Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/aþulijaz

Why reconstruct this as and not ? Also, do we need a PG entry when a PWG etymology would work just fine? -- 08:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The derived form has an ON reflex, which answers both your questions. The ON form has u-mutation, and its existence implies that the base term must have been present in PG. —Rua (mew) 09:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So where does this u-form come from, secondary zero-grade? -- 23:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Kroonen reconstructs it from a zero grade, yes. —Rua (mew) 09:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it make more sense that descends from ? --  18:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a relatively small distinction, given that that noun is a substantivation of the adjective. —Rua (mew) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It does away with the need for this entry however. Did it exist in PG? Maybe, maybe not. What we can say it wasn't need for the WG forms. --  18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it existed in PG, because no less than two terms derived from it existed in PG. —Rua (mew) 18:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, no, because we have ⇒  (+ ) and  > PWG  ⇒  (+ ). --  18:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)