The CBB

Creyeditor wrote: ↑13 Dec 2020 19:47 Did the PG root that became rą́ng start with an *r?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020 00:21Nope!

Did the PG root that became rą́ng include any *r at all?

Creyeditor wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020 13:46

Creyeditor wrote: ↑13 Dec 2020 19:47 Did the PG root that became rą́ng start with an *r?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020 00:21Nope!

Did the PG root that became rą́ng include any *r at all?

Nope!

Creyeditor wrote: ↑04 Dec 2020 08:21

Salmoneus wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020 21:42

Creyeditor wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020 21:26 Is the whole word a verb?

It is not, no.

A noun?

Sorry, I think I missed this one: no, it's not a noun.

Creyeditor wrote: ↑12 Dec 2020 22:07

Salmoneus wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020 13:12

Creyeditor wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020 07:19

Salmoneus wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020 22:57

Creyeditor wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020 18:18 Can rą́ngong be further subdivided?

Yes, it can be

Is the correct way rą́n-gong?

I'm afraid not.

Is it rą́ng-ong?

Much as I'd like to keep the confusion going, I feel I have to clarify my earlier response to this: when I said 'yes', what I meant was that that subdivision was right in a way that your previous subdivision was wrong. I didn't mean to say that it was in fact entirely correct.

Oh darn it, I can't find a way to be cryptic so I'll just say it: you put the hyphen in the right place, but there should be an extra hyphen.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020 12:42

Khemehekis wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020 00:39 Was the Proto-Germanic root something with a W in its onset, like *þwinganą or *wrangaz?

Which root - of the first element or the second?

But this is a rhetorical question, since the answer would be 'no' in either case.

Sorry for the confusion . . . I meant the root of rą́ng.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020 22:08 rą́ngongblądha

Is the whole thing an adjective?

No

Did the rą́ng part include any coronal non-nasal continuant (*l,*r,*s,*θ,*z,*j) in the PG form?

Yes

Did it start with such a sound? And if yes, was it a coronal fricative?

It did not.

[although, to be clear, I'm not aware of there being a Proto-Germanic form corresponding to this compound. But the putative form would not have begun with such a consonant, no]

I've tried to summarize everything that's been confirmed so far. Please let me know if I've missed anything or misinterpreted any of the responses.

Anyway, if blądha is derived from a Proto-Germanic word beginning with *b-, but not *bl-, did the word in question begin with *br-, or just *bV-?

---

rą́ngongblądha

• rą́ngong + blądha
• Not a verb, noun, or adjective.
• Likely does not have a one-word English translation.
• An equivalent of this compound is not reconstructed for Proto-Germanic.

rą́ngong

• Can be further subdivided as rą́ng-ong. However, "there should be an extra hyphen".
• -ong can be thought of, at least for the purposes of this word, "as a gerund or verbal noun deriver".
• rą́ng is not derived from a word beginning with *r-, *w-, or *Cw- in Proto-Germanic.
• The Proto-Germanic word ancestral to rą́ng did not contain *r.
• The Proto-Germanic word ancestral to rą́ng contained, but did not begin with, at least one of *l, *s, *θ, *z, *j.

blądha

• Not derived from *blandijaną, *blandaną, *bladą, or *blauþijaną.
• Derived from a word beginning with *b-, but not *bl-, in Proto-Germanic.
• Not derived from a word beginning with *w- or *Cw- in Proto-Germanic.
• No syllables have been elided between <bl->.
• <ą> does not reflect a historically nasalized vowel here.
• Final <-a> represents [ə].
• <-dh-> represents [ð] and corresponds to a single phoneme in Proto-Germanic.

Yes, I think that's right.


To answer your question: the 'bladha' element descends from a PGmc word beginning in *bV-

Salmoneus wrote: ↑02 Jan 2021 15:02 Yes, I think that's right.


To answer your question: the 'bladha' element descends from a PGmc word beginning in *bV-

Thank you!

Is the <bl-> in blądha the result of metathesis? In other words, did the Proto-Germanic word begin with *bVl(C)-?

Yup!

[is *blądha] from *balþaz?

The principle morpheme in it is, yes.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑03 Jan 2021 01:23 The principle morpheme in it is, yes.

Wait, so bladha is *balþaz + something? Is that something a grammatical morpheme or a lexical morpheme?

Grammatical.

[as you should expect, as we've already established that the word isn't an adjective]

Oh from *-ê/*-ô, an adverbalizer?

You mentioned that rą́ngong originates in 3 PG morphemes, and that one of the points where it can be subdivided is rą́ng-ong. Can the "ong" part be subdivided further?