Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/sīmô
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Victar in topic Etymology
Etymology[edit]
The given root *seh₂-i- could only give *saimô or *simô, the only other way it could give *sīmô is by irregular metathesis *sh₂i- > *sih₂-, which is theoretically possible but unlikely. There is however a root *seh₁(i)-, "long", found in *sīdaz, "long, wide", and *sīþuz, "late". This could straightforwardly be *seh₁i-mon- > *sey-mon- or *sh₁éy-mon-, "long thing" > "cord, string". Burgundaz (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Burgundaz:
CHVC > CVHCis actually fairly regular in PIE and is called schwebeablaut. --{{victar|talk}}09:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Victar: What you're describing isn't actually strictly Schwebeablaut, as that usually - but not always - defines the metathesis being limited to sonorants, CeRC > CReC, forming an entirely different root basis for derived forms. Here the metathesis is only in one derived form, in one language, to a root which is pretty clearly *seh₂-i- across all languages, and even within Germanic, as found in *sailą. This precludes an explanation of Schwebeablaut, and would correctly by called simple metathesis. Also for what it's worth, Schwebeablaut is only silently accepted, at least in its strictest sense. More than a few a variations evinced for its existence can usually be traced back to backformation from specific ablaut processes, which is about what recent analysis is leading us to assume is going to be the case for most such variations. Burgundaz (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you want to call it, *sh₂éy-mn̥ ~ *sh₂i-mén-s > *sh₂éy-mn̥ ~ *sih₂-mén-s very easy to explain, and after that, you just need leveling. --
{{victar|talk}}02:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you want to call it, *sh₂éy-mn̥ ~ *sh₂i-mén-s > *sh₂éy-mn̥ ~ *sih₂-mén-s very easy to explain, and after that, you just need leveling. --
- @Victar: What you're describing isn't actually strictly Schwebeablaut, as that usually - but not always - defines the metathesis being limited to sonorants, CeRC > CReC, forming an entirely different root basis for derived forms. Here the metathesis is only in one derived form, in one language, to a root which is pretty clearly *seh₂-i- across all languages, and even within Germanic, as found in *sailą. This precludes an explanation of Schwebeablaut, and would correctly by called simple metathesis. Also for what it's worth, Schwebeablaut is only silently accepted, at least in its strictest sense. More than a few a variations evinced for its existence can usually be traced back to backformation from specific ablaut processes, which is about what recent analysis is leading us to assume is going to be the case for most such variations. Burgundaz (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)