Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/hlammiz

Gothic

@Leasnam, Rua, JohnC5: The Gothic word 𐌷𐌻𐌰𐌼𐌼𐌰 (hlamma) doesn’t really belong here. It would rather go back to *hlammô. The question is whether we should reconstruct it for Proto-Germanic or treat it as a Gothic creation. It might perhaps be a kind of diminutive of this word, but I am more inclined to believe that it is derived from a verb such as *hlam(m)ōną. This seems to be a fairly common occurrence, i.e. that there is a lone type in one of the branches that one would like to connect to the others, which are formed slightly differently (e.g. -ô vs. -iz or -az). There is just always the question of how far back the different forms go. – Krun (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Or rather to *hlammō ? I think I put the Gothic here because the source(s) I was using also did so (maybe because they were skipping out steps in the derivation, I dunno). If there is good enough justification to move it to its own entry, I have no objection to that Leasnam (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Leasnam Yeah, you’re right, it must be *hlammō. I didn’t notice that the word was feminine. I guess the course of action boils down to whether or not we make the blanket assumption that Gothic words of Germanic stock go back to common Germanic. Gothic, being in form so close to common Germanic, still presumably retained a lot of its mechanisms for word construction. – Krun (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)