Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/fulmō
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
PIE root[edit]
Beekes lists the root as *plh₂-, the zero-grade to an otherwise lost verbal root meaning "to spread out". Kroonen gives the zero-grade and also posits a connections with Old Norse falma (“to grope”) < *falmōną, presumably derived from a lost *falmaz, *falm-; but he doesn't remark on the PIE root at all. de Vaan seems to connect it with *pelh₂-, from what I can see. I'm not really sure how to interpret this. Anglom (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understood falma to be an ablaut variant to the root of feel, and unrelated to folm Leasnam (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- It could be, if the root of *fōlijaną goes back to *p(e/o)Hl-, then falma could represent *pHl-m- or *p(e/o)Hl-m- (with pretonic shortening before resonants and depending on the laryngeal). Kroonen doesn't list a root for *fōlijaną and mentions that its connection to *fulmō and falma are uncertain. OED connects both feel and folm but that can't work unless the -ō- is secondary to the root of feel. If that were the case then feel could be connected to both folm and falma formally but I don't know about semantically. Anglom (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the PIE root was different for *fōlijaną and *fulmō. Am I mistaken? Koebler has the former leading back to *pelem "to swing, shake" < *pel- "to pour out, flow, shake"; while the latter goes back to a work meaning "hand" and ultimately "flat, broad" ?? However, B&T have it all going to the same root, much as you state. I just don't know who's right. Leasnam (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not actually sure what a root *pelem- would be, it looks more like a root + -m- suffix. I don't think it's a proper root by itself, maybe it was mistakenly created to account for *felm-? The forms and meanings of *fulmō and *falmōną are much too close I think for them to be separated, at least until we can find out more about the root behind fōlijaną. Anglom (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the PIE root was different for *fōlijaną and *fulmō. Am I mistaken? Koebler has the former leading back to *pelem "to swing, shake" < *pel- "to pour out, flow, shake"; while the latter goes back to a work meaning "hand" and ultimately "flat, broad" ?? However, B&T have it all going to the same root, much as you state. I just don't know who's right. Leasnam (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- It could be, if the root of *fōlijaną goes back to *p(e/o)Hl-, then falma could represent *pHl-m- or *p(e/o)Hl-m- (with pretonic shortening before resonants and depending on the laryngeal). Kroonen doesn't list a root for *fōlijaną and mentions that its connection to *fulmō and falma are uncertain. OED connects both feel and folm but that can't work unless the -ō- is secondary to the root of feel. If that were the case then feel could be connected to both folm and falma formally but I don't know about semantically. Anglom (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)