Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:28:32.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Root versus suffix accent in the Germanic present indicative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert D. King
Robert D. King
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present paper is initially concerned with a rather minor problem in comparative Germanic morphology: the shape of the consonant in certain present active indicative endings. There are discrepancies among the early attested dialects in this matter, and the traditional explanation has been that one group of Germanic dialects generalized present forms with Indo-European root accent, the other group forms with Indo-European suffix accent. I show that this solution, which is widely accepted, is deficient in several respects, and I demonstrate that the problem has a correct solution with interesting consequences for historical linguistics provided we concentrate on the rules and their order of application in the grammars of the different dialects, that is, provided we attack the problem from within the framework of generative phonology.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1968 , pp. 247 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Bach, E. (1966). Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Paper read before the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Becker, D. A. (1967). Generative phonology and dialect study: an investigation of three modern German dialects. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Austin, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Boer, R. C. (1918). Oergermaansch Handboek. Haarlem: H. D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon.Google Scholar
Braune, W. & Ebbinghaus, E. A. (1961). Gotische Grammatik, 16th ed.Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Braune, W. & Mitzka, W. (1959). Althochdeutsche Grammatik, 9th ed.Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. (1965). Altenglische Grammatik, 3rd ed.Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. JL 1. 97–138.Google Scholar
Dieter, F. (1900). Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. (1967 a). Split, shift and merger in the Permic vowels. To appear in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. (1967 b). Rev. Vahros, I. & Kahla, M. (eds.) Lingua viget: Commentationes Slavicae in Honorem V. Kiparsky. To appear in The Slavic and East European Journal.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. (1950). The principal step in comparative grammar. Lg 26. 357–364.Google Scholar
Holthausen, F. (1921). Altsächsisches Elementarbuch, 2nd ed.Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1942). A phonological dilemma in Canadian English. Lg 18. 141–144.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. (1963). Rev. Kurath, H. & McDavid, Jr., R. I. The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Lg 39. 303–316.Google Scholar
Kienle, R. von (1960). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1966). Sonorant clusters in Greek. To appear in Language.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1967 a). On the history of Greek accentuation. To appear in Langages.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1967 b). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Paper read at the Texas Conference on Language Universals.Google Scholar
Krahe, H. (1948). Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. (1963). Some phonological observations based on examination of the Germanic consonant shift. Monatshefte 55. 229–235.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. (1966). The grouping of the Germanic languages. In: Birnbaum, H. & Puhvel, J.Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Loewe, R. (1911). Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig: Göschen.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. (1954). The stops and spirants of early Germanic. Lg 30. 1–42.Google Scholar
Noreen, A. (1923). Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik, 4th ed.Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Paul, H. (1949). Kurze deutsche Grammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Prokosch, E. (1939). A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Saporta, S. (1965). Ordered rules, dialect differences, and historical processes. Lg 41. 218–224.Google Scholar
Steller, W. (1928). Abriss der altfriesischen Grammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Streitberg, W. (1963). Urgermanische Grammatik, 3rd ed.Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Vasiliu, E. (1966). Towards a generative phonology of Daco-Rumanian dialects. JL 2. 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmanns, W. (1906). Deutsche Grammatik. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
Wright, J. (1907). Historical German Grammar, 1st ed., vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar