Appendix talk:Proto-Germanic/-u

Was this reconstructed on the strength of Gothic alone? If so, how could we tell it wasn't just a Gothic innovation? - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't really, but I'm not sure if there any better explanations for the Gothic particle. Then again neither are there for the Germanic one. 19:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it isn't attested in any predecessor to proto-Germanic, and it isn't attested in any Germanic language but Gothic, I think it'd be safer to regard it as a Gothic mystery. Or do other authorities assume this root existed in PG? If so, I'm content to go back to ignoring this page. - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any real explanation of this suffix. If you could find one, that would be great though! 21:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After checking many references, there seems to be no evidence that this suffix existed in proto-Germanic rather than just Gothic. As you wrote about Appendix:Frankish/fliukka, "I don't think the evidence for this reconstruction is strong enough to warrant an entry." Would you object if I deleted it? - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I would like to see discussions on the topic. I'm curious what explanations there are for the Gothic particle, even if they all just say "we don't know". 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jumble of scholarly discussion of the Gothic particle

 * I presume Gerhard Köbler's dictionary of Gothic was the source for our entry, as our entry closely matches his, except that his describes the attested behaviour of the Gothic particle, whereas ours posits the existence of a proto-Germanic particle which had the same form and same very specific behaviour as the Gothic particle... and no known parent or other children... which seems to be going out on a limb.
 * E. W. H., writing in The Philological Museum, volume 2, in 1833, considers that the -na in Notker's Psalms "answers to" the Gothic interrogative -u.
 * Grimm, in his treatment of the Psalms and of -na — referenced in Katrin Axel's Studies on Old High German Syntax (p. 41-42, section 2.4.1.1) — disagrees. Axel mentions the hypothesis that the OHG particle inu, innū, inūnū (which functioned as an interrogative in early OHG but had disappeared by MHG) was a compound, with the second part being -nū, but she says Grimm (1967a [1890]:733) rejects oth the idea that -nū is interrogative and the idea that it is related to Gothic -u.
 * Axel says Grimm regards OHG -inu as related to Gothic -an, which Axel calls "problematic".
 * Axel writes (on p. 41): "Note that Gothic is actually the only Germanic language in which there is more than only residual evidence of a system of particles." She points to discussions of the Gothic particles by Grimm (1967), Klein and Condon (1993), Klein (1994), Eythórsson (1995, 1996), Roberts (1996) and Ferraresi (1997, 2005). She writes (on p. 184): "Gothic is the old Germanic language with the most elaborate particle system."
 * Axel notes that Grimm "observed that in his collection of examples containing Gothic -u there is no corresponding element in the Greek acting as an interrogative marker. This is why he concludes that the use of the particle must have been required by the Gothic language."
 * I'll add more as I find more. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)