Reconstruction talk:Frankish/kotta
(Redirected from Appendix talk:Frankish/kotta)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Victar in topic kotta
kotta edit
I think this is a feminine ō-stem. An n-stem would have probably been borrowed with -on (compare baron). —CodeCat 03:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm thinking it's either an an-stem, giving it an -o ending, or ōn, giving it an -a ending. --Victar (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the Old High German word is either an ō-stem, kozza, or an an-stem, kozzo. In Frankish that would give either *kotta or *kottō. —CodeCat 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, let's go with an-stem, which coincides with the PGm. *kuttô, and rename it to *kottō. --Victar (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- But if it's that, why is the French word not masculine? —CodeCat 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Surcot is masculine. I'm fine changing it to ō-stem, but we should probably change *kuttô to ō-stem as well, for congruency. --Victar (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are actually two distinct but related forms. *kuttô is just one of them, but it is correct at least going by Old High German kozzo. It seems that *kuttō is another, which led to Old High German kozza. It's quite likely that both of these forms existed side by side in Frankish, too. I noticed that Frankish *barō was borrowed into Old French as baron, but with the nominative ber. So it's possible that the -ō of *kottō was dropped as well; but that it reappears in the oblique case in Old French as -on (cotton?). Do you know if that is true? —CodeCat 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is baron is from the Frankish an-stem accusative case form of *barō, *baron. --Victar (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but my point is that both Latin and Frankish n-stems have this alternation in Old French. And since *kottō is also an n-stem, you'd expect its Old French descendant to also alternate between stems in the same way. —CodeCat 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you now. Thanks for running through it with me. --Victar (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but my point is that both Latin and Frankish n-stems have this alternation in Old French. And since *kottō is also an n-stem, you'd expect its Old French descendant to also alternate between stems in the same way. —CodeCat 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is baron is from the Frankish an-stem accusative case form of *barō, *baron. --Victar (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are actually two distinct but related forms. *kuttô is just one of them, but it is correct at least going by Old High German kozzo. It seems that *kuttō is another, which led to Old High German kozza. It's quite likely that both of these forms existed side by side in Frankish, too. I noticed that Frankish *barō was borrowed into Old French as baron, but with the nominative ber. So it's possible that the -ō of *kottō was dropped as well; but that it reappears in the oblique case in Old French as -on (cotton?). Do you know if that is true? —CodeCat 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Surcot is masculine. I'm fine changing it to ō-stem, but we should probably change *kuttô to ō-stem as well, for congruency. --Victar (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- But if it's that, why is the French word not masculine? —CodeCat 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, let's go with an-stem, which coincides with the PGm. *kuttô, and rename it to *kottō. --Victar (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the Old High German word is either an ō-stem, kozza, or an an-stem, kozzo. In Frankish that would give either *kotta or *kottō. —CodeCat 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)