Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/aiwukiz

Reconstruction
I kind of wonder if the Proto-Germanic form might just be, with the resegmenting to being a Gothic(or late Germanic?) development. Compare, which looks to go back to < first element being derived from. Anglom (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It might also be possible that the Proto-Germanic form had been altered to, seen as a compound + . The Old English and Gothic forms could represent reduced , with Gothic resegmenting it as . Whereas the other West Germanic languages could have altered it again to , . Anglom (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -j- between two vowels (when the first is not -i-) is always suspect because according to Ringe it was lost in this position, and rather late at that (later than the ā > ō change). —CodeCat 18:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye. This is the construction Kroonen lists, but I've been trying to reconcile it with that fact. I do think that the Gothic form might be a resegmentation, as mentioned above, Gothic treats as, maybe they treated the -w- in  as a vowel, , which would account for the Gothic form. I'm not really sure about the Old English form, but it's not unreasonable that it developed from , is it? Much less likely maybe a lengthened grade.


 * And it seems plausible the other languages instead replaced the ending with the more common adjectival . Anglom (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved
Could literally be reconstructed with either -a-, -i- or -u-, but -u- is the only one I have reference for. I'll add that later. Edit: Anyway, as we've all noted, *ajukiz is impossible for Proto-Germanic. Anglom (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you add the reference to the headword line, so that it's clear that the specific form of the lemma is found in the reference? Blanket references like the one you added aren't very clear on what comes from the reference and what doesn't. —Rua (mew) 13:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)