Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/glēsijaną

@Agamemenon, you've combined 3 different verb types into a single entry. --{{victar|talk}} 06:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

My bad, was going by Orel's adduced cognates which he lumps under *glēsjaną - what should these be separated out as? I'm guessing the PWGm forms would have earlier PGm *glēzōną, while the Norse forms would have earlier PGm *glēsaną or *glēsjaną (btw, how do you tell the ending that Old Norse verbs trace back to, seems they really smush and get reduced)? Let me know if this is incorrect, thanks. Should the current page be moved + set to either *glēzōną or *glēsaną then? Agamemenon (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Old Norse glæsa (t) wk. is from *glēsjaną, and the West Germanic is likely a secondary formation, *glāz- +‎ *-ōn. --{{victar|talk}} 07:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it at all possible that ON glæsa could be from Proto-Germanic *glaiwisōną (“to make shiny”), from *glaiwiz ? Leasnam (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think I need to check the verb class. I'll do so at my first convenience (when I'm back at my desk) Leasnam (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Agamemenon, Victar: Upon checking, I can't find any verb class information for Old Norse glæsa, but the Icelandic and Faroese descendants are both Weak-2 verbs. Would this make derivation from a different source, perhaps *glaiwisōną, more favourable ? Your thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I found my answer: Old Norse glæstr (“embellished”) points to a Weak-1 verb. Leasnam (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't the West Germanic come from a variant *glēz(i)janą (see etymology scriptorium) ? Exarchus (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence of i-mutation in the West Germanic forms. --{{victar|talk}} 18:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)