Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/wiþrą

Reconstruction as *wiþra

I wasn't really sure that this form was correct, as Gothic should have lost short, word-final *-a. On the other hand, Gothic probably could have restored the word-final -a from the compound form 𐍅𐌹𐌸𐍂𐌰- (wiþra-), yes?

Also, Kroonen doesn't list it as being the neuter accusative form, that was just the only way the form seemed to make sense. Anglom (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering this reconstruction, at least with the ending in *-ra I've been using for this and other adverbs. I was considering instead moving them to reconstructions in *-er, but I've also been considering *-rą, in view of the Sanskrit formations अपतरम् (apataram), नितराम् (nitarām), प्रतराम् (pratarām), वितरम् (vitaram), which mirror Germanic *aft(e)r-, *niþ(e)r-, *furþ(e)r-, *wiþ(e)r- remarkably well, though not perfectly.

In Gothic, *wiþrą would have given *𐍅𐌹𐌸𐍂 (*wiþr), but would still have remained 𐍅𐌹𐌸𐍂𐌰 (wiþra) productively in compounds, which would have allowed the compound form to replace the inherited form. I assume that the same happened with Gothic 𐌰𐍆𐍄𐍂𐌰 (aftra), though I don't know if it's attested in compounds in the corpus we have.

The only possible evidence I can find that the forms didn't end in *-er is Old English furþor/furþur, which seems to have an epenthetic back vowel rather than the front vowel expected otherwise, cf. ofer. Anglom (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)