# Proto-Germanic *rīks from Proto-Celtic *rīxs "king"



## CyrusSH

I mentioned it in another thread but no one gave any explanation, it is believed that _x_ sound existed in proto-Germanic, why it was changed to _k_, not even _h_?


----------



## Ihsiin

One assumes because the stem was _*rīg-_, not _*rīx-_.

Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/rīxs - Wiktionary


----------



## CyrusSH

Ihsiin said:


> One assumes because the stem was _*rīg-_, not _*rīx-_.
> 
> Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/rīxs - Wiktionary



As you see those are different Germanic words (*_rekaz_, *_rekô_), I mean this one which means "king": Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/rīks - Wiktionary


----------



## berndf

Yes, that is clear. The Celtic stem is _reg-_. The shift to [x] is conditioned in happens only in the nominative and vocative singular. All other forms preserve the original _g_. You have a similar effect in Latin where [gs] becomes [ks] in nominative singular but_ g_ remains in all other cases (N _rex_, G _regis_, D _regi_, Acc _regem_, Abl _rege_, V _rex_). Also the Celtic shift is assumed to have taken place relatively late. There is therefore sufficient reasons to assume that the loan is from the original unshifted root. The question remains, how _reg- _became _rek-_ in Germanic. There are two competing theories: The traditional one is that the loan is pre-Grimm and the other that the shift happened under in post-Grimm Germanic under the influence of a different word.


----------



## CyrusSH

As I said I just talk about proto-Germanic *_rīks_ with both "ī" and "ks" cluster, if it is from proto-Celtic, we know proto-IE velar consonants before *_s_ are fricated to *_x_ in proto-Celtic, so _ks_ didn't exist in proto-Celtic.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> As I said I just talk about proto-Germanic *_rīks_ with both "ī" and "ks" cluster, if it is from proto-Celtic, we know proto-IE velar consonants before *_s_ are fricated to *_x_ in proto-Celtic, so _ks_ didn't existed in proto-Celtic.


Yes, that's what I said. The Proto-Celtic stem is_ reg-_ and not _rek-_. So, the Germanic_ k_ needs to be explained. That is,_ if _it is from Celtic, which is probable but not certain.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Yes, that's what I said. The Proto-Celtic stem is_ reg-_ and not _rek-_. So, the Germanic_ k_ needs to be explained. That is,_ if _it is from Celtic, which is probable but not certain.



Why you say Germanic _k_ whereas it is clearly _ks_?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Why you say Germanic _k_ whereas it is clearly _ks_?


1. The _s_ is not part of the root, it is a case-ending (singular nominative).
2. In Germanic, the cluster _ks_ has no special significance (the cluster _sk_ has but not _ks_).


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> 1. The _s_ is not part of the root, it is a case-ending (singular nominative).



In which language? Germanic?! 



berndf said:


> 2. In Germanic, the cluster _ks_ has no special significance (the cluster _sk_ has but not _ks_).



So _s_ was not added in Germanic, yes?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> In which language? Germanic?!


In both proto-Celtic and proto-Germanic; also in Latin and Greek, by the way. It comes from PIE.


CyrusSH said:


> So _s_ was not added in Germanic, yes?


It was productive in both. In Gothic you have N _reiks_ but Acc _reik_. The reconstructed late Proto-Celtic is N _*rixs_ and Acc _*rigam_.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> In both Proto-Celtic and proto-Germanic; also in Latin and Greek, by the way. It comes from PIE.



Wasn't it _-az_ in proto-Germanic, like *_rekaz_ that I mentioned in post #3?



berndf said:


> It was productive in both. In Gothic you have N _reiks_ but Acc _reik_. The reconstructed late Proto-Celtic is N _*rixs_ and Acc _*rigam_.



But this wiki page: - Wiktionary says "The declension of this noun is irregular. No accusative or vocative forms are attested.", is it wrong? Do you have other sources?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Wasn't it _-az_ in proto-Germanic, like *_rekaz_ that I mentioned in post #3?


_z_ was an allophone of _s_. In W and N Germanic it later became _r_ (but not in Gothic), this explains ON _rikr _and the alteration between _s_ and _r_ in _I was_ but_ you were_.


CyrusSH said:


> But this wiki page: - Wiktionary says "The declension of this noun is irregular. No accusative or vocative forms are attested.", is it wrong? Do you have other sources?


My mistake, I should have written "N _reiks_ but Acc *_reik"_. But the dative form is to my knowledge attested. Anyway, that is the normal Gothic pattern, like in _dags _(N) and _dag _(Acc) (=_day_) and may other masc. nouns.


----------



## CyrusSH

I still can't understand the role of proto-Celtic and why there is "s" at the end of proto-Germanic word, not "-az", like _*dagaz_ "day"?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I still can't understand the role of proto-Celtic and why there is "s" at the end of proto-Germanic word, not "-az", like _*dagaz_ "day"?


Maybe it was. I don't think it can be reconstructed if the word followed a consonantal or an _-a_ declension paradigm. In the former case the nominative would have been *_rīks_ in the latter case *_rīkaz_. I have seen both reconstructions in the literature. Gothic _reiks_ is compatible with both. The ON _rīkr_ could also be derived from a _j-_derivative (*_rīkjaz, *rīkją, _etc) from which the adjective _rich_ is derived and German _Reich_ (e_mpire, realm_).

(Before you ask about the "ch" in those two words: The former is from due to the Anglo-Frisian _k_-palatalisation  (_k>tʃ_; Old English _rīċe_) and the latter is due to the High German consonant shift (_k>x_) and are specific to those language/dialect groups.)


----------



## Treaty

There are several PG words which are rendered with Cz-ending not Vz (e.g., *aikz "oak", *mannz "man", *frijōndz "friend", *sanþs "true", *ӡōmz "Feb-Mar period"). By the way, Orel lists it as *_rīkz _not *_rīks _in case that -s ending is too bothersome_. _


----------



## berndf

I doubt *_aikz_. That would not very little sense. *mannz, *frijōndz, *sanþs, *ӡōmz are compatible with the allophonic distribution of /s/=[ s ] - [z].

I think most researchers would agree the nominative ending of consonantic declension masculine nouns  (*_aik-_ existed probably in masc. and fem. with consonantic declension for the masc. and o-declension for the fem. version) cannot be reconstructed reliably.


----------



## Treaty

Does this uncertainty apply to *ƀōkz and ƀrōkz as well? Like *aikz, Orel lists them also as feminine nouns.


----------



## CyrusSH

As I see in Gothic the singular and plural forms of _reiks_ are exactly the same, if you mention another example (by mentioning proto-IE word) then I will be sure that "s" ending doesn't belong to the original word but it was added in Germanic. For example about the Germanic word for "man", in Gothic the singular form is _manna_ and plural _mans_.


----------



## fdb

It is very unfortunate the Wiktionary cites some nouns as stems and others as case forms (specifically nom. sing.). It would be better to cite all reconstructed forms as stems.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> It is very unfortunate the Wiktionary cites some nouns as stems and others as case forms (specifically nom. sing.). It would be better to cite all reconstructed forms as stems.


Like DWDS where you find _rīk-._


----------

