User talk:Proto-Germanic Fan

Return to "Proto-Germanic Fan" page.


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Ƿidsiþ 07:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you might also want to check out WT:AGEM. Ƿidsiþ 07:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


Hello! In looking briefly at rattaz and I notice that some of the Descendants may not belong to the strong a-stem (i.e.-az) declension. In cases such as these, it seems best to move the sideling cognates to their own entry in the Appendix (compare dailiz, vs dailan and dailōn. There appear to be at least two forms for "rat": *rattaz (M) and *rattō (F); and possibly a third, *ratô (M n-stem), found in OHG rato.

Also, We usually consider Old Frankish to be the forerunner of Old Dutch in Descendant hierarchies. Leasnam 16:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. I'll create the page for *rattō and move the Old Frankish form and its descendants there. If there are no objections, I'll also move OHG rato to *ratô --Proto-Germanic Fan 18:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The ancestor of OHG rato can't be ratô because of the High German consonant shift... it has to be radô instead. I wonder why the consonant is different in this case, it's strange... —CodeCat 19:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh but then there is the modern form Ratz which does show a shift. And why did Katze shift but Ratte did not? This is getting confusing! x.x —CodeCat 19:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, it's pretty confusing. How would you recommend we classify rato - should it be moved to *radô --Proto-Germanic Fan 19:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the OHG shift took place in stages, over time. This is why we see some words where a shift is detected (lahha < *lakō) and others not (like rato), and yet other where there is a mix (recko AND wrecho > Recke). In the last case, the Modern form takes after the more Germanically "conservative" one. But instances like these seem to be rather anomalies than commonplace. Leasnam (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly, the Neogrammarian principle isn't abandoned so quickly; even when the confounding influence of borrowing (or unaccounted-for sound laws, or dialectal forms, or spelling variants, etc.) can be ruled out, there are still analogies (*radan- and *ratt- could well have existed within the same paradigm, or *wrakī ~ wrakjō-, for example). Just read Kroonen 2011. That said, a Proto-Germanic etymon for rat is extremely unlikely (I can't even find the OHG forms in Schützeichel: are they glosses?); the dictionaries suspect a Wanderwort and a borrowing from Celtic is a seriously suggestive possibility. Welsh rathu means "to scrape, smooth, file", may well be cognate with Latin rādere and is reconstructed as an Italo-Celtic verbal root *rasd- by Schrijver. Considering that the Gaulish descendant of Proto-Celtic *kʷesdi- (Welsh peth, Breton pezh, Old Irish cuit "thing, part") was borrowed into Latin with -tt- as pettia and the Insular Celtic reflexes suggest an intermediate stage *-tt- there, as well, Gaulish can easily have had forms with *ratt- that could have produced both the forms in Germanic and in Latin/Romance. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


This word is certainly neuter. But the Dutch and OHG words have a plural in -r, which may mean it was a neuter z-stem rather than a masculine a-stem, so it could have been *hōnaz after all. z-stems are rare in Germanic, so this does call for some caution... do you know any sources that confirm or deny this possibility? —CodeCat 21:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it from here: --Proto-Germanic Fan 21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I don't really consider that a very good source, mainly because it relies on outdated theories but also because it lists a lot of words together with no real explanation about which is which, and it doesn't list the genders of the PG words either. The Old Norse forms it lists are interesting though... they have an -s-? —CodeCat 21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it is very confusing. I'll try and find more reliable sources in future. I can't quite understand the -s- in ON either. How would that have happened? --Proto-Germanic Fan 21:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
For Dutch words I use but it's in Dutch so it may be more difficult to understand. They do have good reconstructions though, and they list several sources. And about the -s-... all I can think of is that it's somehow linked to the -z- of the z-stem nouns. If the word was indeed a z-stem, its singular would have been *hōnaz, and its plural *hōnizō (compare Template:termx). But normally z becomes r in Old Norse, so I can't see why it became s in this case (*hōnizō should have become *hœnr but instead it became hœns). On the other hand, Germanic z does derive from older s through Verner's law, so this may be an old case of Verner alternation. How the alternation came to apply to a z-stem noun is a mystery to me though, because Verner alternation implies an Indo-European accent shift, and z-stems (s-stems in PIE) had no accent shift (look at Template:termx for an example). —CodeCat 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I do believe the elision of intermediate vowels happened before z (R) merged with r, so it would be hōnizō > hœnʀ; however, (final) -nz should become -nn after a long vowel, as in vænn, and otherwise -nr ( > -nur). – Krun (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Proto-Germanic database above (@ I agree is not a solidly reliable source. It does have some value though, especially when trying to find Gmc cognates (particularly Old Norse descendant forms) and PIE cognates, but you have to take it with about three spoons of salt overall ;) Leasnam (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:About Proto-GermanicEdit

I started a discussion there, would you please share your views? Thank you. —CodeCat 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Wouldn't this be more than a noun? For one thing foremost isn't a noun. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I've changed it to "adjective" --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi, do you think you could add WT:BABEL boxes to your user page? It would be useful to know whether you are a Germanic speaker yourself (and if so, which ones) or someone who is just interested. —CodeCat 00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I've now added a template to my user page --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

G.E.M. BabelEdit

Hullo, and I thank you for expanding on Proto‐Germanic. I just wanted to let you know that you can use gem-1, gem-2 or gem-3 in your babel template on your user‐page. Ciao.


Just checkings, the terms you've created are attested in Vandalic texts, rather than just dictionaries or lists of unattested Germanic words, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are a few Vandalic quoted within a Latin text. See w:Vandalic language. —CodeCat 22:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
My question stands. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Geiseric is the name of a Vandalic ruler, "-riks" forms the suffix, only known from compounds (with the Gothic term also being attested for comparison). The name Susperik is also attested --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Make sure to format headwords correctly. Please note the changes I made to -riks (excellent entry, though!). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

PGmc verbs in -ojananEdit

Hi There! For consistency, we use -ōnan for this class of weak verbs. It is believed that intervocalic -j- was lost in Late PGmc. Leasnam (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Leasnam. I'll bear that in mind from now on --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gothic scriptEdit

When you add Gothic words, could you please use Gothic script? If you don't know how, you can write a transliteration and add {{rfscript|Goth}} instead, so that other editors know something needs to be fixed with the entry. Thank you. —CodeCat 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for letting me know --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Borrowed words in PGmcEdit

Hi! First I wanted to say 'you are a machine!' I have never seen anyone so prolifically turn out pages with your speed and accuracy! Good work. I saw a recent thread regarding possible PGmc forms for angel, church, palm...and looking at the Etmyologies now, they still do not set right with me. For instance, OE cirice could not have been borrowed directly from the Greek, as there was no contact between them. There must have existed an intermediate stage, a Continental stage, which might be described as West Germanic. Also, a borrowing of Latin angelus into OE would not have caused i-mutation in it, and also in OHG angil, Old Saxon engil--these all mirror the Gothic -i-, so there must have been another common form in Gmc *angila(z). What do you think? Leasnam (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I must say, in terms of speed and accuracy, I think you and CodeCat are ahead of me by miles! I do agree that these words would appear to conform to the Germanic rules, and there could very well have been an intermediate West Germanic stage, but I haven't been able to find anything to support this theory. Perhaps the etymologies could be updated to mention a hypothetical (West) Germanic etymology? --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I added something to angel and church using the {{gem}} code. Hope it works for now. For angel, I added the extra step as a "possible", because, although it seems likely, it does somewhat go against what most sources report. In defense though, many dictionaries leave out the Anglo-French step of many English words to save time and space, so I'm not too alarmed by it... Leasnam (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi! I moved *sprēkijō to a new page, *sprēkō, as none of the descendats show the -ij (this usually shows up in OHG and Old Saxon as -i, and in OE as -e). I think it was originally cited with that form because the OE form has what looks like a mutated vowel, however this is not true, it is a raised vowel (like in slǣpan) not due to umlaut. There are yet two related terms on that page, the noun of which is the forerunner of German Gespräch. Leasnam (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case there is no difference. The -(i)j- always disappears from n- and ō-stems in West Germanic, leaving only umlaut, gemination and palatalisation as possible indicators. It's retained as a distinct ending only in a-stems. —CodeCat 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


You got the plural and diminutive wrong in a rather basic way, so I wonder, do you speak Dutch at all? If not, could you try to add words only in languages you're familiar enough with, to prevent errors like this? —CodeCat 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Dutch at all. I wasn't planning on adding either the plural or the dimunitive, but the "please provide a plural and dative" message which appeared when I left them blank prompted me to try. I'll avoid doing so from now on --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That message isn't an error, it's just a hint to other editors that the entry is incomplete. There is no harm in leaving it that way, the entry will be added to a cleanup category automatically. —CodeCat 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic entriesEdit


would you mind me adding here some entries in Proto-Germanic that aren't made yet? I saw that you created many entries for Proto-Germanic, so if you don't find missing ones you want to do, I suppose that you can feel free to put yourself on a challenge with this list ;): (And please add also the Gothic descendants).



Greetings HeliosX (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would advise some caution. -a at the end of a word is usually suspicious because it was normally lost. Germanic also had no short o, so any words containing it would be wrong by definition. I also wonder how a geminate -pp would be pronounced at the end of a word. Would it contrast phonemically with a single -p in that position? —CodeCat 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't propose "*upp", but it's proposed by Old English "upp". I also don't see another reason in "*upp".

Yes check.svg Done.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Last modified on 3 August 2013, at 18:17