Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/manalīkô

@Holodwig21 Have you found any indication why the descendants (barring OHG) don't use the typical combining form man(n)a- but rather just man-? Especially for Gothic the attested form is unexpected (but it is attested thrice in various forms, so definitely not a scribal error). Taken together one might even suppose the Proto-Germanic form was simply *manlīkô, though I have no idea why the combining form of *mann- should suddenly be different for this single compound... — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: Unfortunately, no. Orel, the source I used, gives the Proto-Germanic term as *mannlīkô, in addition he gives Old English mannlīca; Köbler Old English manlīca; and Bosworth-Toller has mannlīca but all it's examples are with a single "n". For Old High German I notice, when I was creating an entry for it, that Köbler also gives manlīhho, which doesn't use an intermediate "a". In almost all the "mana-" compounds I created, there is some irregularity; Old norse for example, uses "nn" while others use "n". See *manalausaz and *manakunją where the irregularity is present. I don't know what to make of it but I thought that Gothic word was one of a few where no intermediate vowel exists such as Gothic 𐌼𐌰𐌽𐌰𐌲𐍆𐌰𐌻𐌸𐍃 (managfalþs) and 𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍆𐌰𐌻𐌸𐍃 (ainfalþs). TBH, I not really sure of how this reconstruction, and the others, should be; I don't know if it should be "mann-", "mana-" or "man-". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right that forms without those vowels exist here and there in Gothic, but I haven't been able to find a logic behind it (which is why I was wondering about this as well). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)