User talk:Jln Dlphk

Wōdnaʀ

This cannot possibly be the Proto-Norse form; Old Norse Óðinn must come from Wōdinaʀ, and it goes against all laws of the language. The inscription is very difficult to read, but Krister Vasshus gives it as Wod[i]nas in a tweet (implying the [i] is there, but almost unreadable), so let's keep it at ᚹᛟᛞᛁᚾᚨᛊ. The reason I did not include the iʀ part is both because it's very difficult to read, and because it does not agree with any Germanic grammar. It may very well turn out to be an i-stem noun ending. I guess we'll see when the paper comes out. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 20:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are many reasons to doubt the provenance of i in this theonym. The most important is the lack of i-mutation in the stem vowel ō. As the corresponding Proto-Germanic article notes, there are at least two other words with apparently spontaneous i, namely ᛊᛚᚨᚷᛁᚾᚨᛉ and ᛊᛚᚨᚷᛁᚾᚨᛉ (although since these two do have i-mutation in Old Norse, they cannot have exactly the same provenance). Moreover, it seems to me imprudent to add in unnecessary elements simply because their absence fits our current theories, especially when those theories have problems, as outlined above. Contrast this with the necessary addition of ᚱ in ᚹᛖ[ᚱ]ᚨᛉ, where *ᚹᛖᚨᛉ wouldn't make sense and anyway the spacing between the letters clearly indicates that something had to be in this slot.

As for ᛁᛉ, copula-dropping (which I assume is what you are objecting to) would be entirely in line with ancient and some modern Indo-European languages (compare for example Russian, where such dropping is in fact mandatory in declarative constructions, or AAVE for a Germanic example). We must remember that Primitive Norse is actually our oldest attested Germanic language (older even than Gothic), and so we should not be surprised that it might exhibit some extremely archaic features not seen in later Germanic.

In any event, I have no interest in starting an edit war, and I will leave it at this. As you say, the best course of action is probably to wait for the paper to come out. Jln Dlphk (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Further: the origin of Wōdinaʀ is the same as the masculine accusative singular ᛗᛁᚾᛁᚾᛟ (minino /⁠mīninō⁠/) (cf. Gothic 𐌼𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌰𐌽𐌰 (meinana)) and the past participle ᛊᛚᚨᚷᛁᚾᚨᛉ (slaginaʀ) (Gothic 𐍃𐌻𐌰𐌷𐌰𐌽𐍃 (slahans)). In all cases we have -anaʀ shifting to -inaʀ in Proto-Norse and Old English, where the infinitive remains -an (slēan, but past participles are -en (slæġen), and we have Wōden rather than **Wōdan. Of course Old High German was not part of this shift, which is why they have Wuotan.

So insertion of -i- is both otherwise unattested, and goes against the comparative evidence. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 21:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I find your most recent edit, placing the i in brackets, to be a good compromise. Jln Dlphk (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Old Norse sleginn does not have i-umlaut, though I get why you'd think that is the case. It's caused by palatal g, cf. degi < *dagē, dative singular of dagr.

If you check Category:Old Norse past participles, you'll see that this -an- > -in- shift (which universally occured in past participles) never caused i-umlaut, possibly because it was a different vowel than etymological -i-. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 22:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)