I wasn't satisfied having just said "regarding something in particular": I mentioned Kroonen before because he gives þurpa meaning as "crowd", "which anyway blatantly contradicts your “singular first” interpretation". Then I ended up finding quite some interesting stuff: In the 2023 dissertation "Unde vēnistī? The Prehistory of Italic through its Loanword Lexicon", by A. M. Wigman, one of Kroonen's PhD students, one can find: It doesn't seem Kroonen disagreed much with his own student for that to end in the PhD thesis… not that we didn't know what "crowd" seemed to support already. Later on, it's stated that: And the relevant row compares Proto-Germanic *þurpa- with Proto-Celtic *treb- (a footnote states that "a note of caution is that it cannot be ruled out that reconstructions involving the operation of Verner’s Law might be misinterpretations", showing that, although a possibility, this is not a mainstream view, unlike what's in the main text). Finally, it's stated that many things there come "as no surprise if Grimm's Law operated in the mid-first millennium BCE", which shows this is already considered, and bears no major problem towards the reconstructions provided, making evident that this is not an issue: Here, why are you only considering one change? There are more as part of Grimm's Law, as From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, by D. Ringe, states: "by the second change subsumed under Grimm's Law PIE voiced stops became PGmc voiceless stops". This turns *b into *p, as expected, and the third example in that very same page is in fact: Which also includes village as one of the meanings of *þurpą.

Just a thought, but having FSR native AA might be a nice touch, it's lighter than MSAA and often looks better.

Europa Barbarorum 2 Xiognu cavalry. https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Toghrin_Ordo_(Dzonyu_Guard)

I'm not reading the forum anymore (only answering PMs because I'm still helping a couple of people, for a time at least), but saw your notification and the baffling misrepresentations, although a reply should not even be needed since anyone paying marginal attention would easily realise most of these things:   Yet what you did is just to shove those sources when you didn't even properly read them. Calling showing you their actual contents "appeal to authority" or "mindlessly parroting" is not going to fool anyone, so you might want to change this old defensive trope, it got a bit repetitive and boring already. Just start by reading your own sources properly, in light of what the point of the discussion actually is, and maybe that will be a bit more productive.   It's me who's astounded at your bad faith (or lack of understanding), because clearly at no point I implied that "all the definitions existed at the same time from the very beginning of the language", that's a hilariously nonsensical thing to say, and you should know it perfectly well, so the only one showing "always" "bad faith" here is you, considering also your constant infantile insults that only serve to talk about your own character. Anyway, furthermore: As always, the only dishonesty (or lack of understanding) comes from your part. The whole sentence is perfectly fine, and still implies that the meaning of village must have arisen at an early date, which I focused on just to show how wrong you were when stating that: Honestly, you need to find some integrity at some point and just be able to say "you know what, I was wrong with that", instead of throwing false accusations and keeping muddying the waters because your baseless arrogance doesn't allow you to recognise when it's resoundingly obvious that you've been completely cornered.   Not being "commonest" doesn't mean absent. Still, hardly every point will be 100% convincing, and that one might well be the weakest one, but it's just a small part of the whole point you already seemed to agree to: that tuun also meant village or hamlet, and so did þrop (at least with hamlet, but as I said, that's more than enough for the point in question: that's more than a single homestead or farmstead).   It's you who keeps "dodging the arguments that contradict you", even when using references first put forward by you. The real question here is, why would anyone give more weight to entries from decades old general purpose dictionaries instead of very recent specific studies on the actual matter? I have no doubt that if you keep digging you will find instances where þrop is translated as something closer to farmstead, what do you want me to say? Congratulations, do you want cookies? That dictionary doesn't even explain itself further. On the other hand, you keep dodging why the recent important EE reference and the other more explanatory dictionary, both put forward by you in the first place, align with what I say, and keep labelling all this "appeal to authority" or "mindlessly parroting", which just shows how helplessly out of cards you are.   I think my previous post explained that quite extensively. You are assuming they (Gothic and OHG) "retained" the meaning, while other Germanic languages, along with the Celtic branch, changed. That's really not convincing, and why the actual reconstructions state what they state. So, it's not thoughtless at all to state that þurpą is associated with settlements, there are strong reasons for it, not only from the previous OE discussion, but also in my two paragraphs regarding this for reconstructed and attested Celtic languages, where in the last one I even managed to get a quantitative estimation of size, quite relevant for the point in question (although late, but please, give a try at something like that for an earlier period). And EVEN if we wanted to assume there was an "isolated farm buildings" meaning since the beginning, you keep circling around this already very extensively explained point: how could you possibly extricate farms from early Germanic settlements? Call them small villages, hamlets, collections of farmsteads, or whatever. The villages you showed before would be Phase III. We are discussing the less built up Phase I. This point is extremely important. I also already clearly explained why Gothic is such a bad reference, and months ago I stated that "it is not true that the "oldest writings in Germanic languages" (as if that goes beyond Gothic) support your point", as shown for OE. Besides, you keep dancing around the actual point and completely ignored the paragraph regarding Celtic cognates of haimaz having no relation with a settlement, but with what's homely, my original argument all along. Both words must be considered at the same time.   And I did say "treb, is reconstructed as "settlement" (often just "dwelling")". You are the one dismissing the debate, you are the one accusing me of all sorts of idiotic things for presenting the mainstream view. You keep coming with alternative views intending to disregard the rest, but why would I give more weight to these dissenting voices? They exist, and I've been quite honest about that, months ago I said "the only outlying source I find is Kroonen" (regarding something in particular), so it's hysterical that you say I'm the one keeping dodging what contradicts me, given that, your attitude towards the content I "parrot" from your own sources, your accusations when I explicitly proved you wrong regarding the tuun meaning, your dodging of the Celtic cognates of haimaz, and many other things. All your accusations against me fly back right at you in the most blatant manner. It's clear where the consensus is given the accepted reconstructions (and all I've shown that aligns with that), and you might as well go and write the EE experts you quoted in the first place, but that end contradicting you, how awfully wrong they are (too bad you didn't even bother searching through their whole thing, which I did, and luckily found the relevant entry early on, under C), but in the meantime there's really not much you can do about any of it, which makes your whole insulting remarks and misrepresentations even more disgusting and unacceptable (too sad that, from what I've seen lately in the forum, you do have company though).

Another fun name might be Cyrenius