Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/ainahô

Why is this a different lemma from *ainagaz? Would it be simpler to assume that there was a Verner’s law alternation between the strong and weak declensions, or does the evidence point to both *ainagô and *ainahô existing in parallel? 189.197.236.75 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The original form is likely to be *ainahaz > *ainahô. Gothic is the only Germanic language that seems to preserve the fact that *-kos could also give *-haz depending on where the accent fell in the original word. Northwest Germanic seems to have completely replaced *-haz with *-gaz, which was presumably more widespread. Anglom (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What would some other *-haz* words have been? 189.197.236.75 21:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * *barnahaz, *bergahaz, stainahaz, wurdahaz, are all more or less attested by Gothic. Essentially any word that was an a-stem and featured stress on the root rather than stem would have given an adjective in *-ahaz. A word like *blōþą, "blood", would presumably have given the original adjective *blōdahaz (or *blōþahaz with analogical restoration, as is common in Germanic). North and West Germanic would then have replaced *-haz with *-gaz, giving Old English blōdig and Old Norse blóðugr. Anglom (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)