Johan Schalin

Where can we read more about this inscription?

Or in compounds: ‘gift’

Swedish: hemgift ‘home-gift’

This is almost the norm for most Europeans, not to mention Africans.

In the names above, just as in Gabriela and Rafaela, the -a must have been added in Romance though. It makes no sense in Hebrew. ”ela” is not known as a feminine God, (even if it perhaps could have been one). If anything it makes association to ”elah”, another masculine name of God (-h in root).

There is a double marking practice of the Hebrew feminine in English. First you mark it à la לעזי with an -a- and then again à la Hebrew with an -h that never was pronounced in the history of Hebrew. It’s not transliteration since it is marked twice. Does it turn the -ǝ into -a in English?

Further: Susanna. But Layla is a masculine word with a ”pseudo-feminine” -a at the end. I don’t know how this word behaves in Arabic though.

Hebrew is tricky. There is a feminine -a - but when you add it to some old names like Daniela or Michaela ir does not mark feminine gender on the name bearer but on God. Hebrew names are verbal phrases and the subject el=god comes last.

Finnish has not adapted to this pattern and it causes confusion. Common men’s names:
Jukka, Juha, Pekka, Pirkka, Vesa.
Traditional women’s names:
Aino, Pirkko, Sirkku..
New feminine names take -a though. Plenty of examples.

In Ancient Scandinavian the -a was lost along the same path as in Old English, but alas! It was restored through a generalisation of the weak ending: originally -õn or tromoraic -ô was shortened into -a in the nominative and here we go again!

Could Old Valencian/Balearic/Catalan work? Modern ”cuina” has deleted a sibilant which I gather must have been voiced like in French and Portuguese. Compare plaer ’pleasure’, feina Portuguese fazenda.
In the late medieval times this language was dominant in this part of the Mediterranean.

Massvis also behaves differently in syntax ”massvis av äpplen” ’huge amounts of apples”. Unlike the others it is attached to a noun phrase by a preposition.

Of course there is the suffix as well. Just could not find the words..
lyckligtvis ’luckily’
möjligtvis ’possibly’
naturligtvis ’of course’
massvis ’hugely/a lot’
jämförelsevis ’comparably, relatively’
Many are modelled on German though.

In Swedish the adjective ”vis” and the noun ”vis” are also homonymous, but I cannot think of a word where the noun would be a suffix. In my spoken variety it can be destressed though and used with pronouns: ”på vike-vis” ’in what way’, ”på någo-vis” ’in some way’. ”Vis” is neuter BTW.

Falsification is a great tool of scholarship.

A new etymology proposed in the Etymological dictionary ”Våre Arveord” was *ailiskō- for ”elske”, related to *ailidaR OIc ”eldr” & East Nylandic ”eild” ’fire’. Monophthongization in ”elska” (with a more complex cluster) has not affected peripheral Swedish ”eild”
bsky.app/profile/scha...

Love may be a worldwide phenomenon but the word for it sure isn’t. A video in which I take a shot at saying “I love you” in every Scandinavian language (and even Greenlandic and Sámi), past and present, and review the strange history of how we say this. More detailed version: youtu.be/Pc6jEV0wxaI

Maria Carey sjunger Volare på OS-invigningen i går kväll från teleprompter (se bild) «..dal vento rapito. E incominciavo a volare nel cielo infinito»

The way Verner’s law is most often formulated, the nominative could have been *hnus too. There is very little to go on because analogy (towards voicing, or no-ending in feminine) and word-final obstruent devoicing obscured evidence. Compare however OIc kýr ’cow’ and German Zahn ’toth’ <(?)*tanz

(PDF) On Palaeo-Scandinavian stem classes and phonological features as inferred from Proto-Saami loanwords PDF | It may be inferred from Saami loanwords that Germanic feminine monosyllabic stems and u-stems had converged in Palaeo-Scandinavian. Moreover some... | Find, read and cite all the research you ne...

*hnuts hardly existed in the nominative, it is an analogical form on a Gothic template. If Pre-Germanic had *knuds it would have become *knus(s) and after Grimm and Verner *hnuz. When a new nominative was restored from the stem *hnut- North-Germanic got *hnutuR. www.researchgate.net/publication/...

A new etymology proposed in the Etymological dictionary ”Våre Arveord” was *ailiskō- for ”elske”, related to *ailidaR OIc ”eldr” & East Nylandic ”eild” ’fire’. Monophthongization in ”elska” (with a more complex cluster) has not affected peripheral Swedish ”eild”
bsky.app/profile/scha...

Läs om Runö, under pågående menföre.

Is there another correspondence which is validated as rhotic ~ rhotic, requiring a plain proto-rhotic in contrast to the phoneme we are discussing now?

The open sources I can find reconstruct a *ŕ for Proto-Chuvash/Turkic. I assume they mean a palatalised trill. Se assibilation in Proto-Turkic and depalatalisation in Proto-Chuvash. So no rhotacisation in that case?

OK, so Turkic has rhotacization of a sibilant! Not a very common development (apart from Italic and Germanic that is). Do we know more specifically whether it resulted in an approximant (less constriction) or tap (shorter laxer gesture)?

Finnish ”saha” ’saw’

I try to force my ear. Maybe I could imagine a readable sentence in a highly literary context: ”Jag hörde något ruskigts skrämmande steg närma sig”. So I get your point. You win :-).
It is just that in my word the spoken language takes precedence. And in my spoken variety, never.

The poverty of stimulus here leads to a sense of ungrammaticality. No-one will say anything of the kind and no UG saves this for me.

”Grönt” is a deadjectival noun, so it does not count: svenska.se/saol/?sok=gr...

Sorry but how do you get the last -s on a neuter adjective? There is no syntactic position that I could imagine where *svenskts would be grammatical.