Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:36:47.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reply to Herbert Penzl's “Historiographie und Sprachgeschichte: Zur Beschreibung des ahd. i−Umlauts”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Joseph Voyles
Joseph Voyles
Affiliation:
University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two incompatible theories of OHG i−umlaut are briefly described—the one proposed by Twaddell in 1938, the other by Voyles in 1991. Five arguments recently adduced by Penzl in defense of the Twaddellian theory are discussed. These five points are critiqued in some detail because they are crucial for understanding and evaluating the two theories.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 1994 , pp. 251 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1994

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

WORKS CITED

Kenstowicz, Michael and Kisseberth, Charles. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1994. “Historiographie und Sprachgeschichte: Zur Beschreibung des althochdeutschen i–Umlauts.” American journal of Germanic linguistics and literatures 6,2:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1938. “A note on Old High German umlaut.” Monatshefte 30:177–81.Google Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1991. “A history of OHG i–umlaut.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 113:159–94.Google Scholar