Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/ruskijā

@Leasnam: The vacillation between ū ~ u ~ i isn't well explained by a derivation from PIE *resg-. It *is* however explained by a Latin borrowing, which demonstrates this occuring in Latin. --{{victar|talk}} 08:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The alternation happens only later and is easily explained by internal linguistics in each language. The original vowel was u in all Old languages (Old Frisian is explained by mutated u regularly becoming e; same for OE y > i/e). That alone is a better explanation than borrowing from the Latin. What I also find odd is the need to borrow such a term in the first place. Proto-West Germanics already had words for "broom" and the material from whence those were made (e.g. 'bramble'). So what you're trying to convey is that the PWGmcs were already making brooms from a differently named plant (which we don't know), and then contact with Latin speakers caused them to change the name of the material for their broom-making to that of the Latin speakers material solely based on an analogous end product (nevermind that butcher's broom is an evergreen shrub which grows in shaded woodlands, and rushes are grass-like flowering plants that prefer wet environments) ? That is a very big stretch. That would be like us changing our word for 'tree' which we use to build houses to 'later (“brick”)' because Romans use that to make their houses, and we do so with a derivative (+ -jā) of the original word which is totally lost in all descendant languages. Leasnam (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victar I've looked everywhere, and I cannot find any source that supports what you claim, that brooms were EVER made from rushes (rushes however WERE used to cover floors, but not to make brooms). Your only listed source to claim ruscum is Kluge, where he states "Probably borrowed from Latin ruscum "butcher's broom". More details are needed for clarification." No mention of broom-making however. Your second source on the page says it's "Related to Lith rúzginti 'to gnarl, to murmur, to move, to touch', ruzgiis 'surly, sulky'. Torp-Falk 341 (to IE *rezg-: Lith régzti 'to kniť, Skt rájjii- 'ropě')". You re-arranged the Etymology to feature the Kluge theory first. Why ? Leasnam (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leasnam: I really don't see how the vacillations are explained by native developments from a simple -u-. Can you give me an example of German u ~ i ~ au?

"Rushes [...] Qualities, Uses, etc. [...] Brooms, mats, brushes, baskets, hassocks, etc." Germanic likes to make generic terms for plants that denote their use and apply to various species, compare *waiʀd. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be than happy to: the GMH term is rusch, rusche f leading directly to archaic/obsolete German Rusche f. There is also modern German Rusch m, obviously closely related or derived. A lengthening of the vowel in any GMH dialect would easily account for Modern Rausch. Are Rausch and Risch in the standard language ? No listing for either in Duden online. All of this is just dialectal variation. Any cursory view of German dialects will show great variances in vowels (e.g. Austrian, Swiss, etc.) so I don't get your reasoning behind raising this u ~ i ~ au alternation. Its appearance is modern, not at the GMW-PRO or even the GOH level. It doesn't prove anything. Heck, in Northern England and Scotland one can find brither for brother. Does that point to some vacillation for the GMW-PRO term as well ? Right, it doesn't. Leasnam (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leasnam: So what's your High German example, beside this term? --{{victar|talk}} 05:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victar Nice question : | <<sarcastic smile>> . You know what ? Do you think it's possible these are 2 different but similar sounding words that mean roughly the same thing that got crossed over time ? The Old English risc, risce, Middle Low German rische, and Middle Dutch risch, resch might come from Proto-West Germanic *riskijā (from Proto-Indo-European *resg-); but the German may be from a merger of the Latin and possibly input from the Low German ? To complicate things, the Latin term can also be found in limited use in Old English placenames as rusce, and also feature substantially in GML and DUM confounding things further. This would explain the absence of the term in GOH and the weird vocalics. Leasnam (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leasnam: I've been working on Latin rūscum too, which is also a complete mess of a word. There could be a whole Late Latin ~ West Germanic ~ Gaulish muddling. --{{victar|talk}} 19:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)