Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/ek

*eka

Some say there was an alternative extended form *eka, as attested in Elder Futhark inscriptions. Should we add it as an Alternative? Leasnam (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be e.g. ᚺᚨᛏᛖᚳᚨ? We could add it and ᛖᚳ/ᛖᚲ as Proto-Norse descendants (like Appendix:Proto-Germanic/rūnō). - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! How should we add it though: as a mention on this entry, or (to add descendants properly) to its own page? Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

...or both Leasnam (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Both, I presume. (If by "its own page" you mean an [[ᛖᚳᚨ]] page, formatted along the same lines as the [[ᛖᚲ]] page.) We don't normally have mainspace entries for words in proto-languages, but that's because proto-languages are normally not attested... whereas, this one's written in stone (≥1 attestation in an extinct language). :) - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Or if by "its own page" you mean Appendix:Proto-Germanic/eka: well, I suppose the Norse form and the che forms of the English pronoun (is it attested in Old English, too, or just Middle and modern?) support there having been a Proto-Germanic eka in addition to ek(?). - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen any other forms of the OE pronoun outside of ih and ic. EME che I am certain was a later development in the south-west, probably back-formed from cham, chad, and the like. Leasnam (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is, what did such a form descend from? Final -a is exceedingly rare in Proto-Germanic, as it generally disappeared. The only way it could have survived is if it was originally followed by a consonant which itself disappeared following the loss of final -a, and the only such consonant is -t. So that presupposes an Indo-European form *egod, which seems rather unlikely to me. Another possibility which is more likely is that the Proto-Norse inscription reflects not *eka but *eką with a nasal vowel, just like 'horna' reflects *hurną. A final nasal vowel would give IE *egom or *egon. —CodeCat 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Would such a form then be coded {{l|gem-pro|*ekan|*eką}}? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine so yes. But I wonder... is there really enough evidence for this beyond just one runic inscription? —CodeCat 18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So... should we remove the bit about "*eka" being an alternative form? - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Swedish jag < Old Swedish iak goes back to *eka. And the word is attested more than once. It seems to have been originally used as the enclitic form of ek, and indeed, the most plausible reconstruction is *ekan. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Change Luxembourgish please

Hey.

It looks like this at the moment:

Old High German: ihMiddle High German: ich, ig

Alemannic German: ich, ig, i

Sensler: [iː]

Swabian: i

Sathmar Swabian: i

Bavarian: i

Cimbrian: ich (Setti Comuni); i (Luserna)

Gottscheerish: iχ, ī, i (unstressed); iχχe (emphatic)

Mòcheno: i

Central Franconian: ich, eich, ech

Hunsrückisch: äijsch

Hunsrik: ich [ɪç]

Britten: [æɪ̯ʃ], [ɪʃ]

Kölsch: ich

East Central German:

Erzgebirgisch: iech

Silesian German: iech

Upper Saxon: isch, ische

East Franconian: i, iech

German: ich

Luxembourgish: ech

Rhine Franconian:

Hessian: aisch

Pennsylvania German: ich [ɪç]

---

Unfortunately, it's not quite right. Pay attention:

Hunsrückisch, for example, is Central Franconian. Kölsch is as well. But (!), Luxembourgish (which is Moselle Franconian) is also Central Franconian!

Central Franconian consists of two families:

• Moselle Franconian (Luxemburgish, Lorraine dialects, Siegerland dialects, Hunsrik, etc.) • Ripuarian (Kölsch (Cologne dialect), Bönnsch (Bonn dialect), Öcher Platt (Aachen dialect), etc.)

Please change the entry accordingly.

Much obliged! 93.206.28.10 15:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)