Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:39:27.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Verba Pura Problems: Proto-Germanic Forms with j, Unexpected ē1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

Leo A. Connolly
Leo A. Connolly*
Affiliation:
University of Memphis
*
6668 Vinings Creek Cove West, Memphis, Tenn. 38119, USA, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard view that thematic verba pura contained Proto-Germanic j is examined in detail and rejected: we must reconstruct PG +sē1e/a- +rōe/a-, not +sē1je/a- +rōje/a-. The Gmc. verba pura typically have stems ending in ē1 (Go. saian, OE sāwan, ON sā, OHG sāen ‘sow’) or ō (OE rōwan, ON rōa ‘row’). While ō in these verbs seems always to reflect PIE o + a non-coloring laryngeal E, ē1 occurs in verbs with laryngeals of any color: saian <+seE-, OHG krāen ‘crow’ <+greA- (a-coloring), OE cnāwan ‘know’< +ǵneO- (o-coloring). A solution is offered according to which in Germanic, E was lost relatively early, e and o in hiatus were then lengthened to ē1ō, after which remaining o > a. Later, when A and O were lost, a in hiatus was lengthened to ā and reanalyzed as /ē1/. However, +knē1- might instead reflect a Narten present in +ǵnēO-.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 221 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul. 1969. The development of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Greek. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 1984. Studien zur Laryngaltheorie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 1989. The laryngeal theory and the phonology of prehistoric Greek. The new sound of Indo-European, ed. by Vennemann, Theo, 35–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bomhard, Alan R. 1976. The placing of the Anatolian languages. Orbis 25. 199–239.Google Scholar
Bremer, Otto. 1886. Germanisches ē. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 11. 1–76.Google Scholar
Burghauser, Gustav. 1887. Indogermanische Praesensbildung im Germanischen: Ein Capitel vergleichender Grammatik. Wien: Tempsky.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1977. Indo-European i > Germanic e: An explanation by the laryngeal theory. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 99. 173–205, 333–358.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1980. “Grammatischer Wechsel” and the laryngeal theory. Indogermanische Forschungen 98. 96–123.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1983. Review of Lindeman 1982. Word 34. 115–122.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1984. Altnordisch e < indogermanisch i. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97. 267–280.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1989. Laryngeal metathesis: An Aryan peculiarity? The new sound of Indo-European, ed. by Vennemann, Theo, 43–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1999. On identifying laryngeal reflexes in Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literature 11. 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1960. Gothic iddja and Old English ēode. Language 36. 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichner, Heiner. 1972. Die Etymologie von heth. mehur. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31. 53–107.Google Scholar
Helten, Willem Lodewijk van. 1909. Grammatisches. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 35. 273–305.Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1905. Zur Verbalflexion. Indogermanische Forschungen 17. 278–292.Google Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich. 1910. Got. saian waian = angls. sáwan wáwan. Festschrift Wilhelm Viëtor zum 25. Dezember 1910, ed. by Brie, F. et al., 106–108. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978. Observations on the Germanic Verschärfung. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 37. 77–90.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1989. PIE *g̑nē- ‘recognize, know’. Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems, ed. by Bammesberger, Alfred, 227–39. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1935. Études indoeuropénnes, vol. 1. Kraków: Gebethner & Wolff.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1966. Bemerkungen zu den germanischen Verbal-stämmen auf -ē, -ō. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 22. 48–71.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1982. The triple representation of schwa in Greek and some related problems of Indo-European Phonology. Oslo: Universitets-forlaget.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1987. Introduction to the “laryngeal theory.” Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Matzel, Klaus. 1987. Zu den verba pura des Germanischen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 100. 146–203.Google Scholar
Meid, Wolfgang. 1971. Das germanische Praeteritum. Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
M⊘ller (Möller), Hermann. 1880a. Review of Friedrich Kluge, Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanischen Conjugation. Englische Studien 3. 148–164.Google Scholar
M⊘ller (Möller), Hermann. 1880b. Zur Konjugation. KunÞa und das t-Praeteritum. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 7. 457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
RestleDavid, & Theo Vennemann David, & Theo Vennemann. 2001. Silbenstruktur. Language typology and language universals—Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien—La Typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, vol. 2, 1310–1336. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2006. A linguistic history of English, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut et al. 2001. LIV, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2nd edn., revised by Martin Kümmel. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry Lee, Jr. 1941. The Verschärfung in Germanic. Language 17. 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, Christian Schweigaard. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1990. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprach-wissenschaft. 4th edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Thórhallsdóttir, Gudrún. 1993. The development of intervocalic *j in Proto-Germanic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1984. Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 106. 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1994. Universelle Nuklearphonologie mit epiphänomenaler Silbenstruktur. Universale phonologische Strukturen und Prozesse, ed. by Ramers, Karl Heinz, Vater, Heinz, and Wode, Henning, 6–54. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1965. Tocharian evidence. Evidence for laryngeals, ed. by Winter, Werner, 190–211. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar