Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/Inguz

@Mnemosientje, Mahagaja: Is Gothic 𐌹𐌲𐌲𐌿𐍃 (iggus)/𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍅𐍃 (iggws /⁠enguz⁠/) actually attested, or are these a reconstructions, and if the latter based on what? --{{victar|talk}} 13:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: I don't think it's attested in Gothic; at least not in the Gothic Bible or Skeireins. It isn't listed in Streitberg's dictionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Köbler seems to suggest enguz and iggws are assested, but I don't follow from where. --{{victar|talk}} 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, Mahagaja: enguz is attested as a Gothic letter name written in Latin script in the Salzburg/Vienna manuscript (Gothica Vindobonensia), a Carolingian era document with (besides mentioned Gothic letters and their names) a brief Gothic Bible quote in Gothic script and a short pronunciation remark in Latin. The orthography is very irregular (here and in the other letter names), the word being a transcription into Latin of a Gothic word hardly understood by the scribe. As with the other transcribed letter names, there are plenty of conjectures as to its meaning and "Wulfilan" form. iggws seems to be one of them, although I would rather expect iggus. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If the Proto-Germanic form is indeed *Inguz, then I agree that 𐌹𐌲𐌲𐌿𐍃 (iggus) is most likely. 𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍅𐍃 (iggws) would be expected if the proto-form were *Ingwaz (compare 𐍃𐌰𐌲𐌲𐍅𐍃 (saggws) < *sangwaz). —Mahāgaja · talk 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And even words in *-waz may manifest as -us in Gothic, e.g. 𐌵𐌹𐌿𐍃 (qius). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: Is that the only example? Because that could just be a reinterpretation of /iw/ as the diphthong /iu̯/. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Yes, that seems to be what's happening. There's some others, e.g. 𐌸𐌹𐌿𐍃 (þius) and neuter wa-stems where the *-wą becomes -u and not -w. I based 𐍆𐌰𐌿𐍃 (faus), which is not attested in its lemma form, on this tendency following Köbler as well. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(And just to be clear, iggws is not directly attested at all.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, so just the transcription is attested, not the Gothic form itself. Thanks, both. --{{victar|talk}} 16:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ingui

How does Ingui relate to this? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)