Reconstruction talk:Frankish/kotta

kotta
I think this is a feminine ō-stem. An n-stem would have probably been borrowed with -on (compare baron). 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 or .  03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's go with an-stem, which coincides with the PGm., and rename it to . --Victar (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But if it's that, why is the French word not masculine? 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Surcot is masculine. I'm fine changing it to ō-stem, but we should probably change to ō-stem as well, for congruency. --Victar (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are actually two distinct but related forms. is just one of them, but it is correct at least going by Old High German . It seems that  is another, which led to Old High German . It's quite likely that both of these forms existed side by side in Frankish, too. I noticed that Frankish  was borrowed into Old French as, but with the nominative . So it's possible that the -ō of  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?  03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is is from the Frankish an-stem accusative case form of, . --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 is also an n-stem, you'd expect its Old French descendant to also alternate between stems in the same way.  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)