Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/ufta

The source given for Dutch "oft" doesn't really attest the word in modern Dutch. It only gives "ofte" from 1477, which is still Middle Dutch. And the form "oft" is styled as "oft*". I don't know if maybe the word is easily attestable in early modern Dutch, in that case we wouldn't need a source at all possibly. But as of now a source is given that isn't really a source because it doesn't prove the word's existence in modern Dutch...Kolmiel (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dutch normally has a change ft > cht, so this word must be from a dialect where this change happened much later or not at all. I believe that would be the Hollandic dialects, probably the northern ones. —CodeCat 17:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The 1929 Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek says:

In het Ndl. uitgestorven; ook in het Mhd. is oft zeldzamer dan dicke, en in het Mnd. schijnt het woord in het geheel niet voor te komen. [...] Ook in het Mnl. is het zeldzaam. Het is tot heden slechts opgeteekend uit Teuth.: “dicke, vake, ofte, sepe; woe dycke, hoe vaecke, wie offte, quantociens; wat vake, ofte offte dicke, sepiuscule”. Doch dat het ook wel in andere tongvallen zal zijn bekend geweest, mag men opmaken uit het nog heden aan de Zaan bekende oft in dezen zin (Boekenoogen 680). Of is het woord hier als oorspr. friesch te beschouwen?

Extinct in Dutch; also in Middle High German oft is rarer than dicke, and in Middle Low German the word apparently does not occur at all. [...] Also in Middle Dutch it is rare. Until the present it has only been attested in Teuth.: [...] However, that it will have been known in other dialects, can be concluded from the oft which is still presently known on the Zaan in this meaning (Boekenoogen 680). Or is the word to be seen as originally Frisian here?

—CodeCat 17:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)