Could Proto-Germanic *tīhaną be an ē-grade of *tungǭ zero-grade?
Gothic has -h- / -ng-:

  • huhrus – huggrjan
  • juhiza – juggs
  • ga-teihan – tuggo ?

It is of course right that Gothic has Verner's Law variants -χ- / -ng- (spelled <h> /<gg>, respectively), as seen in your first two examples.

It is also right that tuggo has a zero grade root. However, gateihan cannot be an -grade, as PIE *-ē- will develop to PGmc. *-ē₁-, which will result in Gothic -- as in Gothic nemun '(they) took' (from niman 'to take). The verb gateihan rather has the regular e-grade root (full grade), which in the present/infinitive of a strong verb of class I is regularly represented by -- (spelled <ei>), < PGmc. *-ī- < *-ei-.

So I guess that your real question is whether PGmc. *tīχan- 'to announce' could be the e-grade and PGmc. *tungō- 'tongue' the zero grade of one and the same root. The answer to this is no, at least according to standard textbook knowledge. The 'tongue' word is a cognate of Latin lingua < Old Latin dingua < PIE *dn̥ǵʰweh₂- (Casaretto 2004: 230). This is considered to be a pure nominal stem, without a verbal root. PGmc. *tīχan- is derived from the verbal root PIE *deyḱ- 'to show' (Lehmann 1986: 150) and compared to Latin dīcō 'I speak' etc. These two reconstructions are not reconcilable.


Casaretto, Antje (2004). Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache. Die Derivation der Substantive. Heidelberg: Winter.

Lehmann, Winfred P. (1986). A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.

  • Also, would a long ē not be shortened before /ng/ in Germanic? I’m going purely off memory here and I can’t think of any actual sound change as such, but I can’t recall any Germanic words with a long vowel before a nasal cluster… – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 5 at 19:16
  • @JanusBahsJacquet there's the notorious "einklich" pronounciation spelling for eigentlich, aeggshuly – vectory Jan 8 at 0:22
  • @vectory Proto-Germanic, I meant. There are plenty such words in modern Germanic languages (English round, German Gemeinde, Icelandic frændi, etc.), but those are all the result of later developments. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 8 at 0:25
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Understand I the relevance of your premise? If you are right then vowel quantity was not contrastive. Anyhow, cp. *fanhaną (/ˈɸɑ̃ː.xɑ.nɑ̃/), WGem *fą̄han. No PIE derivation. Incidently, cp. feint (Latin fictus "deceive", *finctus, fingo, "Cognates include Ancient Greek τεῖχος (teîkhos), Sanskrit देग्धि (degdhi) and English dough") also cp. täuschen "deceive", tauschen "change", Engl. mix, mix-up, make (dough), verfänglich, befangen, cepto "catch", Fangnetz (net, knot, nass?), Knete "play-doe; pay". I haven't got the hang of the concept but it's Fun! – vectory Jan 9 at 14:51
  • @vectory I don’t think vowel length was contrastive before nasal clusters in PGmc., no. So even if PIE *dn̥ɡ̑ʰú- did have a long e-grade *dēng̑ʰ(u?)-, it would not have ended up with an ē in Gothic if *V̄NC clusters were reduced to *VNC as I think they were: the relevant PGmc. form would be *teng-, which would remain in Gothic. Of course, the Verner variant with *-χ- could never arise in this root to begin with, since it never had a *k; but if the root had been *denk- instead, ē-grade *dēnk- would probably have yielded Gothic *teih[an]. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 9 at 17:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.