Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/furdiz

Etymology
Lehmann suggests it as derived from, but that would leave unexplained. Instead I prefer to connect it with, which already implies a lost class 4 strong verb. In which case, the ti-stem is expected. I'm still not 100% on the semantics, though. Anglom (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They could be different formations, separated in time. I would guess that is the older one, directly reflecting the zero-grade PIE formation like .  seems like a later formation, directly from the a-grade of . Consider also the pair of  and, which must also be of different ages. —CodeCat 23:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're very much right that they could be. But all of these secondary formations, very specifically *farjaną, *fēriz, and *ferþuz point very conspicuously towards a lost full grade **feraną. It's amazing how many words or roots are only indirectly attested in Germanic. I wonder why specific verbs like **feraną and say, **afaną, which are so prolific in derivations seem to have been lost. Even the indirect attestations seem to have stories to tell. Anglom (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)