Talk:Proto-Germanic grammar

Weak class 4?

@CodeCat: Are you sure about the present tense alternating between -nō-/-na- and conjugated as an athematic verb? In Gothic it conjugates as an ordinary thematic strong verb. I don't have my copy of Ringe "From PIE to Proto-Germanic" handy but he makes some pretty definite statements that imply that the conjugation is no longer considered uncertain, and that it's now understand that they conjugated as strong verbs, although I can't say for sure whether he says thematic strong verb (as Gothic would imply) or athematic verb (as you have given it). Where did you get your verb tables from?

ben

Ringe 2006 mostly. I don't remember what he says exactly about class 4 but it's very tentative in any case. The alternation isn't attested but he suggests it so that he can derive a proper PIE origin for the class. In other words, the alternation is what would be expected. CodeCat (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. Benwing (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Why are precisely zero sources cited in this article? Is it copied verbatim from the book listed in the references section? Nonstopdrivel (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

masc genitive singular -as

The article says currently,

The origin of the genitive singular ending is unclear, as it does not reflect the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European ending *-osyo.

Why not? Isnt -as the exact reflex we would expect from PIE *-osyo? —Soap— 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

An stems

I don't want to enter in an edit war, but either the text or the table must be wrong. There are some forms in the table marked with an "?", but none of them is the masculine nominative singular. If that really is a unsure reconstruction, it should be marked with an "?" as well --Ngfsmg (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The forms given in the paragraph of text are definitely the masculine singular forms of those languages, not the neuter ones (-a in Old Norse, -o in Gothic). I agree with putting a ? next to the forms in the table. Rua (mew) 15:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Genitive singular ending

It has already been asked, but isn't the result of PIE -ósyo exactly -as? I don't see how the result is phonologically unexpected, the weird thing is that it wasn't analogically reverted to -az as other endings were --Ngfsmg (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

an-stem neuter

The neuter nominative singular should be different from the masculine. (OE: ēage, OHG: ouga) < PWG: *augā, ON: auga, Gothic: 𐌰𐌿𐌲𐍉(augō). These all differ from the masculine endings(OE: -a, OHG: -o, ON: -i, Gothic : -a). Since this is in all branches, the Proto-Germanic form should be more similar to the ōn-stem nominative singular(-ǭ?). Cynemund (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)