Talk:blæcce

*blakkjā
, if this is from, shouldn't we expect ? -- Sokkjō 20:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The vowel is indeed an important consideration, but I feel that the geminate, palatised consonant is more impactful. Compare similar for development of i-mutated a > æ instead of e. Leasnam (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , are you sure a formation in PWG from would produce  and not  ? I thought genesis in GEM-PRO might be required for this. (?) Leasnam (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, as we can see this rule being triggered even in Latin borrowings into WG, ex. . -- Sokkjō 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't think this is an adequate example, since this is not from + ; but rather, this is evidence that the word was borrowed earlier as  then inherited as > . Is there perhaps another example ? Leasnam (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * LMFAO, sure:, , , . -- Sokkjō 03:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you missed it. These are more examples of words not formed in PWGmc from a stand-alone [stem] + : they just show regular West Germanic consonant gemination. I was hoping you would be able to produce soemthing like +  =, which would parallel the formation of . None of the examples you provided actually do that. Leasnam (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After second thought it's actually good the way it is. I can live with concluding that is the intermediary between PGmc and PWGmc, that later became, and it's not necessary to show an earlier non-geminate *blakjā. By force of habit I always default to the previous stage which is Proto-Germanic, but I suppose that's actually not correct, it's really Early PWGmc. So when I said , I should have instead said Early  (which later becomes ). I'm okay now with how this looks. Leasnam (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)