Talk:ᛖᚱᚨᚠᚨᛉ

Definitely not related to the Gk or the IE etyma in the etymology section
Under NO circumstances did PIE *bh develop into PGmc *f. There are rules to sound change (i.e., that sound change is regular) upon which the entire fields of reconstructive and historical linguistics are based. Unless there was analogy of sorts, this word can't be cognate with Gk. ὀρφνός < PIE -*bh-, because PIE bh becomes PGmc *b according to Grimm's law... Even Kroonen (2013: 118) claims that this term is "a Nordic word continuing a proto-form *erba(n)" and disputes the connection with Gk. ἒριφος. Having said that, Germanic peoples practiced taboo circumlocution with predatory animals (cf. wolf with irregular development of PIE -*kw-), but that just further obscures the connection of this term with any IE cognates... Vindafarna (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, in Proto-Germanic *f (< *p) and *β (< *bh) were a voicing pair, and they often alternated in accordance with Verner's law. In Old Norse (Old Icelandic) inter-vocalic *β is always spelled with , like from, from zero-grade of . This is also present in West Germanic languages like  and , , so it must have begun some time eh? But I agree the Proto-ermanic reconstruction should probably be *erbaz, just like   ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 09:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that ON has some spelling inconsistencies with bilabials, cf. ON eptir /eφtir/ where the is used to write the voiceless bilabial fricative / _s/t (cf. Avestan hapta with for /φ/). Runic < b > /β/~/b/ became  /v/ like you said, but look at Runic arbija 'inheritance' > ON erfi (PIE *-bh-), compared to this word. They're clearly different spellings in Runic, but the latter has a secure etymology from the PIE voiced aspirate. Since the Verner's law variant would be indistinguishable, they would be spelt with the same letter in Runic I'd think. Regardless, the etymology section on the main page should be changed. Vindafarna (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)