Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/smalljan

Doubtful reconstruction

As far as I can see, only the English words can go back directly to this word, because they show the expected geminated -ll-. In Dutch the sound spelled -eu- has only one possible source: (Pre-)Old Dutch -uCi- or -uCj- (with C being any single consonant). But note that -uCj- only existed in the case of -urj- because of the gemination, in all other cases -uCj- became -uCC- in Old Dutch. Where the word smeulen actually does come from, I don't know. Etymologiebank says the origin isn't clearly known. So maybe it's best to treat this entry as not having enough support, and delete it. —CodeCat 17:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All 3 words too may have been derived from the nominal form (*smul), the date of derivation of which may differ (OE being earlier, maybe in PGmc), where OS and ODt may be later. I don't know. *smuljanan/*smaljanan were indicated for the MNd and Mnl forms, but I see your point. Sad the OE wor will be all alone... Leasnam (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A hypothetical *smuljaną would have become Dutch smullen. That actually is a word in Dutch, but it means something very different, so I don't think it can be related. And if the OS and OD words were formed later (which is quite likely), then that means we can't use them in support of the reconstruction. That leaves only Middle English then, which isn't enough to support a Proto-Germanic word all by itself. —CodeCat 19:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, can't we reduce the entry to a stem *smul-, *smal- (like *gral-, *grul-, *grel-)? as there is sufficient evidence in Gmc that such a root existed, albeit, scanty...Leasnam (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. —CodeCat 22:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Philippa does consider smullen a variant of smeulen, because many of the earliest attestations refer to sexual rather than culinary pleasures. And if that were the original sense, it really wouldn't be far off.