Re: Uralic Loanwords in Germanic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> W dniu 2010-02-14 21:56, Brian M. Scott pisze:
>
> > Ringe doesn't think so, though he notes that owing to
> > remodelling in all of the daughters, the PGmc. nom. sing.
> > isn't recoverable. For instance, he conjectures a nom.-acc.
> > sing. *segaz.
>
> The most common remodellings include simple thematisation (*siGiz-
> -> *siGiza-) and morphological truncation yielding an i-stem
> (*siGiz- -> *siGi-).

I'd argue 'paradigm regularization' instead of 'morphological truncation' (it would be better motivated).

> The type of OE lamb/lambru, OHG lamb/lembir may reflect
> *lamBaz, but ON lamb is just "plain thematic" *lamBa-, with an
> early loss of the suffix (in all case forms). The full -e/os-stem
> paradigm is not attested anywhere in Germanic; we can only see its
> partial remnants.

Well, a paradigm -#/-es- *is* attested in West Germanic.

I was wondering if 'Aestian' *gl-ás-/*gl-azá- (ablautless, Rozwadowski's change) might be a s-stem neuter, based on a reclassified genitive (-> nominative)?

(If from *gl-á-d´-, then originally *gl-á-d´-s-/*gl-a-nd´-á ?)


Torsten