Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/durawardaz
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by Holodwig21 in topic U-stem?
U-stem?
[edit]@Holodwig21 Why is this presented as a feminine u-stem, citing Orel? Orel’s entry says it’s an a-stem and Gothic certainly points to an a-stem. The gender would certainly be masculine regardless of the stem type. – Krun (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Krun The gender's a mistake I made, I fixed it now, sorry about that.
- The stem is only because the original word was a u-stem. Gothic seems to draw from an alternative version, from *wardaz instead of *warduz. After seeing the Old English declension of weard, I think moving this to an a-stem page would be better. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21 Well, now that I consider it more the u-stem does have some merit. Old Norse does mostly stick to vǫrðr for the simplex, and there is also Icelandic dyravörður (u-stem), which also seems to have existed in Old Norse. It’s a bit difficult, though, because the manuscripts are late copies and all have -y- in them, so the original form is uncertain. There are, however, variants with and without -a-, which may indicate that it was originally a stem compound before it changed to a genitival compound as it is in modern Icelandic. So, I suppose we could hypothesize dyravörður < dyrvörð(u)r < *durvǫrðr < *durawarduz. Still, Gothic (and perhaps Old English) clearly indicates an ancient a-stem variant. The n-stem OHG word is yet another variant. This shows that these were active compounds that could have been formed spontaneously and don’t necessarily point to normal descent from a common ancestor. Still, I think it likely that a compound of these parts existed in Proto-Germanic and consider it useful to group the corresponding compounds in the daughter languages in some way. I’m just unsure of how to best represent the rather unclear relationship they seem to have. I believe there are many compounds with the same type of reconstruction problem. – Krun (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Krun The problem with compound also worries me, especially those with too obvious formation. Their formation isn't an indication that a Proto-Germanic word existed since a lot of them are easy to form. Another issue would be that instead of a single Proto-Germanic word existing the Germanic languages are loan translating compound words from a Germanic language that coined it first. This is a possibility I put forward for those terms that only have two descendants (mostly referring to words with only Old Norse and Old English); the Vikings ruled England for a period and the English could have translated some compound words from the Norsemen or vice-versa. Nevertheless, given these words are easy to form, what would have prevented The Germanic tribes from coining them?
- In regards to representing variation, if it was me, I would simple add the word and the variant it derived from, like I did here with Old High German. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21 Well, now that I consider it more the u-stem does have some merit. Old Norse does mostly stick to vǫrðr for the simplex, and there is also Icelandic dyravörður (u-stem), which also seems to have existed in Old Norse. It’s a bit difficult, though, because the manuscripts are late copies and all have -y- in them, so the original form is uncertain. There are, however, variants with and without -a-, which may indicate that it was originally a stem compound before it changed to a genitival compound as it is in modern Icelandic. So, I suppose we could hypothesize dyravörður < dyrvörð(u)r < *durvǫrðr < *durawarduz. Still, Gothic (and perhaps Old English) clearly indicates an ancient a-stem variant. The n-stem OHG word is yet another variant. This shows that these were active compounds that could have been formed spontaneously and don’t necessarily point to normal descent from a common ancestor. Still, I think it likely that a compound of these parts existed in Proto-Germanic and consider it useful to group the corresponding compounds in the daughter languages in some way. I’m just unsure of how to best represent the rather unclear relationship they seem to have. I believe there are many compounds with the same type of reconstruction problem. – Krun (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)