What do you mean by "the l in front"?qwed117 wrote:Not really, but sorta? The nasal became a nasal vowel that then colored the l in front.
Did "bųan" originally begin with an /m/? In other words, was it "mu" > "bų"?
What do you mean by "the l in front"?qwed117 wrote:Not really, but sorta? The nasal became a nasal vowel that then colored the l in front.
shimobaatar wrote:What do you mean by "the l in front"?qwed117 wrote:Not really, but sorta? The nasal became a nasal vowel that then colored the l in front.
Did "bųan" originally begin with an /m/? In other words, was it "mu" > "bų"?
The 'l' is from the next morpheme but because there was a nasal vowel behind it, it eventally became 'n', somewhat like l > nl > nn > nqwed117 wrote:Yes. It's probably worthwhile to note that a hypothetical 'eu' is not related to '-eu'. It would be 'leu' instead.Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:Was -eu a noun in PG?
Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:Okay. So there was nothing between ‹ų› and ‹a› originally? Did ‹ųa› develop from a single PG vowel/diphthong?
So, the "n" in "bųan" was originally the "l" in "leu"? Or was it "bųanleu" > "bųanneu" > "bųaneu"?qwed117 wrote:The 'l' is from the next morpheme but because there was a nasal vowel behind it, it eventally became 'n', somewhat like l > nl > nn > nqwed117 wrote:Yes. It's probably worthwhile to note that a hypothetical 'eu' is not related to '-eu'. It would be 'leu' instead.Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:Was -eu a noun in PG?
shimobaatar wrote:So, the "n" in "bųan" was originally the "l" in "leu"? Or was it "bųanleu" > "bųanneu" > "bųaneu"?qwed117 wrote:The 'l' is from the next morpheme but because there was a nasal vowel behind it, it eventally became 'n', somewhat like l > nl > nn > nqwed117 wrote:Yes. It's probably worthwhile to note that a hypothetical 'eu' is not related to '-eu'. It would be 'leu' instead.Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:Was -eu a noun in PG?
Anyway, was "bųan" a verb?
respectivelyAshtâr Balînestyâr wrote:Is the final nasal in the first and second morphemes the PG infinitive ending?
Yesshimobaatar wrote:Is the first morpheme a non-finite verb form?
It proves that it was a strong verb, since weak verbs would have *-daz for the past participle rather than the *-anaz implied here.qwed117 wrote:It really shouldn't matter, but it's the past participle.
*þr-?(Also, slight hint: PG *fr is not the initial.)
*shrugs*Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:It proves that it was a strong verb, since weak verbs would have *-daz for the past participle rather than the *-anaz implied here.qwed117 wrote:It really shouldn't matter, but it's the past participle.
Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:*þr-?(Also, slight hint: PG *fr is not the initial.)
shimobaatar wrote:Did the first morpheme originally begin with a Cr- cluster?
Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:The a-vocalism in the root of the first morpheme suggests a class-6 strong verb, but I can’t find any that might evolve into frakkęm. Maybe class-5 *sprekanaz?
So, if it isn’t class-6, then that a can’t be from a PG *a.qwed117 wrote:TBH, it could be a present gerund (it makes more sense diachronically in terms of that a). I just lost my notes on everything, but I still remember the actual lemmas.
Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:So, if it isn’t class-6, then that a can’t be from a PG *a.qwed117 wrote:TBH, it could be a present gerund (it makes more sense diachronically in terms of that a). I just lost my notes on everything, but I still remember the actual lemmas.
Is the kk from something else in PG?