Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/liznaną

RFM discussion: June 2021
Since this is attested only in West Germanic, shouldn't it be moved to a Proto-West Germanic form? However, I don't know what the form would be, or  or something else? Also, it's suspicious that Category:Proto-West Germanic class 4 weak verbs is an empty category. Would this be the only member of that class? Or have we simply not yet created PWG entries for class 4 verbs? . —Mahāgaja · talk 10:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that class 4 weak verbs disappeared in West Germanic;  would be class 3 weak (as in OHG). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So does that mean it shifted to /? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as demonstrated by ; in the other West Germanic languages, it shifted to class 2. By the way, I think is better than, as lowering isn't universal in West Germanic (for instance,  doesn't have it). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Which, however, looks like a class 2 verb (as do several other attested forms), so maybe class 4 verbs sometimes went to that class too. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the northern West Germanic languages, most class 3 verbs (like ) show up as class 2; only the four j-presents, , , and remain in a relic class 3. Since OHG, Old Norse, and Gothic keep a full-sized class 3, the shift of class in these verbs must postdate the breakup of PWG. In short, we shouldn't be reconstructing a class 2 . Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On further thought, the argument I made isn't watertight, as there could've been dialectal variation already in PWG. However, if you accept that had a northern dialectal form, you have to accept the same for all other class 3 weak verbs except for the j-presents. Personally, I think it's better to write off  as post-PWG. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ringe states:
 * The fourth class of weak verbs, fientives with presents in *-nō- ~ *-na-, lost their identity as an inflectional class throughout NWGmc, but the outcomes were different in Norse and in WGmc. [...] In WGmc the formation ceased to be productive early, and not even many fossilized examples remain in the attested languages. [...] It is not surprising that the northern WGmc forms of the other verbs listed here are mostly class II weak verbs (as in ON), and perhaps not very surprising that one verb has a strong variant in OE, considering that the entire class exhibits simple thematic inflection in the present in Gothic. The OHG class III weak inflection must reflect the WGmc interchange between weak classes II and III, but it is surprising that all the surviving fientives wound up in class III in OHG.
 * Ringe doesn't make any mention of how the class was represented in PWG, so we're left to guess. But it's clear enough that he doesn't think the class moved to class 3 wholesale, given his "surprise" at the OHG development. Simply said, I think we are unable to confidently reconstruct the full inflection of these verbs. Ringe does, however, reconstruct specifically the infinitives *liznōn (or *liʀnōn in our notation) and *waknōn, so perhaps we can tentatively use the suffix for infinitives of this class. —Rua (mew) 19:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So how about I move it to and list  as a Weser-Rhine an Elbe Germanic alternative form? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)