User talk:Pfold/Archive 1

--King of All the Franks 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)



A Help Request: Language Map
About two weeks ago, I took a JPG file that had the Indo-European language tree on it and transferred the information to a (I hope) "sleeker" new SVG document. . Unfortunately, I know very little about what exactly I was recreating. I added everything from the original to the new version, which has left rather enigmatic language names and numbers on it that I can't explain. User:Kwamikagami told me that the numbers are called "confidence levels," if that helps. I was wondering if you could possibly explain what these mean so I could add a explanation on the image page, or do something else to make things clearer for readers. Thanks so much for you time.

Old High German
I wonder if you could answer some of my questions on Old High German talk, as you reverted my edits. Rex 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

what is a title page? and do you plan to restore...?
Hello,

See Historical linguistics &mdash; you added text about a title page, which confuses me.


 * modern books have title pages which give the date of publication, so the language can be dated - manuscripts tend not to have title pages and are usually not accurately datable. Unfortunately the title page article lacks any historical information about the development of the device.

And do you plan to take the stuff on comparative linguistics that you removed from that page and put it on the comparative linguistics page? I only looked briefly; maybe I missed some that you did move...

--Ling.Nut 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, don't understand what you mean. I think one of your reference to comparative linguistics must be meant to be soemthing else. --Pfold 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your explanation here is a bit more clear, but on the historical linguistics page the reference to a title page seems unconnected to the topic...
 * I was talking about your edit of 7 April 2006 with the edit summary cut comparative material.
 * Do you think we can cite all the info on the historical linguistics page and match it to its source?
 * Thanks --Ling.Nut 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, still not quite clear on this - is it that you want to me to put the cut material on the comparative linguistics talk page? --Pfold 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, put it somewhere so that people can see if there's anything useful in it. :-) The talk page of the comparative linguistics page is as good a place as any. :-)
 * Also the historical linguistics page needs some serious Verifiability help, if I remember correctly. :-)
 * I might be able to help in a couple weeks, but it's final exams time right now...
 * --Ling.Nut 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Siegfried
Dear Pfold:

I have no personal background in the history of Siegfried or the related legends. The article on Sigurd (note the name; Siegfried redirects there) seems to say that the earliest appearance of the legend was in Sweden. It also says that the name Sigurd appears to be a Norse corruption of the German Siegfried, so this is confusing. Wikipedians interested in Norse mythology are very prolific (except with source citations), and it is possible that they are contributing their own slant to many articles. You may want to explore these articles and correct them, if necessary. Finell (Talk) 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Sigurd page is misleading about the origins of the legend. I'm planning to put up a proper Siegfried page when I can find the time. --Pfold 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Bavarian
Dear Pfold, you seem to be an expert on historical linguistics and medieval germanic languages. I found out that even by recognized scholars of German philology about a third of Old German (or Old High German) primary sources are classified as "Old Bavarian". Among them some very prominent ones like:


 * Abrogans (first text ever in Old High German)
 * Lay of Hildebrand (first text in Old High German that is not based on a latin source)
 * Muspilli
 * Kassel conversations
 * Wessobrunn Prayer
 * Song of St. Peter (Freisinger Petruslied, first song in Old High German)

Of course, the romantic nationalistic scholars of the 19th century claimed all of those primary sources for German, not mentioning their Bavarian (and not Frankonian) character. This was done among others by the especially notorious Grimm brothers. I would like to add this information into Wikipedia, but I am intimidated to do so, because especially German users don't want to hear about this (by the way, I am modern-Bavarian speaking Austrian). A lot of the vocabulary of those texts is not even listed in Old High German dictionaries.

Did you ever hear about this "bavarian connection"? Is there any information about this in English language scientific literature? I think especially the Lay of Hildebrand was investigated by English and American scholars, because of its partly Old-Saxon character. Perhaps they found out something. Many thanks in advance ... --El bes 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (My account at the bavarian Wikipedia)


 * Bavarian is an OHG dialect, so it's perfectly legitimate to call a Bavarian text OHG. Indeed OHG is really just a cover term for a related group of dialects. There's no nationalism or conspiracy or cover-up here. These texts have not been "claimed for German". Not to mention the fact that many Bavarian texts do in fact have some Franconian features, arising from the political and ecclesiastical relationship between the Bavaria and the Carolingian Empire. The text of the Hildebrandlied is not Bavarian, but a dialect mixture with some definitely and some possibly Bavarian features.


 * And, of course, your own point of view could be characterised as nationalistic, as you want to claim the texts for Bavarian as if that's excluded by their being OHG! I think you need to familiarise yourself with much more of the scholarship before adding material on this subject to WP - other editors will (rightly) expect you to cite sources for anything they're not familiar with from the literature. --Pfold 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed answer. I am perfectly aware of what you say and would never put my personal point of view into a wikipedia article, unless I find some goods scientific sources to rely on. But on the Talk page it is still allowed to raise such questionsn, istn' it?


 * Perhaps the misunderstanding results from the fact that in English literature, scholars seem to make a distinction between Old German (all dialects, including Old Saxon) and Old Upper German (Lombardian, Alemannic and Bavarian). I saw this definition in the Encyclopedia Britannica and never read about it in German language literature. There the word Old HIGH German is used almost synonimousely to Old German, and never Old Upper German. --El bes 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for disturbing you again. I just saw that you contribute to the High German consonant shift‎ article. The above findings open a completely new view on the consonant shift. Because the Abrogans dictionary, that might really be the oldest Old German primary source, already has implemented the consonant shift. How is it possible, that in a shift from A to B, B is the form we see in the very oldest text? Isn't there some mistake in the whole concept or perhaps just some wrong age determination? --El bes 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have overlooked the fact that there were people speaking OHG long before the earliest surviving texts! I'm afraid that nothing you say "opens a completely new view on the consonant shift." --Pfold 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly aware of the fact, that any language is spoken for generations before it is written down for the first time. But as a matter of fact, you cannot give any information about the time of the consonant shift, or the time when the Old Upper German (Lombard, Alemannic, Bavarian) group drifted apart linguistically. --El bes 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

no conspiracy, no cover-up:
In the article about Otfrid of Weissenburg, the specific variant of old west-germanic is explicitly mentioned as (Old) South Rhine Frankonian, see:
 * "Otfrid of Weissenburg (German: Otfrid von Weißenburg) (c. 800 - after 870) was a monk at Weissenburg (modern-day Wissembourg in Alsace) and the author of a gospel harmony in rhyming couplets now called the Evangelienbuch. It is written in the South Rhine Franconian dialect of Old High German."

In the article on the "Ludwigslied" there is also a very detailed analysis of the specific language variant, see:
 * "The dialect of the poem generally regarded as Rhine Franconian, though there are some peculiarities which have received a variety of explanations. It is assumed that the manuscript was written by a bilingual scribe in Saint-Amand and we have no other example of an OHG text from this area. Some regard it as the sole textual example of the otherwise little known West Franconian dialect, which is assumed to have been the language of the Carolingian court."

Why aren't you putting the Lay of Hildebrand article at the same sophisticated level of historical linguistics? I suppose, because than you would have to mention its bavarian characteristics explicitely? I would be very pleased, if you prove me wrong.


 * Don't be silly. I will do it when I get time to check on the agreed Bav. characteristics. --Pfold 10:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Perhaps the fact, that the monastry of Fulda was founded by a bavarian monch (Saint Sturm), explains why in Frankonian speaking area there was written a (semi)-Bavarian text. --El bes 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparative linguistics/History of linguistics > Joseph Scaliger
Hi Pfold. I am looking for some pointers from a more experienced editor on an addition I am working on relating to Joseph Scaliger and the beginnings of comparative linguistics. If you are interested, please see the top of my talkpage for details. Thanks. Varoon Arya 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Parent Language
Hi again, Pfold. I just finished writing a first draft of an article entitled Germanic Parent Language. I am expecting one of three things to happen: (1) It is completely ignored, seeing as it doesn't (read: any longer) link to any pages in the mainspace; (2) I am given a royal thrashing for having written it (I've already had one promised to me) and receive half-hearted death-threats (but only half) from certain editors; (3) a few tid-bits of information are gleaned from it to be incorperated elsewhere, and the bulk is cast upon the ever-growing heap of rejected stubs. Somewhere inside, I'm hoping for (4) some gallant senior editor will see the value in it, and suggest it be linked somewhere where it won't cause anyone to lose too much sleep. But I'm not holding my breath on that one. Anyways, could you take a look at it? (And perhaps spare the rod if you decide to go for (2)?) Thanks. Varoon Arya 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Well, the stub has apparently survived the preliminary round (ca. 24 hours), though it has been suggested to merge it with Proto-Germanic. If you get the chance, please drop by and voice your opinion. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box
Pfold...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeoman
Hi. There is a proposal to move Yeoman (disambiguation) to, and I have moved the article formerly at that page name to a page name that more accurately reflects the scope of the article : Yeoman (word). Judging by your comments on Talk:Yeoman (word), I think this may please you. I agree with you 100% that the content about "yeomen" prior to the earliest evidence of the word itself is specious. --Una Smith (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup
You are invited to the first Brighton Wiki Meetup which will take place at The West Quay, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton BN2 5UT on Sunday 28 April 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Brighton topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

BP
In fact, you can't convert calendar dates to Before present dates, and we shouldn't convert BP dates either unless the source gives a calendar date range. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Low German (disambiguation)
Hello, Pfold. Your recent edits to Low German (disambiguation) show sensitivity to historical linguistic theories, but not to Wikipedia's style, particularly Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are merely navigational aids. Such pages feature bullet lists of links to pages with potentially ambiguous names and sentence fragments describing those pages. I have rewritten the contentious point as follows:
 * Low Germanic, term used by the German linguist Theo Vennemann in his controversial classification of the Germanic languages

I hope that this wording satisfies your concerns about potentially misleading information. It also satisfies Wikipedia's style by including only one link, using a redirect page rather than piping, and using a sentence fragment with no final punctuation. If the wording still seems misleading or otherwise inappropriate and you decide to rewrite it, please try to observe the standards of the MOS. Thanks, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. You wrote in your edit summary, "the article linked to does not actually discuss the term, so this entry has to provide full information". Again, DAB pages are not articles. The full information belongs in the relevant section of High German consonant shift or perhaps in some other article, but not on a disambiguation page. Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Chivalric romance
You are correct that the poems outnumber the prose works, but these works are not romances. I am an expert on chivalric romance, especially the Spanish, author of Romances of Chivalry in the Spanish Golden Age (1982) and other works, and on the term "romance". If you want I'll give you the reference to the latter, it's a page-long footnote in my A Study of Don Quixote, which I don't have at hand right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Gothic
I just posted an update on the talk page of Gothic. If you want to contact me when you react, you can find me on the Gothic language wikipedia here in my profile: https://got.wikipedia.org/wiki/%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8C%BF%F0%90%8D%84%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8C%B3%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8D%83_%F0%90%8C%B2%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8D%85%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8C%BF%F0%90%8D%82%F0%90%8C%B3%F0%90%8C%BE%F0%90%8C%B0:Bokareis

I agree that it's better to not include the link because of self-promotion, I just wonder why Bagme Bloma is mentioned, because according to your interpretation it has nothing to do with the article, because it's exactly as my news website reconstructed Gothic.

Bokareis (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

'Brand'
Can you please provide a source that suggests that the original and primary meaning of the '-brand' of Hildebrand is 'sword'? Every single source I'm getting indicates that it's from OHG brant, PGerm. brandaz, which unambiguously means 'fire' or 'brand'. I can only find any hint at the 'sword' meaning in Early Modern English and Frisian, nothing from OHG or PGerm - every reference to 'sword' in those two is from PGerm. *swerdą, hence NHG Schwert, English sword. You say there's a debate as to whether '-brand' and brandaz are related, but to me your etymology seems even more suspect.

Kielbasa1 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Why?
Why do you keep reverting my work? Wizymon (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because your supposed "correction" of that to which is utterly pointless and almost certainly based on a misapprehension about English relative clauses. Such a use of that is gramatically perfectly correct. For an authoritative explanation of why that is not wrong here, see []. Or you could just look at English relative clauses. In terms of usage, that seems to be more common in restrictive relatives - a Google search shows that all words that is twice as common as all words which.


 * I'm reverting to the original - that's the third revert, so please don't change it again without going to the article talk page and explaining why you insist on this utterly pointless change. --Pfold (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Medieval German poets
Sorry about that - I think I see where the problem lies. I'll work on it tonight. Should have it fixed pretty quickly. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW
Why did you undo my Gothic "that" to "which" edit? Wizymon (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've answered you above. I think you need to explain the basis of your mistaken belief that "that" is wrong here. --Pfold (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sussex places of worship
Thanks for your ongoing work on identifying discrepancies, additions etc. on the various Sussex places of worship lists – it is appreciated! In the next day or two I will gather them all together in a list on one of my user subpages, with the aim of working through them gradually as I get the chance to do the necessary research. Then I can tick them off as I go along. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stanley Simmonds
Just a word to express delight at the appearance of this article - the comments on the "relentless drive for academic laurels" in the Pedley era ring so true - prevented from studying A-level art, it was he who provided me with encouragement and a discreet refuge in the artroom store where I could develop my art while he was teaching classes in front. I recall clearly his wry delight at seeing a grim-faced headmaster present this unofficial student with an externally awarded painting prize. Thanks for jogging the memory. Davidships (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanley Simmonds, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Launceston and John Piper. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Malcolm Mackay (writer)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Malcolm Mackay (writer), Pfold!

Wikipedia editor Domdeparis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"hi I added a number of sources to ensure the subject meets the notability criteria but the article need expanding rapidly"

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Domdeparis (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pepper release date in song articles
I see your changing the release date in the relevant song articles. Seeing as some of these are Good Articles, it would be much appreciated if you would add sources for the new date also, rather than just doing a hit-and-run each time. JG66 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Si
Hi, dab pages need a link to the article with the acronym per WP:DABACRO. I see you added it into the article, but linked a different article. You may want to checkout WP:MOSDAB. Regards Widefox ; talk 08:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"Edited" versus "cited"
I apologize for having accidentally changed the meaning of what you wrote at Walther von der Vogelweide. I misread your original statement and thought it said "cited," when really it said "edited." The two words look very similar in writing. I must have been thinking about citations and, for some reason, I misread it. I thank you for having corrected my error. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it - we've all done it. And and you were right that the sentence could have read better. --Pfold (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dietrich von Bern page
Dear Pfold, I noticed you are one of the sane ones editing the Legends about Theodoric the Great page. Would you mind lending me a hand refuting the Ritter-Schaumburg/Badenhausen stuff? I'm trying to get rid of reduce Badenhausen and make it clear that Ritter-Schaumburg is not taken seriously.Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. It's been something I was intending to get round to anyway at some point, though I'm a bit tied up with Wolfdietrich/Ortnit at the moment (having got rid of the Badenhausen stuff from there). The LTG is on my watchlist, so I'm happy to wade in with comments, though I don't want to get involved in editing the article just at the moment. I could, I suppose, cross-post my comment from Talk:Wolfdietrich if that would help. --Pfold (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving Brynhildr
Hi Pfold! Just wanted to make sure you were aware that I've started a vote on voting the current page Brynhildr to Brunhild (or possibly Brunhilda). I don't know what your thoughts on the matter are, but I'd appreciate your input. I'm planning to improve/rewrite the pages for the Nibelungen characters (I've already started on Sigurd) and this struck me as a good first step to improving the Brynhildr page.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Difficult one. *I* would move it, but the Scandinavian contingent will have other views. I would say it's worth seeing if you can find the form used in and English reference works to prvide an objective basis (Britannica has Brunhild). In principle the case for Siegfried (currently Sigurd) is clearer since he is certainly Frankish. --Pfold (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been reluctant to involve them in improving the articles for precisely the fear that they'll try to overemphasize how pagan and Scandinavian things are... Sigurd I'm OK with, but Brynhildr isn't even properly transcribed into English.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nibelungenlied translation
I don't suppose you have access to a modern NL translation? I've added stanza 326 to the lead of the page Brunhild and the translation I found is pretty archaic.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got Cyril Edwards's translation, so I'll add it.--Pfold (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could do the same thing for Gudrun? I've added stanza 2 to the lead. If you know how to display the poems so they look a little better I'd appreciate that help too; for the Edda quote I can't figure out how to make the English and the Norse next to each other.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving Nibelung to Nibelungen legend
Just FIA, I've requested that the article Nibelung be moved to Nibelungen legend. Feel free to chime in in the discussion.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

comprised of
Discussion moved to Talk:Verfasserlexikon.--Pfold (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Agathoclea (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The tags on Old High German
Can you re-add the lang tags on Old High German with the correct language code? I'm assuming it's Old High German, but I'm a little confused and perhaps overly-literal with talk about Latin texts. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  10:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Kuhn
I looked into Kuhn some more and have decided to basically argue that, as a respected post-war scholar on the Ostsiedlung, he would be a reliable source if he were directly cited rather than in somebody else's Atlas. I wonder if you, looking at what I present at the RSNB, agree with me. I think there's some sort of Polish nationalist thing going on here, I even suspect that our article Walter Kuhn is probably heavily affected by it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Old Dutch
Hi Pfold, might you be able to judge the following edits at Old Dutch,. I had initially reverted the change as the IP's reasoning was clearly flawed ("'Old' refers to the pre-standardized stage of a language"), and the statement about why some scholars prefer the name Old Low Franconian seems likely to be right to me. However I do not know the subject well enough to have a source ready to support the reasons why the term "Old Low Franconian" might be preferred, although I find the reasoning on the Wikipage implied in works like Orrin Robinson's Old English and its Closest Relatives p. 205.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My own preference would be for OLF, and the term is certainly common in Jstor articles, but a look through the books on my shelves suggests that the two terms are about equally common (searching for "Old Dutch" in Jstor is not specially usaeful). No one author uses both, though. (And in German Altniederländisch and Altniederfränkisch, likewise.)
 * I suppose it's odd to have OLF as the ancestor of Middle Dutch, when OHG is the ancestor of MHG. IN essence, OLF is backward-looking and OD forward-looking. Perhaps the middle way is to regard Old Dutch as the cover term for the individual OLF varieties, just as we do in OHG. Be nice to find some explicit discussion in the literature. --Pfold (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It would indeed. We do have Old Saxon instead of Old Low German, I notice. Robinson uses "Old Low Franconian" instead of Old Dutch, while acknowledging that it is possible to view OLF as the ancestor of MD. OLF is also my personal preference. That would, I suppose, leave OHG as the odd man out. I'm not aware of any alternative name for it.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just been looking at some of the material in Google Books and it's obvious that "Old Dutch" is widely used in published works by respected scholars, and I can't see any evidence that there are objections to it, so I think we just have to forget our personal preferences. There is a hint in Language and Space: Dutch that OLF might be used for the earlier phase (up to 700) and MD for all the surviving texts, but it's not explicitly argued. --Pfold (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"Tun" as an auxiliary
Until I made this edit the article Modal verb claimed that German never used tun as an auxiliary verb - something which I'm sure you're aware isn't true. I also noticed that the article Do-support only mentions the theory that it arose in English because of Brythonic influence without any mention of the fact that other Germanic languages have analogous constructions. I suspect someone has added their pet theory without making mention of competing ones (like that Welsh and Cornish, the only Celtic languages with do-support, might have developed it under the influence of English).

I was wondering if you would know any sources on this. Salmons' textbook has a section on the use of tun in this way, but that seems a sub-optimal source, and none of the other information on other Germanic languages uses of "do" is sourced at Modal verb.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's a whole book about it: Linguistic Purism in Action: How Auxiliary 'tun' Was Stigmatized in Early New High German, with contemporary examples on p. 7.
 * Thanks Pfold, I've had a look at the preview and have ordered the book. I've already edited the info at Modal verb to reflect what's in the book, but once I have it I can possibly make some improvements to "do-support".--Ermenrich (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Badenhausen
Hi Pfold, just a heads up, the Badenhausen-pushing user Tympanus is back. He's currently blocked for threatening to use "students" to edit war, so it's a good idea to keep an eye on any Dietrich von Bern-related pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, Ermenrich! --Pfold (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He's apparently done quite a number on de:Thidrekssaga too. Unfortunately I don't feel I understand policy at German WP enough to correct him.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned he's about to get upblocked, actually, see, so perhaps I will need backup at Thidrekssaga/wherever else he's let loose upon.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a report of additions recent enough for COIBot to detect them: WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/badenhausen.net. I'm not sure if it's worth blacklisting yet, but if you would like to request it, it should be done here (for en-wiki only) or here (global). There usually needs to be interwiki abuse for the global blacklist.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Central Bavarian
Hi,

please check the IP edit also here...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC))

Grimaldi
Hi Pfold, the specific information at Disambiguation pages with links I meant to refer you to is the following: " Where an article intentionally links to a disambiguation page, that link should be through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, to make it clear that the link is intentional." The main reason for this is that editors who are looking for DAB-links to fix will not attempt to fix this one, seeing that it is intentional. For example, Grimaldi is included in this bot-generated report, which is how I came across it. Changing it to Grimaldi (disambiguation), even if seemingly pointless, solves that. I hope this clears it up. Lennart97 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that does clarify. Sorry to have reverted without checking more carefully! --Pfold (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! Lennart97 (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please join the archival project here:
The Soup Committee --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Elizabeth Mary Wright, 1923.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Elizabeth Mary Wright, 1923.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

ß
Hi Pfold, I'm trying to improve the article ß, specifically the origins section, and I've discovered that none of the books I have seems to mention it. Would you have any suggestions there? Also, I'm looking for a good image of early NHG or late MHG use of 'sz' for 'ss'/ modern 'ß'. Would you happen to know of any? Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I can help much on the origins, but have a look at https://tw.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/ma05669 for a font from 1480 where you can clearly see the s and the z. --Pfold (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pfold! It turned out there was something in one of the history of German books I have too.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Procol Harum
Why is it irrelevant? MANY songs include the rankings of cover versions. Why not this one? Annie Lennox got her version mentioned. Who are you to say? ;) 2001:56A:FA85:3800:75B3:861B:181E:5C7A (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article and noted where cover versions were mentioned. If you had done the same, you would have seen that your proposed edit was out of keeping with the article as it stands. The Annie Lennox version was a world-wide hit by a major artist and has its own section. No other cover version is mentioned - there is just the statement about the number of covers versions in the intro.--Pfold (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Salman und Morolf
I just discovered that our article on Salman und Morolf doesn't even know that the "legend" derives from a single MHG epic. See here Solomon_and_Marcolf. I wonder if this is something you'd be interested in working on?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't think I can help here — busy trying to improve the Minnesang article and looking at improvements to Neidhart von Reuental. --Pfold (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Germanic languages on Germanic peoples
Hi Pfold, I'm wondering if you might be able to help me spruce on the section on Germanic languages in the article Germanic peoples. Like all the other main articles we have on the subject, it was in a poor shape and seemed mostly to relate the theories of Friedrich Maurer, which I understand are used by archaeologists (for some reason), but not generally by linguists (Rhine-Weser Germanic and Elbe-Germanic, etc.).--Ermenrich (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I just haven't got time for any serious WP work at the moment - I've got a couple of offline projects which are claiming all my spare capacity. I'd be happy to contribute with the occasional comment or suggestion, but can't fit in any actual editing work.
 * On the subject of Maurer, I would say his 5-fold division is pretty widely acccepted by linguists - it's in pretty well every handbook - even though his basis was primarily the archaeological evidence. It's actually taken some concerted effort to get rid of all the Tacitean tribal labels from various Gmc articles and replace them with Maurer's. For just a section in Germanic peoples, I don't think one can get into the whole debate, which belongs in the main Gmc article. Sorry, not to be able to put more effort into this! Perhaps in a month or two. --Pfold (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary etymology
Hi! I know you're not active on Wiktionary, but I can hardly think of anyone better to ask for clarification about this inquiry in Wiktionary: wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/August (just in case you're interested). –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I'll have a look at some sources and post what I find. --Pfold (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Merseburg Charms
Nice job of impeding the improvement of WP's English syntax. Because you can't be buggered to review the edits, they must be reversed wholesale. Whatever. Wegesrand (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)