Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/ajukidūþiz

RFD discussion: January–March 2018
Single descendant seems like too weak a basis for any PGmc reconstruction to me. Tagging creator: — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * is apparently not just the only descendant of, but also the only attested use of , apparently the only attested descendant of , the PIE ancestor of which has no entry. has an etymology, and  is definitely part of it, but it's hard to tell what to do about the rest. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the derived terms on the entry for, there are in fact three Gothic words formed with this suffix, so is not entirely isolated. But yeah, there's definitely not a lot of data to work with here; I'm not sure if a good argument could be made either way for its productivity or lack thereof in Gothic. The PIE seems uncontroversial though, the Gothic matches  (etymology 3) pretty nicely. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)