Co-compounds (sometimes termed “copulative compounds”) are com-pounds whose elements are of equivalent status and which can be glossed as having coordinated meaning (usually linked by and, but occasionally, in some languages, by or). There are several distin-guishable kinds of co-compounds, including dvandvas, appositional compounds, co-participant compounds, and so on (Wälchli 2005, Bauer 2008a). These were not available in early Germanic. Accordingly, co-compounds in modern Germanic languages are innovations, and it is scarcely surprising to see that there is much agreement about the types that are available. However, this apparent unity hides a host of differ-ences across languages. This paper focuses on the differences between Danish, English, and German in the use of co-compounds.*

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-.*

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.

This paper describes the organization of the Texas German Dialect Project (TGDP), which aims to document and archive the remnants of Texas German. The mission of the TGDP is (a) to document Texas German as it reflects the rich cultural and linguistic traditions of its residents; (b) to gather basic research information about linguistic diversity; (c) to provide linguistic information for public and educational interests, and (d) to use the collected materials for the improvement of educational programs. The paper gives a brief histor-ical overview of the development of the Texas German community and then describes the workflow of the TGDP. We also discuss how the Texas German Dialect Archive (TGDA) is currently used for linguistic research on new dialect formation, language contact, and language death. Since the open-ended sociolinguistic interviews contain a wealth of information on the history and cultural practices of the Texas German community, the archive is also of interest to historians and anthropologists. Finally, we show how the archive has been used for community outreach programs throughout central Texas.*