Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/boudi

Gender
, how does Brythonic support ? Brythonic lost the neuter anyway, so all old neuters have become either masculine or feminine. DIL says might have originally been a feminine ā-stem, but I don't know what the evidence for that claim is. Certainly nothing outside Goidelic seems to point to or. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I in fact agree with you, Brittonic provides zero evidence for a non-neuter i-stem reconstruction. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or a non-neuter form of any other declension class either, right? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Continental compositional -i- when combined with Old Irish i-stem declension points to nothing else than an i-stem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , you wrote, "[The DIL] did not say i-stem feminine, they must have made the comment because it looks like an a-stem feminine ending in the gen sg. GOI doesn't think -e was even singular, but instead they think it was plural, where -e is regular". Is there actually evidence of this, or are you just guessing this is the rational? -- 02:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mellohi, I supported when you gave it, and reverted my edits related to moving the entry to . Asking you to further explain isn't "desperately trying to make Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/boudi not neuter", as you wrote on Discord. --  04:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was saying that a-stems have a genitive singular ending in -e, a genitive singular that i-stems don't have (i-stems instead use -a). DIL lists a form buade as a genitive singular, which ends in -e, hence my reasoning. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The genitive singular in -e is characteristic of the ī-stems as well. However, Thurneysen GOI §301 writes, "It is doubtful if búade is occasionally gen. sg., not gen. pl., of búaid neut. ‘victory’; see Wb. 24$a$17, Fél." I don't know whether anything outside of Goidelic clearly excludes a feminine *boudī, but I wouldn't let a single anomalous genitive singular throw off the whole reconstruction when people aren't even 100% certain it isn't a genitive plural. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One interesting thing is that in, the definition is feminine, and  is masculine. The division could be arbitrary, or it be a vestige of a merger of  and.
 * I've been also working on a PIE entry for *gʷeh₁w- for the possible Balto-Slavic and Iranian cognates, like . --  17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Entry created for PIE ., thoughts on my comments above? -- 03:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

*bʰewd-

 * Matasović does not say that *boudi might come from *bʰewd-; he says that the Germanic -words are often considered loanwords from *boudi- but that the Germanic words might instead come from *bʰewd-. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)