Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/skūrō

Etymology
Kroonen offers a reconstruction of both words going back to a heteroclitic noun, , derived from PIE , on the basis of Old Saxon , as well as Old High German and German , which he supposes probably developed from the dative stem. In which case both words would have developed from one original meaning of "shade". Thoughts? Anglom (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Certain early Middle Latin and Old French to Modern French, that I have added to the descendants table with a note of uncertainty, even have both this /r/ and /n/, you might construct something from it, although possibly secondary in Proto-West Germanic we now assume. The “Salian Frankish” form and connection I have from here, after here, else there has been too much written about the French and Latin words in the last two centuries. Fay Freak (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

corrections
, Why is "pronunciation" higher than "etymology"? And why "====noun====", and not "===noun==="? Gnosandes (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pronunciation comes first because it is share by both Etymologies. This reduces redundancy. Since there are 2 Etymology sections, the Noun headers are reduced in level, hence "====" :) Leasnam (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Aha. Thank you very much. I'll know. :D Gnosandes (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)