- Old Low Franconian: fetherac; OS fetherak; MLG vederik. So maybe Go.
*fiþraks, masculine a-stem. (In his Old Saxon dictionary, Koebler
cites PIE *petrg- from Pokorny.)
fiþrakans falþanans (acc.)
fiþrakam falþanaim (dat.)
--- In email@example.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
> Hails Arthur,
> The least I could do... The 'e' in my proposed 'weggs' was meant to
> be a long vowel /e:/ which corresponds to ON /a:/, in this case
> mutated to /æ:/. I'm guessing the vowel was shortened (due to the
> consonant cluster?) and raised (due to the nasal?). But where each of
> these changes happened, in English or Danish (cf. Da. vinge), I'm not
> sure. I notice that all your examples of i : e merge in Appalatian
> have a nasal after them. Does the same happen in other environments,
> e.g. 'pit' : 'pet'? The Gothic cognate of 'feather' would be *fiþra,
> feminine o-stem. Which would alliterate nicely, accusative: fiþros
> falþanans (or dative: fiþrom falþanaim). OHG fedarah might be Go.
> *fiþrak- or *fiþrah-, depending what this suffix is. Have you seen
> any explanation for that? According to Grimm, LG fittek is borrowed
> from High German (as shown by the medial consonant). Other words, OS
> fetherhamo, OE feþerhama, ON fjaðrhamr, although Grimm says that these
> "drückt mehr das ganze gefieder aus." Go. *fiþrahama?
> (Ack, you've set me mutating now...)
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Arthur Jones <arthurobin2002@> wrote:
> > Hails,
> > I would like to thank the Gothic List members who contributed
> their condolences and their fine Gothic thoughts on the occasion of my
> Mother's passing.
> > Mom would have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion of nouns,
> declensions, dative and accusative absolutes, gerundives, and
> reconstructions that several of you have built up over the past few
> days! Indeed, you have done her great honour.
> > Especially, I would like to thank LLama_Nomandans, Michael Erwin,
> Ualarauans, Pituxalina, and others for joining in. Imagine a wake in
> an extinct language!
> > Incidentally: I notice once more that reconstructing "wings" in
> Gothic served to run us by the e>i process again (weggs - wiggs -
> vaegg - wing). I am gaining am impression that, perhaps, predominant
> Gothic dialects such as that (or those) incorporated by Wulfila were
> intentionally left a bit archaic at the time --mid fourth Century-- to
> create a sense of unity, as well as the aura of respect usually shown
> to tribal elders and their older speech patterns. In fact, the e>i
> changes might have been considerably more advanced in the spoken
> vernacular of the time.
> > In other languages, the e>i transition is anything but complete:
> Take, e.g., Appalachian English, in most dialects of which "pen" and
> "pin" are homophones, as are "many - minny", "men - min", etc.
> > As to "wings", would a reconstruction based on archaic forms of
> the NHD (Neuhochdeutsch) "Fittich" be a possible? As LLama_Nomerabilis
> has pointed out, the MFO (Most Frequently Occurring) Gothic word could
> well have been a "feather" relative: hence, perhaps "fedarahs" or
> > Thanks again, all.
> > Arthur
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]