Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/sehtô

Presence or absence of -s-

Fick, Falk and Torp: Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen (1909) cites PGmc. *sehstan- and *sehtan- and also OHG. sehsto and sehto. Íslensk orðsifjabók (Icelandic etymological dictionary) cites *sehtan- as the origin of Old Norse/Icelandic sétti, and suggests that the form without -s- is original, with -s- in other languages having been added from the cardinal number. It also compares *sehtan- with Greek ἕκτος (héktos) (which b.t.w. needs an etymology; I don't know whether -kst- > -kt- could happen regularly). It seems to me to make more sense from a phonological perspective than for the -s- to be lost somehow, but why would it be missing in the first place, since the cardinal number has it, and the ordinals are generally [CARDINAL] + dental suffix. Slavic, Latin, and Sanskrit definitely have the -s-, though. Do both forms perhaps go back to PIE? – Krun (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rua, JohnC5, Stardsen, Leasnam Any thoughts on how far back the form without -s- goes? – Krun (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)