Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:31:29.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sievers‘ Law in Gothic: A Response to Pierce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

Charles M. Barrack
Charles M. Barrack*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Department of Germanics, Box 353130, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3130, USA, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gothic scribes divided words at the ends of lines following basic principles of syllabification except in the case of glide-final clusters, where the division appeared immediately before the glide (-C/G-). Pierce (2006) accepts this practice as evidence that such sequences were heterosyllabified, -C.G-. He rejects arguments that such breaks occur because morpheme boundaries (#) normally precede the glides, -VC0C/#GV-, and that hence these clusters were actually tauto-syllabified: -VC0.C#GV-. Pierce counters that (a) the Law of Initials forbids such tautosyllabification; (b) morphology cannot account for similar division in forms evincing Verschärfung or /-ngw-/, where there are no morpheme boundaries; (c) his opponents are inconsistent because they ignore the role of morphology in the division of stop + liquid clusters; (d) evidence from the other Germanic dialects cor-roborates his position; (e) if -VC0CGV- were truly tautosyllabified, one would expect occasionally to find erroneous divisions exhibiting this, -VC0/.C#GV-. In this rejoinder, I argue that Pierce's arguments rest on false premises.

Type
DISCUSSION NOTES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 255 - 276
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

Barrack, Charles M. 1997. Putative strengthening of glides in Gothic. Insights in Germanic linguistics II: Classic and contemporary (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 94), ed. by Rauch, Irmengard & Carr, Gerald F., 1–8. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barrack, Charles M. 1998. Sievers‘ Law in Germanic (Berkeley insights in linguistics and semiotics 22). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bennett, William H. 1960. The Gothic commentary on the Gospel of John (MLA monograph series 21). New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, & Frank, Heidermanns. 2004. Gotische Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael, & Olaf, Thyen. 1997. The concise Oxford-Duden German dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Tollenaere, Felicien, & Randall, L. Jones. 1976. Word-indices and word-lists to the Gothic Bible and minor fragments. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, Sigmund. 1939. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Frey, Evelyn. 1989. Worttrennung und Silbenstruktur des Gotischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Skeireins. Indogermanische Forschungen 94. 272–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechtenberg Collitz, Klara. 1906. Syllabication in Gothic. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 6. 72–91.Google Scholar
Hermann, Eduard. 1923. Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den anderen indogermanischen Sprachen (Ergänzungsheft zu Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 2). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Jany, Carmen, Carlos Nash, Matthew Gordon, & Takara, Nobutaka. 2007. How universal is the sonority hierarchy? A cross-linguistic acoustic study. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 16, 1401–1404. Location: Publisher.Google Scholar
Kieckers, Ernst. 1960. Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Kim, Yookang. 2001. Prosody and i/j alternation in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13. 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1985. Die Worttrennung am Zeilenende in altenglischen Hand-schriften: phonologische Betrachtungen zu Claus-Dieter Wetzels gleich-namigen Buch. Indogermanische Forschungen 90. 227–238.Google Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1986. The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts. English Studies 3. 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Robert W., & Theo, Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59. 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, B. Richard. 1999. The Germanic Verschärfung and prosodic change. Diachronica 16. 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Marc. 2002. Syllable structure and Sievers‘ Law in Gothic and Old Norse. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Pierce, Marc. 2006. Syllable structure and Sievers‘ Law in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18. 275–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 2004. Syllabification and word division in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16. 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 1992. On deriving sonority: A structural account of sonority relationships. Phonology 9. 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Wilhelm. 1908. Wortbrechung in den gotischen Handschriften. Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 31. 610–624.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1892. Zur westgermanischen Gemination. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 16. 262–265.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1972. A new leaf of the Gothic Bible. Language 48. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uppström, Andreas (ed.). 1854. Codex Argenteus sive sacrorum evangeliorum versionis Gothicae. Uppsala: C. A. Leffler.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1987. Muta cum liquida: Worttrennung und Syllibierung im Gotischen. Mit einem Anhang zur Worttrennung in der Pariser Handschrift der althochdeutschen Isidor-Übersetzung. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 116. 165–204.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1992. Early Germanic grammar. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, Claus-Dieter. 1981. Die Worttrennung am Zeilenende in altenglischen Handschriften. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar