Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:38:19.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Identifying Laryngeal Reflexes in Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Leo A. Connolly
Affiliation:
University of MemphisDepartment of Foreign Languages and LiteraturesMemphis, TN 38152 [[email protected]]

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1999

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

Austin, William M. 1946. A corollary to the Germanic Verschärfung. Language 22.109–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R. S. P. 1972. Germanic “Verschärfung” and no laryngeals. Orbis 21.327–36.Google Scholar
Burrow, T. 1955. The Sanskrit language. London: Faber & Faber. (2nd impression 1959.)Google Scholar
Cercignani, Fausto. 1980. Early “umlaut” phenomena in the Germanic languages. Language 56.126–37.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1977. Indo-European i > Germanic e: An explanation by the laryngeal theory. PBB 99.173205, 333–58.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1979a. ē2and the laryngeal theory. PBB 101.129.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1979b. The rune and the Germanic vowel system. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 14.332.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1980. “Grammatischer Wechsel” and the laryngeal theory. Indogermanische Forschungen 85.96123.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1983. Germanic r−preterites. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11.325–38.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1984. Altnordisch e < indogermanisch i. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97.267–80.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1989. Laryngeal metathesis: An Aryan peculiarity? The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction, ed. by Vennemann, Theo, 4351. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuillet, Jack. 1976. Le système vocalique du germanique primitif. La Linguistique 12.8198.Google Scholar
Holtzmann, Adolf (ed.). 1836. Isidore of Seville. Epistolae ad Florentinam sororem. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller.Google Scholar
Holtzmann, Adolf (ed.). 1841. Review of Deutsche Grammatik, by Jacob Grimm. Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur 34.770–77.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1927. indo-européenne et hittite. Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, 1.95104. Cracow: Apud Bibliopolas Gebethner et Wolff.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1967. The Germanic “Verschärfung.” Language 43.445–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952. Proto-Indo-European phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press and Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1954. Old English and Old Norse secondary preterites in -r-. Language 30.202–10.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1987. Introduction to the “laryngeal theory.” Oslo: Norwegian University Press and The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: E. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry Lee Jr. 1941. The Verschärfung in Germanic. Language 17.9399.Google Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1989. Laryngeals in Germanic. AJGLL 1.1752.Google Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1992. Early Germanic grammar: Pre-, Proto and post-Germanic languages. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmanns, W. 1911. Deutsche Grammatik: Gotisch, Alt-, Mittel- und Neuhochdeutsch. Vol. 1. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar