Talk:Proto-Germanic language

Languages High‑importance

	Language portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
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

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:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

probable misspelling *dheH1

"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?

Yes, I think H₁ is a typo for h₁. I've gone ahead and changed it. I've added a source too, Harðarson 2018, which says: "Since the dawn of comparative Indo-European linguistics most scholars have been inclined to connect the dental suffix of the weak preterite with the Gmc verb *dō- ‘do’ (cf. Lühr 1984: 41 w. lit.). In fact, this connection is very probable, although the details are still controversial." Stickinsect2 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CE/AD

I'd likd to propose to use BCE/CE in this article; I don't see how thw proto-Germanic language is related to Jesus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not opposed, though I don’t feel strongly about it. CĒ/BCE is the standard in most secular academic writing now.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. _signed,Willondon (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. I find references to Jesus as a dominus (lord, owner) of humans to be a rather objectionable refence to slave owners. Dimadick (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never understood the concerns/feelings about this, but I see it as a practical concern in non academic topics. In extreme cases articles can end up being bombed by constant attempts to change the format and I think we should have better things to do. Words are tools and they have all kinds of histories, but those histories are not always well known. So I accept both forms, but I would point out that if non-academics are meant to be able to read an article, then switching away from common English terms to terms only academics use is not really putting communication at the top of the priority list. Arguably this is an "academic" topic though, so I just give these quick comments, and don't take a position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not terms that only academics use. And some readers may not like CE/BCE, but I think few will be prevented from understanding. _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree, and I really wonder if you mean that. I have never heard or read these terms used outside of academia (or occasionally in summaries of academia). Our readers are from all over the world, and many will have no tertiary education, but this specific jargon is also unknown to many people with a tertiary education, whereas BC/AD are pretty well-known if anyone has done basic history. (I was taught them in primary school. Unlike most people though, I know what the letters stand for.) So there really is a possible practical issue, depending on the type of topic. I hope practical issues get considered. As to which terms have the angriest defenders for whatever idealistic reasons, I really don't know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Andrew on this. (And even if you think it's wrong, there are much more uregnt things that need attention.) --Pfold (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly agree there are more important things to change about this article, this is also an easy thing to change, whereas actually improving other aspects of the article would take quite a bit of time. So I don't think that's really an argument against doing anything. But as I said, I have no strong opinion. I think Andrew's argument has some merit, as I have been, for instance, completely mystified when I saw articles use BP notation. But since CE/BCE and AD/BC at least share the same numbers, I don't think it will cause a lot of confusion.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not being related to Jesus seems like flimsy grounds. Could any usage of BC survive that logic? Srnec (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Britannica Reference

The current 4th reference refers to an article which does not exist. If you go to the archived link of The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1993) which it cites, you will find there is no article titled Languages of the World: Germanic languages. The list of articles runs: Langtry, Lillie; language; language, ideal; Languedoc. As best as I can tell, none of the information in this Wikipedia article supposedly sourced from that Encyclopædia is contained in it. Therefore, all references to this source (i.e. Britannica) should be removed. 1.126.109.130 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Determiners: Ancestor of "yon(der)" and "jener"?

I would have assumed that there must have been a Proto-Germanic ancestor to those old distal demonstrative pronouns of English and German. ~2026-60851 (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should [ɣʷ] even be listed on the consonant table?

If [ɣʷ] in all cases became either [w] or [ɣ], wouldn't that mean it wasn't a part of the language anymore, and thus shouldn't be on the table? The only remnant of /gʷ/ in PGmc was when it appeared after /n/, so would it then become a phoneme if the original sound it was an allophone of vanished? ICommandeth (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes are listed as "Late Stage Proto-Germanic" - I would assume that's why the sound is included. I think it's important to keep in mind the Proto-Germanic is a reconstruction and its not always possible to know when anything was pronounced in a particular way. That said, the page could use more citations.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows [ɔ] from long and overlong [ɑ], which also was a change that happened in late PGmc according to the evolution section. Should we not include that in the vowel chart then? ICommandeth (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]