Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/figanaz
Etymology
editThe etymology doesn't quite fit to me. For a present-tense stem like *fīg- you would expect PIE *peygʰ- or *peyǵʰ-. The PIE root *pekʷ- would have led to *fehwaną in PG, with the past participle *fewanaz (compare Template:termx), not *figanaz. Based on the OE evidence alone, the reconstruction of the PG verb itself is also uncertain, because we can't know for sure whether the original root was *fīg- (from a PIE form with gʰ or ǵʰ) or *fīh- (from a PIE form with k or ḱ), due to Verner's law. So I think it's best to stick with what we can actually reconstruct, which is a past participle/adjective (uz)figanaz. Anything beyond that would be speculation. —CodeCat 22:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just remembered that OE sēon (class V) has an alt past participle in ġeseġen (also ġesæġen). I am wondering: what if the parent verb was not class I as we had thought, but was another, like class V (cf. etan, sittan). Could it then have possibly been *fehwjanan/*fihwijanan (like sitjanan and fregjanan)? OE fricgan does show past participle both as friġen (cf. fiġen) and freġen. Just musing... Leasnam (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- ok. would we still relate it to PIE *pekw- in any way? It was for that root's sake that I created the entry. if it not related, then perhaps it might be best to eliminate altogether...?Leasnam (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's obvious the past participle existed and that it derives from what once was a strong verb. So we should include that participle at least. It's just that the past participle in OE doesn't match the PIE root, both because of the vowel and because of the consonant following it. All the strong verb classes are divided up by the shape of the root, particularly the consonant following the ablaut vowel, and Germanic class 1 weak verbs go back to PIE roots with the ablaut vowel followed by -y- in them. It's that origin that defines the class itself, although a few exceptions did creep in later. But there is no exception that would allow a root *pekʷ- to turn into *peykʷ- (let alone into *peyk-/*peyḱ- or *peygʰ-/peyǵʰ-), that just doesn't happen. A root with a plosive like kʷ following the ablaut vowel belongs to class 5, just like Template:termx which derives from the similar PIE root Template:termx. —CodeCat 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- then what we can do is remove the etymology, or point to a different root (even an "uncertain"/"unknown" origin) leaving the lave as is? Leasnam (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer removing the verb and listing only the past participle as a lemma. With what is known now, we can't be sure whether the verb was *fīganą or *fīhaną, as both would have had identical past nonsingular and past participle. Compare Template:termx and Template:termx, where this also happened. —CodeCat 23:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- gotcha ;) Leasnam (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer removing the verb and listing only the past participle as a lemma. With what is known now, we can't be sure whether the verb was *fīganą or *fīhaną, as both would have had identical past nonsingular and past participle. Compare Template:termx and Template:termx, where this also happened. —CodeCat 23:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- then what we can do is remove the etymology, or point to a different root (even an "uncertain"/"unknown" origin) leaving the lave as is? Leasnam (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's obvious the past participle existed and that it derives from what once was a strong verb. So we should include that participle at least. It's just that the past participle in OE doesn't match the PIE root, both because of the vowel and because of the consonant following it. All the strong verb classes are divided up by the shape of the root, particularly the consonant following the ablaut vowel, and Germanic class 1 weak verbs go back to PIE roots with the ablaut vowel followed by -y- in them. It's that origin that defines the class itself, although a few exceptions did creep in later. But there is no exception that would allow a root *pekʷ- to turn into *peykʷ- (let alone into *peyk-/*peyḱ- or *peygʰ-/peyǵʰ-), that just doesn't happen. A root with a plosive like kʷ following the ablaut vowel belongs to class 5, just like Template:termx which derives from the similar PIE root Template:termx. —CodeCat 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
fehwjaną, fihwjaną
editCould this have been from a class V verb? If so, then the entry could be moved to *feganaz, or *figanaz; as either of these could have yielded OE figen. Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there enough evidence to decide either way, though? —CodeCat 20:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- None that I found yet. I will keep looking, but do you see any issues with this reasoning? Is it plausible? Leasnam (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible if there is a regular sound change feg- > fig- in Old English. —CodeCat 21:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- OE can and often raises e to i, especially before nasals, but also sometimes elsewhere. The example above with fregen and its alternate frigen attests to this. If I accrue a few more examples, I will take considering a move more seriously. Leasnam (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find an attestation of fegen as well as figen then I think it's quite clear. —CodeCat 16:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I havent quite found an attestation for fegen, but I have found a noteworthy byspel of change from e>i in fligel (“flail”), from *flegel < Proto-Germanic *flagilaz (“flail, whip”), which corresponds to Old High German flegil, flegel; Dutch vlegel. Leasnam (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you can find an attestation of fegen as well as figen then I think it's quite clear. —CodeCat 16:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- OE can and often raises e to i, especially before nasals, but also sometimes elsewhere. The example above with fregen and its alternate frigen attests to this. If I accrue a few more examples, I will take considering a move more seriously. Leasnam (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible if there is a regular sound change feg- > fig- in Old English. —CodeCat 21:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- None that I found yet. I will keep looking, but do you see any issues with this reasoning? Is it plausible? Leasnam (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)