I've given <ge> tags to all three of these terms (TC/TCN/TL).
1) I've added the info from Reut's annotation about "stuf" to the glossary. Please clean up the entry as you see fit. I've placed the following editorial comment in the DCE after the single instance of the term: german variant of "stüf," a kind of granular limestone, or tufa.
2) the "spat" and "spalt" entries could use some clean up too. I would like to have a pithy translation/explanation for each that I can use for their editorial comment. Please reply with ideas or decisions.
A pertinent question here is whether we tag these terms as definitely another language when we are not absolutely sure that they are. An editorial note, without German tags, and an entry in the glossary, would be an alternative solution. What do you think?
I cleaned up glossary entries for Stuf, Spat, and Spalt. Should we leave passages in the glossary in languages other than English untranslated?
To your question about omitting German tags: Well, this will be a flip-flop on our earlier decision that came in response to a problem you raised about the need to tag German terms. If we're not sure than ANY of these (stuf, spat, spalt) are German, then we've wasted a bit of time/effort here. In any case, most of these were not marked up as "fr" in the TL either, so we do need to do something either way since they're not English terms.
Pro to using <ge> tags: it shows the A-P may have been conversant with German artisanal terms Con to <ge> tags: these words may not be German. Well, if they're French, we can't prove that either, and I think Reut's "stüf(e)" dictionary find is pretty compelling.