Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/wandarōn

Etymology

I think -rōną isn't a suffix as such, but the -r- is just a general frequentative infix just like -l-. On the other hand, I don't know if there are any verbs with those suffixes in any of the other weak verb classes. Are there any verbs with -rijaną / -lijaną or -rāną / -lāną? —CodeCat 17:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really know...I always kinda thought of -rōnan to be composed of -raz (as in *bitraz "bitter") + -ōnan, a double suffix of sorts; same for -lōna (-ulaz + -ōnan), but no concrete proof of this. Just gut instinct... Leasnam (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that both of these are also frequentative though. They still are still productive in English, too, see -er and -le. It's possible that they are originally noun or adjective suffixes, but I don't know how that is semantically possible. The -raz in some adjectives is a general adjective-forming suffix in PIE, it has no frequentative meaning at all. And -l- in nouns is a diminutive in Germanic, although it may have had other functions too. —CodeCat 18:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An addition: In this particular word, the suffix is frequentative without a doubt, considering OE wandian, OHG wanton, MDu wanden. —CodeCat 18:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, they're frequentative definitely. And it's not a huge leap from -raz with a sense of "tending to" to develop into "often" (cf OE slippor "inclined to (cause) to slip" > Modern (deprecated template usage) slippery; OE clibbor "tenacious, tending to cleave/cling to" (Mod (deprecated template usage) clever), etc.). The echoes of OE words in my head help me to see the (possible) connection. Leasnam (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of such a suffix -or in other Germanic languages? If -r- in verbs was a common Germanic feature (which it seems to be based on the evidence), then if it was derived from an adjective suffix, surely the adjective suffix must predate it. That in turn implies that we should find that suffix with identical meanings in the other Germanic languages. And of course, there is -l-, which seems to have become synonymous with -r- if it wasn't already. (Oddly, there are some loanwords that show r/l alternation between cognates as well, such as English lavender and Dutch lavendel...) —CodeCat 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I did some searching, and apparently Gothic has no attested frequentatives with either -r- or -l-. They are attested in Old Norse though. So it's possible that the -r- suffix is a Northwest Germanic innovation. —CodeCat 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict. (Ouch!) So I had to reytpe from memory what I had intended to send :(. It wont be as good, but ok, here goes :), it appears that -raz was very productive in PGmc (or as you say in NWGmc) as there are numerous associations between adjectives in -raz and verbs in -rōnan (e.g. slidraz "slippery, causing to slide": slidrōnan "to slide, slither"). In OHG the adj suffix appears as -ar, and in Middle stages Dutch, German, Low German as -er (as in Modern languages, but these may not be readily seen as separate affixes today). Other byspels in PGmc of adj -raz are: flakuraz, fagraz ("fair"), saigraz, slibraz, slipraz (>OE slippor), the list goes on. Leasnam (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Gothic have wakrs "awake"? Conate with Dutch (deprecated template usage) wakker, OE (deprecated template usage) wacor? Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You realise that it saves your text at the bottom of the screen? You can just copy it and paste it back. :) -raz definitely occurred in PG (wakrs is attested in Gothic), and it descends (at least in part) from the PIE suffix *-rós. But that suffix didn't seem to have any particular meaning attached to it in PIE, it was used as a general purpose suffix to derive adjectives from roots. So if -raz had any meaning in Proto-Germanic, that too must have been an innovation. So I wonder, did adjectives in -raz have any particular common semantics? And what could have led speakers to interpret verbs derived from it as frequentatives (this kind of reinterpretation isn't all that unusual)? —CodeCat 19:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I might have known about the bottom-text, I think I've reposted from it before, but it's been a while and this time I failed to remember. Oh well. It's really a shame that we do not have written record of PGmc, it would help us in analysing semantic change and development over time, but alas...we can only guess that. Leasnam (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the only way to know if to compile a list of -raz adjs and their parent words to see if there is any commonality between them. I'm sure there is... Leasnam (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)