Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/mōdēr

Etymology

Is the etymology incomplete and does this term need a label like late?

• w:en:High German consonantshift: "PIE *meh₂tḗr
  > early Proto-Germanic *māþḗr (t > /θ/ by the first Germanic consonant shift)
  > late Proto-Germanic *mōđēr (/θ/ > /ð/ by Verner's law)
  > [Proto-]West-Germanic *mōdar (/ð/ > d by West Germanic sound change)"
• w:de:Hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung: "Indogermanisch *meh₂tḗr → frühurgerm. *māþḗr (Grimms Gesetz) → späturgerm. *mōđēr (Vernersches Gesetz) → [ur]westgerm. *mōdar"

-Geckoupper (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Is it about the d rather than đ? Check Wiktionary:About Proto-Germanic#Phonology, spelling and notation. Since [d] and [ð] are effectively allophones in Proto-Germanic, we notate them both as d. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Do not :}

@Malku H₂n̥rés, So far, they will not change the attitude towards the Balto-Slavic accent system, and there is no need to talk about the Proto-Germanic accent system. These are unsuccessful attempts to interfere with the accent superstructure, accepted on the Wiktionary. In general, this Indo-European root shows different valencies. Therefore, such a oscillation is detected: cf. Lithuanian: mótė, motė̃ - this is a typical manifestation of Hirt's Law. Hirt's law gives rise to doublets, that reach us through proto-dialects. I hope that someone will someday figure out that the classical Indo-European accentology is 60 years behind. What can I say, about absolutely frantic reconstructions and perversions in Indo-European studies that macrocomparativist linguists see in a dream - nothing. Gnosandes (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes, I am not sure how to interpret this. Do you mean stress on final syllable was indeed right but the edit was useless bc it would have been ineluctably reverted with time or that it was a bad thing and I shouldn't have done it ? You live in Russia where there's the Moscow school and Nostraticists and you say IE accentology understanding is very late, but you mention the "perversions [of] macroconparativist linguists". As for me, I like precision (Verner's law says it was right) and don't like tentative theories when they go over the stage of draft. But I'm always interested in new theories having solid arguments and I'd like to know them. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Malku H₂n̥rés, No. It is not known exactly where the stress was in this Proto-Indo-European form. And Rua correctly corrected you. Because in Wiktionary, Verner's law goes beyond the chronological record. In Wiktionary it is customary to do this: Stress. But I think, that Danish subdialects contradict this conclusion. I am writing this, so that you do not waste time rearranging the stress in the Germanic recordings. Further... I write that the classical Indo-European accentology is very outdated. Therefore, a bunch of hypotheses arise that are based on little material. A striking example is Jay H. Jasanoff's monograph: In which the valence theory and the theory, which is a synthesis of Stang's theory and Dybo's theory, are clumsily criticized. There is a feeling, that the Professor cannot write such nonsense. Usually, in order to criticize someone else's theory, you first need to study it well. But he is not alone, for example, Kortlandt uses valencies, but he does not recognize the fundamental 6 rules. The question is, why does he use them at all? xD Further, these hypotheses are taken and transferred, for example, into the Wiktionary (→ into the heads of my friends and etc.), creating even more confusion... There is a very large circus in this area of ​​Indo-European studies. Then I mentioned the Indo-European etymology, which look extremely fantastic. Even macro-comparativists do not have such fantasies. A crisis has been declared in Nostratic for many years. I tried to translate the accentological theory of the Moscow school into Wikipedia articles. But I don't have a huge amount of time, because I am not only doing linguistics. It's hard to do it alone. But in general there are some links to fundamental works under the articles. Gnosandes (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)