Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/sinīgaz

Shouldn't this be at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/senīgaz? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, it really depends when the word was formed, if it appeared before the i-mutation then the reconstruction is correct, if it was constructed after the phonetics changes then senīgaz is expected. However if is a Gothic creation then we can assume that this word never existed in Proto-Germanic. Since Proto-Italic experience a similar development with Senos > Seneks, I considered that the word was older than the i-mutation, therefore i reconstructed sinīgaz instead of senīgaz. In Proto-indo-European page of, before i created this page the red term pointed to sinīgaz. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 20:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Proto-Germanic would have umlaut regardless, there's no known exceptions to it. —Rua (mew) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kroonen, which is cited as the main reference, has *senīgaz tho. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kroonen always has pre-umlaut forms, so that doesn't say much. —Rua (mew) 11:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess that's true. An interesting thing though is that there is a form implying a variant attested in . But I'll admit I don't really know too much about the specifics of umlaut. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)