Template talk:sga-decl-nach

mutation effects?
why is neut. nom.acc. here mark as eclipsing/nasalizing? GOI §489b mentions it as “geminating”, as does DIL (“In nom. and acc. sing. neut. O.Ir. uses the form na, geminating a follg. consonant”), also mentioned in GOI §241.A.2. Stifter’s Sengoídelc also gives na H  on p. 189, §38.6.

Also some other mutations do not match with Stifter: he gives gen.fem. and nom.pl. nacha as h-prefixing/geminating, no mutation for fem.sg. and gen.masc./neut. nach, and gen.pl. as n/a (and seems GOI also doesn’t give it). Are they wrong here? // Silmeth @talk 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take Thurneysen's word for the neuter nom/acc singular "geminating" (i.e. not having a mutation effect on consonants and prefixing /h/ to vowels), but the only examples he gives at §241 A 2 are and, both of which would be the same if it were eclipsing. We'd need to see it before a vowel-initial word to be sure. The f.gen.sg. and nom.pl. nacha probably is h-prefixing since those forms originally ended in s. The f.nom.sg. and m.n.gen.sg. presumably caused lenition since those forms originally ended in a vowel, and those cases always trigger lenition between nouns and their modifiers, so I'd like to see very convincing evidence of nonlenition in those cases. Thurneysen doesn't say explicitly what happens there, but he does say of the invariant form nach "the only trace of the former flexion is its effect on the following initial", which implies that lenition happens where it's expected, which certainly includes f.nom.sg. and m.n.gen.sg. Indeed, the gen.pl. is apparently unattested. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess the h-prefix/gemination is based on the examples where it’s followed by adjectives: na glan, na bec ndo síd, and (followed by vowel, but gen.) na áe ‘(n)one of them’. // Silmeth @talk 21:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are good examples. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)