Reconstruction talk:Old Dutch/sinnan
Add topicLatest comment: 21 days ago by Caoimhin ceallach in topic Reason for this entry
Reason for this entry
[edit]@DerRudymeister, I find entries like this one a bit problematic, because it is not clear what they are based on. If you look at the ancestors and descendants of this verb it is not so clear what the Old Dutch verb would mean and how it would conjugate. What were your considerations when you made this? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Caoimhin ceallach, I'm unsure, why you consider this entry problematic. The verb is clearly a strong verb in the derived forms farsinnan and gisinnan. Also in it's descendants, such as modern Dutch zinnen. It's attested in the other germanic languages as a strong verb as well. The meaning can also be confirmed by it's descendants and related forms. It could be that there were also weak forms like in Middle Dutch, but those can't really be confirmed for Old Dutch.--DerRudymeister (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to the dictionaries in etymologiebank the Middle and Modern Dutch strong verb was borrowed from German. Given this and the fact that the derivatives gisinnan and farsinnan were also strong and weak (but mostly weak) in Middle Dutch and the fact that the verbs occur a grand total of three times in Old Dutch, it is quite unclear to me what the base verb Old Dutch *sinnan meant and how it was conjugated. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Caoimhin ceallach It all depends on whether it was inherited from west germanic or not, I assumed it was inherited so it kept the strong forms. It's unlcear when this supposed to be borrowed, the etymologiebank doesn't specify this. It's more likely that the weak forms arose from zin + -en in Middle Dutch. What would you suggest is the correct way to reconstruct this? --DerRudymeister (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think mixing with/interpretation as zin + -en is a good idea. I don't know how to reconstruct it. Particularly for the first sense "to feel, sense" I don't see any basis. Maybe give both conjugation and note as to why it's unclear? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Caoimhin ceallach It all depends on whether it was inherited from west germanic or not, I assumed it was inherited so it kept the strong forms. It's unlcear when this supposed to be borrowed, the etymologiebank doesn't specify this. It's more likely that the weak forms arose from zin + -en in Middle Dutch. What would you suggest is the correct way to reconstruct this? --DerRudymeister (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to the dictionaries in etymologiebank the Middle and Modern Dutch strong verb was borrowed from German. Given this and the fact that the derivatives gisinnan and farsinnan were also strong and weak (but mostly weak) in Middle Dutch and the fact that the verbs occur a grand total of three times in Old Dutch, it is quite unclear to me what the base verb Old Dutch *sinnan meant and how it was conjugated. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)