Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/himinaz

Why does the -i- in the second syllable not mutate the -e- in the first to -i- ? Leasnam (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It does, I gather Kroonen simply dates the change as post-PGmc. This rule is really needed for Northwest Germanic only, since Gothic raises *e to /i/ in general. He doesn't explicitly comment on this, but also reconstructs e.g., , . --Tropylium (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Original n-stem

 * Most sources reconstruct an original ~ *hemnaz, *himinaz n-stem as the source for these forms (see WG ). Would anyone object to moving this entry to ? --  17:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what evidence? —Rua (mew) 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See 163 and the various sources I added to . -- 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just one proposal by a single source, hardly a general linguistic consensus. How many sources, that you have not mentioned, reconstruct these nouns as we do? The additional sources present at, all with their own proposals, are exactly why we shouldn't prefer Kroonen's. —Rua (mew) 12:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Kroonen is not the only one that supports this reconstruction. See himul. None of the sources on conflict with the existence of an original n-stem. How do you interpret that differently? --  20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)