This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Ancient Germanic studies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Germanic studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesAncient Germanic studies articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the ((Ethnic groups)) template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The problem is this, "Proto-Germanic is generally agreed to have begun about 500 BC.[6]" as per #Evolution. Can that be expanded?

The suggested information is precisely what I came here for, because I have heard about it but cannot recollect the argument, which, if I remember correctly, concerns Latin loanwords and sound changes, dating these changes to after the earliest possible contact. I need details.

The reference goes to Ringe 2006: pg. 67. The 2017 edition has a preview (1), which mentions this date in a paranthetical on pg. 84.

> Proto-Germanic, by contrast, is unlikely to have been spoken before 2500 years ago (ca. 500 BC). [2017:84]

Is that it? Added content in the new edition has caused pages to move. I'm sure that's it, because if there were anymore information in the original 2006 quotation why would the editor not readily use it in the article? I do not think it meets WP:NPOV, does it?

I am aware that the date is nearly universally agreed upon, but I cannot agree when arguments for it are neither here nor there. Rhyminreason (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS: Edited for brevity.Reply[reply]

I might add that Mallory refers us to Polomé (1987). Whereas Fulk, without references, suggest 500 BC for an East Germanic branch.

• 1987: Polomé, Who are the Germanic People, in Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a linguistic problem. pg.219-220
• 1995: Mallory, The Indo-European Homeland Problem: a Matter of Time
• 2014: Fulk, A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages, Ch. 1 ad finis; free pdf on-line.

Rhyminreason (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mahagaja: Seeing there was no response in over a week, your name popped up at the top of this page and I know you to be quite helpful, it would be nice to read your perspective. I do not have access to Polomé 1987, maybe you do or can offer another source? Rhyminreason (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're treating Ringe as if he were a WP editor. An acknowledged expert in a field does not have to give sources - in fact, giving a ref would imply he got the fact from the published work of a specific other scholar. WP:NPOV simply does not apply here.

The fact that he doesn't give any reasoning does not diminish his authority as a source for WP. And the fact that he doesn't also implies it is an uncontroversial issue in the field. You may personally want more information, but that's not a basis for challenging Ringe's status as a source and the status of anything he says about Gmc. The fact that you don't accept what Ringe says is a perfectly reasonable personal response on your part, but it's completely irrelevant for the purposes of this article. --Pfold (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know anything about the dating of Proto-Germanic myself, but if different scholars have different opinions and none of them can really be considered the standard view agreed upon by most researchers, then we should present all the most widely accepted views. If Ringe's statement has widespread consensus, it's OK to give it alone, but if it's just one of many respected opinions, we don't want to give it undue weight. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pfold: I'm flabbergasted at your response. WP:NPOV very much applies here: "Avoid stating opinions as facts". It is clearly not a fact but merely "likely". That's an opinion and that's a fact. We represent it idempotent. The problem is not with the author, not with the however questionable part of the particular work, just about the material. It is not explained and I'd very much like to see the explanation. Not in the discussion pages, but in the article. Therefore an adequate source is needed, which this is not.

You say this were "completely irrelevant for the purposes of this article". It is either that, or that the argument is too involved to comprehend so that "everyone but hard-core specialists must be asked to take at least some of what I say on trust" (Ringe, ibidem:4). It is expected--good faith requires as much--that an editor adding the material is expedient enough to estimate the claim and substantiate the claim that there was Academic Concensus. Alas you already lost the good faith.

Don't you pull the old switcheroo on me. Implying the author gave an uncontested and uncontroversial fact is just not WP:Verifiable as is. The work itself makes it clear in the further text that archaeological evidence is lacking and that designations of the linguistic terminus Proto-Germanic in use are various, so he presents his own; these might differ in minute details, that may be however important. The article says as much. It should suffice to keep the reference in this context and remove it from the first section (that reads quasi as if PGem split off from PIE in 500 BC). I'll remove in due time, and see what's next. 109.40.242.162 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"dheH1" appears in the verb subsection, paragraph three, "PIE *dheH₁- originally "put"". The notation doesn't make sense, the 'd' should be noted as aspirated or as before one of the laryngeals, and the H₁ should either be in lowercase or unmarked. It should probably be 'd^heh₁', but I want to be sure, what source was this pulled from?

Shouldn't there be an ə between l and n (see "Vocalisation of remaining laryngeals"), preventing /ln/ > /ll/ assimilation (as elision occurs later)? Same applies to *h₂wĺ̥h₁neh₂ > wullō. --2003:DD:E710:A70:F4E6:1E72:5FAF:E249 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote found in note 3 cited to Ringe (2006) either does not exist or is cited to wrong source. Ringe (2006) page 85 is about the epenthesis of vowels before resonants (the Ṛ> uR stuff) and word-final m̥ becoming n̥. Also, the word "Jastorf" does not appear in the book. --Ioe bidome (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have Just gotten the second edition of Ringe's book, and the quote actually comes from there --Ioe bidome (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an ISO language code to put into etymology sections in Wiktionary?GregZak (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]