Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/hatōn

hadir
I think Old French, the most conservative form of the word, stems from *hatjan rather than *haton, due to the -ir ending. Leasnam (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CodeCat and I think we're actually dealing with class III weak verb, so it's hard to say how it may of been reconstructed. For now, we've just called them weak class II, as them may have been in the process of merging into each other, which is evident the Old Dutch forms. --Victar (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true for Old Dutch *haton, but the Old French? The parallel is Old English (< *hatjaną) Leasnam (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to jump into the thread entitled *hatjan on the Frankish talk page. It would be also good if you see the thread on Sievers' law, I as noticed you moved . --Victar (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the Class III wk verb, we can only speculate on it. I do believe it probably existed, and it may have merged/alternated with the already existing Frankish verbs *hatjan and *hatōn (both from PGmc); but it left no immediate descendants. Those would have most likely come from the two verbs above (?), yeah? We have an attestation for Old Dutch haton; and Old French probably came from *hatjan (?)Leasnam (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please see the Frankish talk page on the subject. --Victar (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read it. On what points do you disagree? ...Leasnam (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't Class III weak verbs intransitive though? The menaing would be "to be/become hateful, grow in hate, be filled with hate" or something to that effect...The OHG hazzēn had this meaning "to be jealous, to be filled with loathing or disgust" which was proabably the original PGmc sense. Leasnam (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

*hatjan
I'm not really sure what to do with this. The third weak class of verbs has been notoriously difficult for linguists to reconstruct, and even nowadays there isn't a very strong consensus about it. All that's known is that they ended up almost entirely in class 2 in the more northern West Germanic languages (including the descendants of Frankish), but there is no way to tell how they developed before that. Going purely by sound change, Germanic *hatjaną should have become *hettian > *hetten in Dutch, but that clearly didn't happen and there is in fact no doubling of the consonants in any of those verbs except for. So clearly, something else must have happened in the meantime, but it's not known what happened, let alone which stage happened at which time. 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems OHG flip-flopped between and, so it's a good guess Frankish did as well, looking at Old Dutch and Old French.  is probably another example. --Victar (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to move it to, I'm fine with that. --Victar (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more likely that hazzōn originated from the more northern areas, where the change did happen. Old Dutch and some Central German dialects behaved like Old Saxon and Old English did, having only four class 3 verbs. 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think Old Dutch descends from a weak class III verb? Old Saxon class II weak verbs sometimes alternated between  and . Could this just be something similar? --Victar (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the part that linguists still haven't fully grasped yet. In northern West Germanic, these verbs have fully merged with class 2 so haton is just a class 2 verb. The only way we know that it was once class 3 is because it appears as class 3 in Gothic or Old High German, which do preserve this class. I don't think Old Saxon -ōjan is connected to this. That suffix was added indiscriminately to all class 2 verbs in the northernmost languages, and it's probably by analogy with the first class. What we'd really need to look at is which features of class 3 resembled class 2 enough for them to merge. But so far linguists haven't really found anything yet, and it doesn't help that the reconstruction of class 3 itself isn't clear. Ringe reconstructs two subclasses in class 3, but not all linguists agree on that. So, there is really no linguistically sound way that class 3 could be reconstructed for Frankish. It could have already merged with class 2, or it could still have been in the process of merging, in which case we don't know what it would have looked like around the 5th century. 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about we call it class III and move it to, based on ? --Victar (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But do we actually know if that is what it was in Frankish? 23:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Either a) class III verbs existed, b) class II verbs endings alternated, or c) Old French, is descended from a different root than Old Dutch . --Victar (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not c). But we can't tell whether it was a) or b), nor can we tell what the actual endings of a) were. It's not reconstructable. 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see three options: 1) call them class II verbs, and give them class II endings (which is what was done with ), 2) reconstruct class III verb endings as based on Ringe's  hypothetical ending and Gothic, or 3) create a class III verb ending placeholder, like   or . --Victar (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * a) or b), I would still reconstruct it as, which works phonetically and explains the lack of germination. --Victar (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that -ojan only occurred in Old Saxon, Old Frisian and Old English, not in Old Dutch, and even in Old Saxon it was far from universal. So that doesn't work. 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that Frankish became Old Dutch  and Old French . It's just a hypothesis though. --Victar (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A new paper by Nelson Goering at Oxford backs up Ringe's hypothesis. http://www.academia.edu/1949682/Reconstruction_and_background_of_the_Germanic_class_III_weak_verbs Victar --(talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also an interesting read if you haven't read it before. http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/2066/79378/1/79378.pdf --Victar (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved to  and am calling it a class II, which I think is the safest choice until we have a better understanding. --Victar (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think that Old Frankish may have had two verbs: and . I would agree with your statement (Victar) above, that the Old French word descends from *hatjan; whilst Old Dutch from *haton. I just cannot see hadir coming from haton. It's too phonetically distant. Same for, . Leasnam (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Leasnam, I disagree that they were two words because this seems to be consistently the case with class III verbs. Old Dutch also flip-flopped between and, as we can see in strong class verbs like . --Victar (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "flip-flopped"? I see it this way: PGmc had 3 classes of weak verbs. As time progressed, daughter languages re-analysed and simplified these, and merged them. The first to go was Class III. In Old English it was made analogous to Class II weak verbs, but still kept their original meaning. So are you saying that the reconstructed Frankish verb should be *hatēn, and this is the origina of Old Dutch haton and Old French hadir ? Leasnam (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe it's probable that Old Frankish had all 3 weak verbs: *hatōn, *hatjan, and *hatēn. The first two can be reasonalby connected to descendants (Old Dutch haton and Old French hadir). The other left no direct trace, except if it influenced the meaning of the other two, which is only speculative. Leasnam (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the alternation in Old Dutch between -on and -an was due to two causes: 1). different verb endings originally due to class (-ōną vs. -aną); and 2) superficial scribal/stylistic preference caused by nasalisation (like Old English variants band/bond; land/lond; būtan/būton)...no? Leasnam (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Old Dutch, , and even are interchangeable, and this seems to be the case with all Old Durch class I strong verbs. So yes, I would say it's superficial.
 * If the Frankish word was or, wouldn't it have come to mean to "to pursue as an enemy, persecute" or something similar to its cognates, and not "to hate"? I don't think it was just a merger because we have basically the same situation with  and several others. --Victar (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Old French verb meant "to hate (someone)"; and "to want to hurt someone" which substantiates my my theory perfectly. It is the form of *hatjan with some of the semantic influence from the verb *hatōn, with which it became confounded. Leasnam (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain words like and . It's unlikely they were all the result of the merging of two words. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct! I would move Old French maquier out from under *makōn. There may have been a secondary verb specific only to some dialects of Old/Middle Dutch (*makjan); or the Picard word maquier may just be from Middle Dutch . Definitely, I don't think it descends directly from Frankish *makōn Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a problematic situation with . Dutch and OHG, though related, are not directly connected. Leasnam (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem. The problem is that we have Old French and Old Dutch . --Victar (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What we may be failing to see here is Old Frankish's (an dOld French's) productive ability to create new verbs from nouns within itself. Not all Old Frankish verbs were necessarily inherited. This is just a basic function of all languages. It's possible that it took a noun *waidana and turned it into a verb > *waidanjan using existing verbal patterns. Old English did this all the time with new verbs in -ian, where you have basically doublets in -an and another in -ian with no real semantic difference. Why would OFrk be any different? Leasnam (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, and anything is possible, but the question is what's most probable. Is it more likely that all -on/-ier cognates are from different roots, or did some systematic change occur? I don't know. --Victar (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Old French words (gaagnier/gagner/gaaignier/gaaingnier) I'd like to know which is the earliest form. As far as -on/-ier, I wouldn't necessarily apply the strict qualification bar as I would for -on vs -ir verbs, as -ier is just a form of -er with a preceding -i-. Leasnam (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)