Talk:wesen

@Korn

• As for MLG and "please enter forms for sî-stem at sîn", Lasch stated: "da die verschiedenen formen sich überall mischen" and "Doch muss mit vielen durchkreuzungen gerechnet werden". Thus a separation as suggested might be somewhat artificial and unjustified.
• As for NLG and "Removing mere conjugational forms":
  • "wiäsen" is not a conjugational form of "wesen" (at least not always), and if it were, it would be missing in the table. Well, now it's solved differently.
  • As for "sin; sid, wiren", I don't remember where they were found and what they are. However, possibilities are: (a) They are infinitive sin and forms thereof, thus at least a synonym. (b) They are forms of wesen and thus would belong into the - or rather a - table here. (c) They are forms of wesen/sin (treated) as a single verb with two infinitives. A mentioning, and not the source, is: archive.org/stream/zufritzreuterpr00reutgoog#page/n21/mode/2up . Reuter could indeed use it and be the - or a - source.

-84.161.57.30 18:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. The separation is completely artificial and justified by producing readable conjugation tables within the dictionary. It's explained in the usage note. If you want to handle it differently, I invite you to make a proposal. While I agree that alternative forms would normally belong next to each other in the conjugation table, that may not be a workable solution. The editors of Old French decided to just take in the very most common forms into their tables, for example. 2. Wiäsen simply is an alternative spelling of wesen in dialects which pronounce it with /iɛ/. You're right that it belongs on the page, though. 3. I still don't like you always breaking into conjecture. If you don't know what forms are and where they come from, you don't need to take time to making stuff up. Wiren is a Northeastern form of weren and thus merely a different form of the preterite. If anything, it belongs into the conjugation table, see point 1. Sid is either an imperative or a southwestern form of /sɪnt/, both of which also aren't lemmata. Sin is already covered under synonyms. And if that source is dealing with Reuter, as it does, then 'sid' isn't real Low German at all, it's a High German calque no genuine speaker of the area would have used at the time. It seems to have been fashionable among High German-speaking city dwellers in Mecklenburg at the time to invent a second plural form, while Low German doesn't know a personal distinction in the verbal plural. That said, since our CFI require one citation, this weird affection passes for Low German here, but it is still not a lemma and hence doesn't belong into the 'see also' section. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply