| User talk:Victar Apr 30th 2013, 02:05 | | | | Line 83: | Line 83: | | | ::::::::: It's not c). But we can't tell whether it was a) or b), nor can we tell what the actual endings of a) were. It's not reconstructable. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | | ::::::::: It's not c). But we can't tell whether it was a) or b), nor can we tell what the actual endings of a) were. It's not reconstructable. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | | | :::::::::: I see three options: 1) call them class II verbs, and give them class II endings (which is what was done with {{recons|makōn||lang=frk}}), 2) reconstruct class III verb endings as {{recons|-ān||lang=frk}} based on Ringe's {{recons|-āną||lang=gem-pro}} hypothetical ending and Gothic, or 3) create a class III verb ending placeholder, like {{recons|hat-||lang=frk}} or {{recons|hat?n||lang=frk}}. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 00:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | | :::::::::: I see three options: 1) call them class II verbs, and give them class II endings (which is what was done with {{recons|makōn||lang=frk}}), 2) reconstruct class III verb endings as {{recons|-ān||lang=frk}} based on Ringe's {{recons|-āną||lang=gem-pro}} hypothetical ending and Gothic, or 3) create a class III verb ending placeholder, like {{recons|hat-||lang=frk}} or {{recons|hat?n||lang=frk}}. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 00:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | | − | ::::::::: I think b) is also unlikely, otherwise we would find cases of this alternation reversed in Old Dutch and Old French. If we go with option a), I would reconstruct it as {{recons|-ōjan|lang=frk}}, which makes some sense phonetically and explains the lack of germination. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | + | ::::::::: I think b) is also unlikely, otherwise we would find cases of this alternation reversed in Old Dutch and Old French. If we go with option a), I would reconstruct it as {{recons|-ōjan|lang=frk}}, which works phonetically and explains the lack of germination. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 02:05, 30 April 2013 Whoa, don't delete a page just because there's a more common form. We should have both. Look at what I'm about to do to the original entry. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC) - I was actually about to do just that but you beat me to it ;-). --Victar 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for also creating jawdropping. --Victar 11:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Reconstructed Frankish terms We do allow this... at least I don't see why not. If you want to create Frankish reconstructions, you can make them like we currently make Proto-Germanic entries. For example Appendix:Frankish/helm. Make sure to add {{reconstructed}} to the top of the page. —CodeCat 21:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC) - Thanks. Just wanted to experiment with the entries before I published them. Victar (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a feminine ō-stem. An n-stem would have probably been borrowed with -on (compare baron). —CodeCat 03:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC) - I'm thinking it's either an an-stem, giving it an -o ending, or ōn, giving it an -a ending. --Victar (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the Old High German word is either an ō-stem, kozza, or an an-stem, kozzo. In Frankish that would give either *kotta or *kottō. —CodeCat 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, let's go with an-stem, which coincides with the PGm. *kuttô, and rename it to *kottō. --Victar (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- But if it's that, why is the French word not masculine? —CodeCat 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Surcot is masculine. I'm fine changing it to ō-stem, but we should probably change *kuttô to ō-stem as well, for congruency. --Victar (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are actually two distinct but related forms. *kuttô is just one of them, but it is correct at least going by Old High German kozzo. It seems that *kuttō is another, which led to Old High German kozza. It's quite likely that both of these forms existed side by side in Frankish, too. I noticed that Frankish *barō was borrowed into Old French as baron, but with the nominative ber. So it's possible that the -ō of *kottō was dropped as well; but that it reappears in the oblique case in Old French as -on (cotton?). Do you know if that is true? —CodeCat 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is baron is from the Frankish an-stem accusative case form of *barō, *baron. --Victar (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but my point is that both Latin and Frankish n-stems have this alternation in Old French. And since *kottō is also an n-stem, you'd expect its Old French descendant to also alternate between stems in the same way. —CodeCat 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you now. Thanks for running through it with me. --Victar (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Linking to unattested terms I don't think edit warring over it is going to get us anywhere. If you make an edit and someone else undoes it, just putting it back isn't really very helpful. Now, I don't think we should use {{recons}} because it's not meant to be used that way. The templates {{term}} and {{recons}} are meant to be used in running text. But when we have lists of terms on Wiktionary we always use {{l}}, that's just the way it is. Using {{l}} for some, and {{term}} or {{recons}} for others, just doesn't look right. I suppose we could create {{lr}} or something similar, to be an equivalent of {{recons}}, but I think no link is better than linking with the wrong template. —CodeCat 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC) - {{lx|lang|term}} is what is used in for PGm. entries. Could we use it for Frankish and Old Dutch terms?
- Not quite, unfortunately. That template is kind of automatic: it looks at the language code and decides where the term should be located. But for languages that also have attested terms, like Old Dutch, it will decide to link to the main namespace. So there really needs to be a template that explicitly links to the appendix. —CodeCat 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] ō > uo I noticed you've been adding entries with this change, but is there any evidence that it had already happened in Frankish? I think it would be better to stick with ō until there is a reason to think otherwise. —CodeCat 19:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC) - Sounds good. Want to rename them for me? --Victar (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've also seen people use /ô/ for Frankish, to distinguish it from the normal Frankish /ō/. --Victar (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a difference between those two sounds, though? I've been trying to find some evidence from early Old High German texts and found this in an 8th (!) century text called "Isidor von Sevilla":
- * UMBI DAZ QUIDIT HEAR HUUEO CHRISTUS AER FRUMISCAFTI UNARSAGLIHHO UUARD KABORAN FONA FATER.
- * oh in dhem dhrim heidim scal man ziuuaare eina gotnissa beodan
- Later OHG hiar, hier is still spelled with "ea" here, from Proto-Germanic *he₂r; biotan still has "eo" from PG *beudanan (and also no High German d > t!). So we can be sure that PG eu > eo > io, and that it wasn't io yet in Frankish so it was either eu or eo. We can also be sure that ē₂ > ea > ia > ie, and that Frankish had either still ē or ea. The text also has "uo" though, so I'm not sure what the history of that was... I'd expect to find "oa" in parallel with "ea" but this text doesn't have it yet. Still, it does give us some clues about Frankish, for example that *kiusan can't have been right, nor could *kiosan, because OHG still had "eo" in its earlier stages. So we know that it has to have been either *keusan or *keosan in Frankish. —CodeCat 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not following. I agree that we can safely conclude that PG /eu/ survived in PWG as /e*/. We're still at the question though of whether /e*/ > /i*/ occurred in Frankish. Just because this change didn't occur in Early OHG, doesn't mean it didn't in Frankish. No? --Victar (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, OHG actually is Frankish in part... Frankish was spoken in much of west central Germany, and included the ancestor of modern dialects like Kölsch and Luxembourgish. So some of what we consider Old High German, in particular in the texts from that area, is a descendant of Frankish. So, as the change eo > io and ea > ia is attested in early OHG texts, we can safely say that Frankish can't have undergone that change yet as it was spoken a few hundred years before those texts were written. So, regarding vowels, we have the following possibilities: Germanic ē2 was either still ē or had become ea already; ō was still retained or had already become oa or uo; eu was retained or became eo. I remember reading somewhere that eu > eo happened in parallel with the general change of u > o because of a-mutation. However, that doesn't account for the fact that it failed to occur in many Old Norse words, nor that we still see eu in a few Old English texts (and I think Old Saxon too). —CodeCat 02:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm always very cautious with connecting OHG to Frankish. Even if a text is written in Central Germany, no telling what influence Upper German had on the writer. --Victar (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I just came across the w:Abrogans, which uses "oa" instead of "uo". The w:Wessobrunn Prayer even seems to use "o". So I think it's fairly safe to say that in Frankish, the vowels were still ō and ē, not diphthongs yet. The Abrogans also uses "eo", no sign of "eu" anywhere. So we still don't know whether Frankish had "eu" or "eo"; the change must have happened before the earliest writing. —CodeCat 14:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I found a text [1] that explains that "eo" developed from "eu" under the condition of a-mutation. In particular, it says that the change that caused eu to become iu in several Upper German dialects is the same as why Old Norse has jú sometimes and jó in others: basically, eu was normally lowered to eo by a-mutation, but this change was blocked by certain consonants in Upper German. Following this, when eo > io happened, eu > iu also happened at the same time, and this new sound probably merged with the "older" iu (from eu by i-mutation in Proto-Germanic). So I believe that Frankish, not being an Upper German dialect, had "eo" everywhere, except where i-mutation took place where it was "iu" instead. What do you think? —CodeCat 14:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nice research. I agree, let's switch 'em out. It's best if you do it, otherwise I'll leave redirects. --Victar (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've written this to summarise and codify the facts we found. Please tell me what you think? —CodeCat 17:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) - Looking good! I'll add my thoughts to the talk page. --Victar (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Sievers' law in Frankish I argued that Frankish maintained Sievers' law, the difference between -j- after light syllables and -ij- after heavy ones. Do you think our entries should reflect that? It would mean moving *willjan to *willijan. Since Old High German seems to have lost the j-offglide, we could project that back to Frankish and go for *willian too, but that seems less certain. —CodeCat 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC) - I'm inclined to agree. --Victar (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure that this was the form of the word, and not masculine *pokō? The Old Norse cognate poki is a masculine n-stem, so is Old English pocca (not poca apparently), and Middle Dutch was both (but probably was masculine originally, and became feminine later). —CodeCat 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC) - I was temped to change it to n-stem, but it's definitely feminine in French, so maybe it's of a different root than the Old Norse. I also feel like if it was n-stem, we would see some examples of oblique case forms like pukun in French. --Victar (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] *falthistōl Do you think this could be *faldistōl instead? After all, the verb in Germanic was *faldanan. —CodeCat 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC) - The PGm. verb form is *falþanan, which coincides with Gothic. It could be that the /þ/ was devoiced in the particular word in WGmc, so if you want to make the root *faldiz, be my guest. --Victar (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- *facepalm* I should have checked. I keep getting *falþanan and *haldanan confused. They rhyme in West and North Germanic but not in East. I'm not really sure what happened to -lþ- in West Germanic. It became -ld- in all attested West Germanic languages that I know of, but curiously it did that too in OHG, whereas original -ld- became -lt-. So presumably this is an early sound change shared by all of West Germanic except OHG; it probably happened after the High German consonant shift? —CodeCat 17:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- *chuckle* I'm not sure about the timeline of the change. I should have remembered that too. I'll leave it to your discretion. --Victar (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Frankish etymologies I appreciate that you want to improve the etymologies, but please don't use {{suffix}} with a language other than Frankish itself. This template also categorises the entry you put it in, so now it has put all the Frankish entries you added it to into categories meant for Proto-Indo-European words. I don't think that's what you intended. —CodeCat 14:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC) - Woops. All fixed. --Victar (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] *hatjan I'm not really sure what to do with this. The third weak class of verbs has been notoriously difficult for linguists to reconstruct, and even nowadays there isn't a very strong consensus about it. All that's known is that they ended up almost entirely in class 2 in the more northern West Germanic languages (including the descendants of Frankish), but there is no way to tell how they developed before that. Going purely by sound change, Germanic *hatjaną should have become *hettian > *hetten in Dutch, but that clearly didn't happen and there is in fact no doubling of the consonants in any of those verbs except for hebben. So clearly, something else must have happened in the meantime, but it's not known what happened, let alone which stage happened at which time. —CodeCat 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC) - It seems OHG flip-flopped between hazzōn and hazzēn, so it's a good guess Frankish did as well, looking at Old Dutch and Old French. makōn is probably another example. --Victar (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to move it to *hatōn, I'm fine with that. --Victar (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's more likely that hazzōn originated from the more northern areas, where the change did happen. Old Dutch and some Central German dialects behaved like Old Saxon and Old English did, having only four class 3 verbs. —CodeCat 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you think Old Dutch haton descends from a weak class III verb? Old Saxon class II weak verbs sometimes alternated between -ian and -ōjan. Could this just be something similar? --Victar (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is the part that linguists still haven't fully grasped yet. In northern West Germanic, these verbs have fully merged with class 2 so haton is just a class 2 verb. The only way we know that it was once class 3 is because it appears as class 3 in Gothic or Old High German, which do preserve this class. I don't think Old Saxon -ōjan is connected to this. That suffix was added indiscriminately to all class 2 verbs in the northernmost languages, and it's probably by analogy with the first class. What we'd really need to look at is which features of class 3 resembled class 2 enough for them to merge. But so far linguists haven't really found anything yet, and it doesn't help that the reconstruction of class 3 itself isn't clear. Ringe reconstructs two subclasses in class 3, but not all linguists agree on that. So, there is really no linguistically sound way that class 3 could be reconstructed for Frankish. It could have already merged with class 2, or it could still have been in the process of merging, in which case we don't know what it would have looked like around the 5th century. —CodeCat 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- How about we call it class III and move it to *hatān, based on *-āną? --Victar (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- But do we actually know if that is what it was in Frankish? —CodeCat 23:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Either a) class III verbs existed, b) class II verbs endings alternated, or c) Old French hair, hadir is descended from a different root than Old Dutch haton. --Victar (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not c). But we can't tell whether it was a) or b), nor can we tell what the actual endings of a) were. It's not reconstructable. —CodeCat 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see three options: 1) call them class II verbs, and give them class II endings (which is what was done with *makōn), 2) reconstruct class III verb endings as *-ān based on Ringe's *-āną hypothetical ending and Gothic, or 3) create a class III verb ending placeholder, like *hat- or *hat?n. --Victar (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think b) is also unlikely, otherwise we would find cases of this alternation reversed in Old Dutch and Old French. If we go with option a), I would reconstruct it as *-ōjan, which works phonetically and explains the lack of germination. --Victar (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 |  |
