Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/sikilu

@Leasnam the continental Germanic decedents looks to clearly represent *sē̌kilā. Could you explain how you see that differently? -- Skiulinamo (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Skiulinamo It is a known rule that open 'i' in Old Dutch and Old Saxon becomes 'e' then 'ē' in Middle Dutch and Middle Low German. So a reconstruction that involoves an 'i' in Old English and Old High German, and an 'i'/'e' in Middle Dutch and 'e/ē' in Middle Low German MUST answer back to PWGmc 'i'. I'm taken aback somewhat by your question tbch Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I might also add that the 2 references you list on the page also show 'i' as the root vowel. Leasnam (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)'

Not that it matters, but the second source I added postulates a borrowing straight from secula and *secla (unnecessary since PWG also underwent syncopation). -- Skiulinamo (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Leasnam: Thanks for the reply and bringing that to my attention. Please go ahead and move it back to *sikilā. In regards to the etymology, reconstructing a VL *sicula is unnecessary as secula > PWG *sekulā > *sekilā (compare *skutilā) > *sikilā (i-umlaut) is predicable. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sokkjo, Leasnam

There is a VL *sicila~*sicula from which Von Wartburg straightforwardly derives the Germanic forms. In his words (per the citation on the Latin entry):

*sicila ist von Oberitalien her in noch lt. zeit auch in die provinzen am Rhein gekommen und hat sich in Ostfrankreich gegenüber falcicula gehalten. Es ist hier zu *sicula umgebildet worden, nach dem häufigeren suffix. Es ist hier auch von den Germanen entlehnt worden, daher ahd. sihhila, d. sichel.

Is there any problem with this? Nicodene (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)