-written books.
    For good prose, there is the Chronicle, Orosius and anything by Ælfric. Hogweard (motung) 16:15, 7 Eastermonað 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    i hate my life[adiht fruman]

    i have no skills or talent people say AnYoNe cAn lEaRn a lAnGuAgE just fire up duolingo and wait 5 years yeah i wish i'm unteachable i wil now go cry to modern english wikipedia :( don't even try to teach me fml why am i even here

    i WANT TO BE FLUENT[adiht fruman]

    theirs only so many words a book can hold i don't want a beginners book so i can come ask again I AM SERIOUS weather if it's a online course or a truckload of books that have all the iirc 80ish thousand words in OE so tell me the list of books or smthn cuz I'M SERIOUS ABOUT THIS I WANNA BE FLUENT

    i want all 80ish thousand words in my skull even if it takes the rest my life bruh

    Why does this exist?[adiht fruman]

    So I don't understand old English and visually it looks very different from modern english, so I speak in modern English. BUT WHY DOES THIS EXIST? WHO HAD THE IDEA OF CREATING AN OLD ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA? But seriously, no body speak old english and it evolved to modern English. Contrarly to latin which is still used by the catholic church and used to create taxons (which is maybe the only justification for having a latin Wikipedia), old English is no longer used at all. I someone knows why does this exist, please tell me. Yassine Mehdi (motung) 10:09, 17 Haligmonað 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hwæt? Þū ne līcast Wikipǣdia? 18:54, 22 Eastermonað 2024 (UTC)[reply]