Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/gaminþiją

Collective
This formation seems to be a collective, considering the Gothic form, it should probably properly be, as is usually lost in Norse. Would anyone object to me moving it?

Also, this form suggests a t-stem(to-, ti-, or tu-) to, yes? Anglom (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the underlying form would be, as it would make sense together with for the two to have split from the proterokinetic PIE , . Anglom (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But ON is a ja-stem, and can't derive from anything else. There may also be a connection to Ofs, OSx , ODt  (Dutch ), OHG  (German ) < PG . —CodeCat 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant that the collective ja-stem was derived from what was originally, giving . There seem to be a few neuter collectives in Germanic formed with the affixes + , cf. , , . I think this word might also be an example. Anglom (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's plausible, but a bit too speculative without more evidence. Also, that formation is still productive in Dutch, although Dutch no longer has a distinct ja-stem declension. —CodeCat 19:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)