Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/aþulijaz

@Rua Why reconstruct this as *aþulijaz and not *aþalijaz? Also, do we need a PG entry when a PWG *aþal +‎ *-ī etymology would work just fine? --{{victar|talk}} 08:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The derived form *aþulingaz has an ON reflex, which answers both your questions. The ON form has u-mutation, and its existence implies that the base term must have been present in PG. —Rua (mew) 09:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: So where does this u-form come from, secondary zero-grade? --{{victar|talk}} 23:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Kroonen reconstructs it from a zero grade, yes. —Rua (mew) 09:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: Doesn't it make more sense that *aþulingaz descends from *aþuliją? --{{victar|talk}} 18:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a relatively small distinction, given that that noun is a substantivation of the adjective. —Rua (mew) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: It does away with the need for this entry however. Did it exist in PG? Maybe, maybe not. What we can say it wasn't need for the WG forms. --{{victar|talk}} 18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it existed in PG, because no less than two terms derived from it existed in PG. —Rua (mew) 18:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: Well, no, because we have *aþuliją ⇒ *aþulingaz (+ *-ingaz) and *aþalą > PWG *aþal ⇒ *aþalī (+ *-ī). --{{victar|talk}} 18:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)