User talk:Fryyu

Welcome Message
--Apisite (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic *luftiz
Hi ! What you state regarding North Sea Germanic u-stem plurals is true (cf. Old English sunu > suna (plural)); however that is not what is meant by my edit. Looking at the paradigm at, the dative singular and nom plural here is , and it's from this form that Old English levelled it's word for "air". This also explains why the gender of the Old English word is scattered, it's sometimes masc, sometimes, fem, sometimes neuter. It's due to reconstruction from the plural. Leasnam (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was never a Proto-Germanic byform . Leasnam (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * -iwV was levelled out of NSGmc u-stems altogether, not just in the nominative plural. There was no form in the paradigm of NSGmc/preOE *luftu in which i-umlaut could have occurred and no form from which the umlauted vowel could have spread by analogy. This is why Old English u-stems lack i-umlaut in all forms. The only form that could have yielded OE lyft is PWGmc *lufti, < *luftiz. This is of course not to imply that such a form actually existed in PWGmc, as the change in stem class may be unique to immediate ancestor of OE. However *lufti is the form reflected unambiguously by OE lyft, hence my inclusion of it in the article as a byform.
 * As for your comment regarding confusion of gender, this dates back to PGmc times, cf. OS and OHG luft (u-stem), Gothic luftus, attested both masculine and feminine. Please see Fulk and Hogg 2011 p. 154. Fryyu (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

sigel
Are you saying that could not have existed ? Presumably due to the -e- ? OK, I see this has changed to -i- which I am more comfortable with (either an -i- or -u-). Leasnam (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the manner that we do not state that and  come from what would formally be  and, should we postulate a  ?  is the only way to get to  ? At least  is currently put forth by us, and in the absence of any other explanation I think it still merits consideration. *sawili'/'sawuli > *sǣjli > *siejil (spelt siġel) doesn't work ? I don't have access to this work by Fulk (I assume it's A History of Old English Meter because Grammar of Old English doesn't mention it. Leasnam (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not against stating what a word of unknown etymology formally reflects and have seen it here many times. The sound changes are largely absolute and not in dispute. What I am against is invoking ad hoc processes not attested elsewhere to explain these words. There is no way to derive siġel from *sōl without at least one such assumption. This does not, of course, disprove such a process of derivation, but it does nevertheless substantially reduce its probability. Fryyu (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can clearly notate that the adhoc theory is just that, merely a possibility (which it is). But I do see your point. Regarding reverse etymologies though, I think we should keep them at a minimum, especially when they're open-ended as in the case with siġel, as could equally derive from a  as from  (and if alternative forms are taken into consideration, possibly  as well). There's just no way to be certain that it is one vs. any other.  Leasnam (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PGmc *e became *i when *i or *j followed in the next syllable (cf. Hogg 1992, p. 54). This is why "he speaks", "he helps", "he steals", etc. in OE are spricþ, hilpþ, stilþ respectively, with i, not e, in the root. This also explains such alterations as *þiudisk < *þeudu. So, in fact, *segil could not have been the PWGmc preform of this word. *Sagil likewise is disqualified as it would in all dialects have yielded *seġel, with different vocalism, and while a few forms in -e- and -æ- are attested (3 and 1, respectively, by my count), they are a substantial minority next to 56 instances of siġel. Possibly they have been conflated with sweġl, or with seġl, or are simply scribal errors. There is thus more than sufficient probabilistic evidence to posit *sigil as the true preform. Fryyu (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <> this is certainly true of PGmc, but there has been uncertainty among some editors here whether that is also true of PWGmc, especially when a term is newly formed in PWGmc rather than inherited from PGmc (though I personally believe this feature also existed in PWgmc). Couldn't the first vowel in seġel (from *sagil) have broken then fused to form then  ? And, could, , and  not have produced  Leasnam (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Breaking could not have occurred in *seġil. As for your other inquiry, while the OE outcome of *sigal would indeed have merged with *sigil after reduction of unstressed vowels, is in fact attested 6 times in the corpus, in contexts likely to make them genuine archaisms (e.g. in OccGl 36, with archaic u for f, cf. for  in EpGl, reliably dated to the late 7th or early 8th century). Furthermore, as o-stems were exclusively feminine and neuter u- and i-stems extremely rare, any derivation from them may be regarded as unlikely. Fryyu (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea where may have come from, or to what it may be related ( ?) ? Leasnam (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is indeed debate in the literature as to whether /e/ occurred phonemically in unstressed syllables in PWGmc; however, the reason I reverted your revision is because there are no known regular sound changes in PWGmc or preOE that could have yielded siġel from *saweli. Fryyu (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, not from, yet what about or even  ? Even a metathetic . Something in my gut tells me this is right, so please pardon me if I am having difficulty letting this go. Leasnam (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * is there any possibility that could be developed from an early borrowing of  ? Also, concerning the vowel in the first syllable of siġil, how do we know it is short rather than long ? Could it be long ? Leasnam (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)