Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/waliþu

Why should this be at and not ? -- 20:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because e before i or j does not exist in Proto-Germanic or PWG. And a matches all of the descendants, if later umlaut is taken into account. —Rua (mew) 07:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that the law, ? Seems a weird scenario to trigger rounding. --  17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The law is e > i. This is then followed by umlaut in the individual languages, which mostly changes a > e in the same environment. —Rua (mew) 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but what's the law the dictates PWG > ? --  21:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *waliþu would have to come from *walō rather than *welō. *welō + *-iþu would yield *wiliþu. *walō is a byform of *welō (PGmc *walô & *welô) Leasnam (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of byform is walô? Is it an ablaut variant?--Urszag (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently so Leasnam (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there for ? -- 06:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you created an entry for it. OHG is from a zero-grade form of PG  and OE  is the Northumbrian expression of ; see 325. I really don't think **walō ever existed. --  06:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *wal- can be inferred from forms of the adverb: plenty of examples exist (🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, etc.). Gmw *waliþu is another example, so we know there was originally an e - a - u alternation. There is also the 🇨🇬 (in ) (< 🇨🇬2, perhaps going back to a 🇨🇬) Leasnam (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)