Talk:Proto-Germanic language

probable misspelling *dheH1

"dheH1" appears in the verb subsection, paragraph three, "PIE *dheH₁- originally "put"". The notation doesn't make sense, the 'd' should be noted as aspirated or as before one of the laryngeals, and the H₁ should either be in lowercase or unmarked. It should probably be 'd^heh₁', but I want to be sure, what source was this pulled from?

Why *pl̥h₁nós > *fullaz?

Shouldn't there be an ə between l and n (see "Vocalisation of remaining laryngeals"), preventing /ln/ > /ll/ assimilation (as elision occurs later)? Same applies to *h₂wĺ̥h₁neh₂ > wullō. --2003:DD:E710:A70:F4E6:1E72:5FAF:E249 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic drops laryngeals between consonants in non-intial syllables (see "Vocalisation of remaining laryngeals") Raffinahumklausner (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

see "Elimination of /ə/" Raffinahumklausner (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Language code?

Is there an ISO language code to put into etymology sections in Wiktionary?GregZak (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Diphthong iu

Can anyone provide a source for a PGmc diphthong iu? I've looked at the admittedly somewhat old and very cursory "Germanisch-deutsche Sprachgeschichte im Ueberblick" as well as Salmons "A History of German" and I find no mention of this diphthong in Proto-Germanic, although it seems to be omnipresent in Wiktionary's reconstructions of PGmc words. Schweikle does show a diphthong iu developing later in Gothic and Old High German, and Salmons mentions a change in Old High German from PGmc *eu to *io/*iu (depending on environment) in Old High German. Is there a source that discusses this?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ringe's book From proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic probably describes what you're looking for.Ioe bidome (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping someone with access to such a source could confirm the information/add a citation.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added it now Ioe bidome (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Ermenrich (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't /s/ and /z/ be retracted?

I've read quite a few papers arguing in favor of sibilant retraction in Proto-Germanic and all of its decendants at some point like today Icelandic and Dutch. (e.g. [1] [2]) It is also supported by borrowings into Proto-Finnic. Why isn't this followed here? Julian schoe (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I assume because it’s not part of the standard reconstruction. If there’s sources, we can make a note about the theory though.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)