> I think I must have expressed myself in as way that is unclear. I will
> rephrase:
> I assumed that you wanted to solve the problem of the accompanying
> 'n-infixed' verb (duck-dunk) with the same n-suffix too; it seems to
> me you agree.
>
> Germanic doesn't have infixed verbs otherwise AFAIK, apart from
> 'standan', so that part seems OK: geminates could be the missing
> n-infixed verbs. But that's not what you or Kluge are saying, you want
> to derive the from the n-suffix. How come then, that the n-suffix
> survives as n-suffix, without gemination in the Gothic 4th weak class?
> Wasn't it supposed to geminate and then go away? Doesn't that require
> an explanation?
I'll have to take that back, Gothic doesn't geminate, and the 4th weak
conjugation is Gothic alone. Instead I'll settle for quoting
KARL BRUNNER ALTENGLISCHE GRAMMATIK, §228,
"
Anm. 2. Die Voraussetzung für eine ebensolche Gemination vor n war bei
den Subst. der n-Dekl. in denjenigen Kasus gegeben, in denen nach der
urspr. Flexion n unmittelbar auf einen Geräuschlaut folgte (s. § 276,
Anm. 1). Es ist zwar möglich, daà die Geminata in cnotta Knoten,
scucca sceocca Verführer, Teufel, lappa Lappen, budda Käfer, ebba
Ebbe, fro33a Frosch, hierher gehören, wobei die verschiedenen
westgerm. Sprachen zwischen den zu erwartenden Doppelformen
verschiedentlich ausgeglichen haben (z. B. ae. dropa aber hd. Tropfen,
s. Kluge, Urgerm., in Pauls Grdr.3, S. 150, § 158). Da aber in anderen
Wörtern mit Geräuschlaut vor n keine Geminata vorkommt (z. B. wæcnan
erwachen, hræfn Rabe, ðe3n Diener, we3n Wagen), sind diese Geminaten
am besten expressiv (dynamisch) zu erklären. Vgl. Luick, Hist. Gram. §
631, 4 und Anm. 2; F. A. Wood, Post-consonantal w, S. 214 und bes. A.
Martinet (s. Lit. Verz.).
"
In other words, with some words, you'll have to resort to
'expressiveness' to explain the gemination, which is no explanation at
all.
Torsten