Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/pinnā

Etymology

Regarding the etymology, different sources say ML, others say inherited from ine-pro. Due to the late appearance of the sense "peg, pin" in Latin, and the multiplicity of related terms in Germanic (e.g. *pund-, *pinti, *pannijō, etc.), I take it to be a native germanic word. However, I think that OHG pinna was a Latin re-borrowing, while the other terms listed on the page are native. Just my personal take, as well as others (i.e. sources available on request). Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And as such, I would like to add Latin pinna to the Descendants :D Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Leasnam: *#pV is not native to Germanic -- it has to be a borrowing, if not Latin then elsewhere. The meaning in Latin being late is inconsequential because all WG borrowing from are from Late Latin anyhow. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skiulinamo: A Latin sense with a late appearance absolutely bears strong evidence that it was not in Old or Classical Latin, and likely a borrowing from Celtic or Germanic (in this instance). So the timeframe means it could have been borrowed in either direction, and since Germanic has a greater inventory representing this word-family, and the Latin already has this form meaning "fin", and the Latin word doesn't seem easily tied to any PIE root through Italic that I can readily see, it is strong circumstantial evidence. Leasnam (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Leasnam: I'm confused by you not acknowledging that *#pV isn't native to Germanic. Also, just because a term is a borrowing, doesn't mean it can't proliferate into many derived terms is a quick fashion. See all the descendants of *pīnā, for one. --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If PIE or pre-PGmc picked up a substrate word beginning with bV-, would that not be a native Germanic word in pV- ? Leasnam (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What about *pukô, *pōlaz, *pullaz ?

@Skiulinamo: I still consider Germanic terms like *paþaz, *pakkô, *paidō "native" even if they were not inherited from PIE. They were borrowed into the Germanic parent language or late IE after dispersal, and that's good enough for me. I consider these Germanic. Leasnam (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Leasnam: Exactly my point, they're borrowed, if "native" rubs you the wrong way. If a WG #p term has no Germanic cognates, the safest thing is to assume it's borrowed directly into WG, without presuming a PG form, yet alone a borrowed PIE unaspirated #b root. --Skiulinamo (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skiulinamo: That's ONE possibility. However, PWG had the consonant in its inventory at this time, so the word could simply be "invented" (made up). It doesn't have to be borrowed. That would be like saying English punk has to be borrowed, because PIE b- was rare. :\ Another possibility is that the North and East Germanic cognate(s) with p- simply did not survive or remained unattested and were lost, leaving only WG with the attestation of the word. That is also possible. What you say about borrowing is mostly true, but it's not implicative in 100% of the circumstances 100% of the time. Leasnam (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hypotheses are great, but hypotheses based on nothing are vapid conjecture. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skiulinamo You're absolutely right, they ARE great. And the reason they are is because they force you to think outside of someone else's box. Anyone can mimic. No one ever invented or discovered a thing by blindly following the Status Quo. :) Leasnam (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Saterfrisian Pin

[[1]]. It's masculine. Leasnam (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)