Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/himinaz

Why does the -i- in the second syllable not mutate the -e- in the first to -i- ? Leasnam (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It does, I gather Kroonen simply dates the change as post-PGmc. This rule is really needed for Northwest Germanic only, since Gothic raises *e to /i/ in general. He doesn't explicitly comment on this, but also reconstructs e.g. *bremisa- (“gadfly”), *deli- (“dill”), *sweljan- (“brother-in-law”). --Tropylium (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Original n-stem

@Mahagaja, Leasnam, Rua: Most sources reconstruct an original Proto-Germanic: *hemô ~ *hemnaz, *himinaz n-stem as the source for these forms (see WG *himil). Would anyone object to moving this entry to Proto-Germanic: *hemô? --{{victar|talk}} 17:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? —Rua (mew) 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

See {{R:gem:Kroonen:2011|163}} and the various sources I added to *himil. --{{victar|talk}} 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That's just one proposal by a single source, hardly a general linguistic consensus. How many sources, that you have not mentioned, reconstruct these nouns as we do? The additional sources present at *himil, all with their own proposals, are exactly why we shouldn't prefer Kroonen's. —Rua (mew) 12:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Kroonen is not the only one that supports this reconstruction. See {{R:ofs:OFED|himul}}. None of the sources on *himil conflict with the existence of an original n-stem. How do you interpret that differently? --{{victar|talk}} 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)