Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Summary
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Historical Linguistics

Syncope, umlaut, and prosodic structure in early Germanic ∗

Profile image of Paul KiparskyPaul Kiparsky

2005

Abstract

A theory of sound change based on Stratal OT is presented and applied to early Germanic syncope and umlaut. Section 2 puts forward four phonological and morphological arguments to show that the Germanic weak preterite had a compound-like prosodic structure, inherited from its periphrastic origin. The weak preterite fused into a single prosodic word early in North Germanic and Old English but retained its complex prosody late in continental West Germanic. The relative chronology of fusion, syncope, and umlaut divides early Germanic into five dialect groups. Section 3 draws on these ideas for a new account of Nordic syncope. The special features of early Nordic syncope are traced to its more restrictive syllable structure. The key move is to reframe the traditional syllable weight conditions on syncope as prosodic constraints that govern its output. This yields a periodization into three successively more general stages of syncope. At the first stage (550-600 A.D.), syncope applies freely on condition that it may not produce a syllable of more than two moras, or in a foot of less than two moras, with word-final consonants counting as weightless. Syncope is then extended to allow three-mora syllables. A second extension occurs around 800, when word-final consonants become capable of bearing weight. Section 4 outlines the issues and motivates the treatment of phonologization in Stratal OT. It is conceptually the diachronic counterpart of phonological opacity and explained like it by the serial relation between the lexical and postlexical constraint systems. A set of predictions is derived about when and how sound changes interact with existing phonological constraints. Section 5 applies this understanding of syncope to the long-standing problem of Nordic umlaut. Armed with Stratal OT, we can solve the problem simply by dating it between the first stages of syncope.

Related papers

Sound change and syllable structure [: Problems] in Germanic phonology, by Robert W. Murray and Theo Vennemann
Theo Vennemann

Language 59 (1983), 514-528, 1983

Abstract: See beginning of article.

View PDFchevron_right
Laryngeal enhancement in early Germanic Early partial versions of this paper were presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics in Melbourne and the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference in Banff, and in talks at the Humboldt University in Berlin, the Linguistics Student Or...
Gregory Iverson

Phonology, 2003

View PDFchevron_right
Reduction of unstressed vowels in Proto-Frisian and the Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’
Arjen P Versloot

NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution, 2019

The quantitative reduction and loss of Proto-Germanic vowels during the transition from some form of Common North West Germanic to the attested ‘Old’ languages, such as Old English and Old Frisian, is a complicated process, interfering with morphological restructuring processes. Various reconstructions have been presented, the most extensive one byBoutkan (1995). Scrutiny of the Runic Frisian data, from the period ca. 500–800, shows that especially the apocope of PWGmc *-aand of *-u< PGmc *-ōshould be positioned much later in the relative chronology than envisaged by Boutkan. The order that can be derived from the Runic Frisian data reflects a gradual loss of one mora, running in a cline from the least salient to the most salient vowel, which provides a phonetic rationale for the development. This gradual mora reduction can be dated to the period between ca. 500 and 700. This absolute dating can have implications for phonological processes in which root vowels interact with the q...

View PDFchevron_right
The Phonology of Morpheme Realization in the Germanic Strong Preterites (NELS 45)
Sam Zukoff, Ryan Sandell

Proceedings of NELS 45, 2015

raw. Thank you also to the audience at NELS 45, and several audiences at MIT and UCLA for many helpful comments. All mistakes herein are our own.

View PDFchevron_right
“Scandinavian word phonology: Evidence for a typological cycle”. Syllable and word languages (Javier Caro Reina / Renata Szczepaniak, eds.). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter (Linguae et Litterae 40), S.183 - 203.
Kurt Braunmüller
View PDFchevron_right
The Old Norse i-umlaut
Frederik Kortlandt

1992

View PDFchevron_right
2003. “On bifurcations and the Germanic consonant shifts”
Henning Andersen
View PDFchevron_right
Laryngeal enhancement in early Germanic
Gregory Iverson
View PDFchevron_right
202. The typological development of the Nordic languages I: Phonology
Helge Sandøy

The Nordic Languages, Part 2, 2017

On the development of phonological structure from Proto Nordic down to the modern Nordic languages (Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish).

View PDFchevron_right
“The effect of syncope with subsequent anaptyxis on consonant quality in Old Irish
Aaron Griffith

Ériu, 57: 35–47, 2007

After syncope, interconsonantal l, r, n became syllabic as per Thurneysen (1946, 70), and an anaptyctic vowel was later inserted before the nasal or resonant. This paper examines the quality of the Old Irish consonants on either side of the anaptyctic vowel (e.g. the consonants in ecolso, gen. sg. of eclais 'church'). Though Thurneysen discusses the outcomes, his explanation of the palatalization does not capture all of the facts. This reexamination of the problem provides a more internally-consistent solution by differentiating the outcomes based on the structure of the original, pre-syncope syllable (CVRC or CRVC). The findings also have a bearing on the rules of the third palatalization.

View PDFchevron_right

References (95)

  1. raisido-kA 'I raised' (Ellestad, dating disputed: 500-550 according to Antonsen 2002: 300; an archaizing inscription from ca. 800 according to KJ 132).
  2. Final syllables:
  3. WidugastiR (Sunde, ca. 500, KJ 198).
  4. SaligastiR, ÞaliR (Berga, ca. 500, KJ 193).
  5. haukoþuR 'hawker' ('hawkeye') (Vånga, ca. 500, KJ 147).
  6. erilaR 'priest' (?), wilagaR 'cunning' (Lindholm, early 6th c., KJ 69).
  7. Asugisalas, erilaR (Kragehul, early 6th c., KJ 64).
  8. HarabanaR, erilaR, waritu [warītu] 'I write' (Järsberg, 500-550, KJ 156).
  9. irilar, Wiwila [wīwila] (Veblungsnes, ca. 550, KJ 126; or ca. 500, K 172).
  10. laiþigaR (Møgedal, 500-550, KJ 195).
  11. hiwigaR, -winaR ( Årstad, ca. 550, KJ 130).
  12. SigimaraR [-māraR] (Ellestad).
  13. At STAGE 1 from 550 to 600 A.D. syncope applies, but only where *µµµ and FOOTBIN per- mit. Final -C is weightless, that is, it does not make a mora. The two-mora syllable maximum and the two-mora word minimum are never transgressed. This is achieved not just "passively" by blocking of syncope, but, where possible also "actively" by repairing the output of syncope with glide deletion, contraction, or epenthesis, as the case may be. The point is that syncope applies both after light syllables and after heavy syllables, but only when the output conforms to *µµµ and FOOTBIN. Thus, in the derivations below, the parenthesized intermediate representations were probably never pronounced as such. They were virtual forms, repaired directly by one of these processes. Starred forms are reconstructed phonological forms, unstarred forms are translitera- tions of the actual runic word, with its assumed pronunciation indicated in square brackets where necessary.
  14. STAGE 1, 550-600: syncope where *µµµ and FOOTBIN permit; final -C weightless. a. Syncope in medial syllables: two-mora maximum allows -V, -VC, but not -VC or -VCC.
  15. *satidō > sate [satte] (Gummarp, ca. 600, KJ 205; B 141).
  16. Nom.Sg. *hrōrijaR (> *hrōrjaR) > HrōreR (By, 550-600, KJ 158; ca. 500, B 176).
  17. 3.Sg.Opt. *w ǣtijē (> *wātjē) > wate [wātē] 'wet!' (Strøm, ca. 600, KJ 110). However, it may be a 2.Sg. Imperative from w ǣt ǣ (Antonsen 2002: 159).
  18. *wiwijon > wiwjo (Eikeland, ca. 600, KJ 47; ca. 550 on archeological grounds according to B 84).
  19. *hawiþu > haþu [hāþu] 'mowing' (Strøm, ca. 600, KJ 110; 550-600, B 176). But see B 176, Antonsen 2002: 160 for divergent interpretations of this word.
  20. Bibliography ANTONSEN, ELMER. 2002. Runes and Germanic linguistics. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. BAMMESBERGER, A. 1986. Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbsystems. Heidelberg: Winter. BAESECKE, GEORG. 1918. Einführung in das Althochdeutsche. München: Beck.
  21. BANDLE, OSKAR. 1973. Die Gliederug des Nordgermanischen. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.
  22. BARNES, M.P. 1998. The transitional inscriptions. In K. Düwel (ed.), Runeninschriften as Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, 448-61. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  23. BECH, GUNNAR. 1963. Die Entstehung des schwachen Präteritums. København: Munksgaard.
  24. BENEDIKTSON, HREINN. 1982. Nordic umlaut and breaking: Thirty years of research (1951- 1980). Nordic Journal of Linguisitcs 5: 1-60.
  25. BERMÚDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in En- glish and Germanic. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester.
  26. BERMÚDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO, AND RICHARD M. HOGG. 2003. The actuation problem in Op- timality Theory: Phonologisation, rule inversion, and rule loss. In D. Eric Holt (ed.), Opti- mality Theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  27. BERMÚDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO 2006a. Diachronic phonology. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cam- bridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: CUP. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bermudez/handbook.pdf BERMÚDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO 2006b. Phonological change in Optimality Theory. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 9, 497-505. Oxford: Elsevier. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bermudez/encyclopedia.pdf BIBIRE, PAUL. 1973. Some notes on Old Icelandic front mutations. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 88: 183-211.
  28. BIRKMANN, THOMAS. 1987. Präteritopräsentia. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  29. BIRKMANN, THOMAS. 1995. Von Ågedal bis Malt. Berlin: de Gruyter. BLEVINS, JULIETTE. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.
  30. BLUMENFELD, LEV. 2001. Russian palatalization in Stratal OT. MS, Stanford University. BOOIJ, GEERT. 1996. Lexical Phonology and the derivational residue. In Durand, Jacques & Bernard Laks (eds.) Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. European Studies Research Institute and University of Salford.
  31. BOOIJ, GEERT. 1997. Non-derivational phonology meets Lexical Phonology. In Iggy Roca (ed.) Derivations and constraints in the lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  32. BOUTKAN, DIRK. 1996. A concise grammar of the Old Frisian dialect of the first Riustring manuscript.. Odense: Odense University Press.
  33. BRAUNE, W., AND I. REIFFENSTEIN 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  34. CARLSSON, NILS. 1921. Det gotländska i-omljudet. Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 37. COSIJN, P.J. 1883. Altwestsächsische Grammatik. The Hague: Martinus Niehoff. EBELING, C.L. 1960. Linguistic units. Mouton: The Hague.
  35. FLEMMING, EDWARD. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18: 7-44.
  36. FRANCK, J. 1909. Altfränkische Grammatik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  37. VON FRIESEN, O. 1925. Om det svaga preteritum i germanska språk. Skrifter utgivna av kung- liga humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet 22(5).
  38. FULLERTON, G. LEE. 1977. Historical Germanic verb morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. GALLÉE, JOHAN HENDRIK. 1910. Altsächsische Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.
  39. GRÖGER. O. 1910. Althochdeutsche und altsächsische Kompositionsfuge mit Verzeichnis der al- thochdeutschen und alstsächsischen Komposita. Zürich.
  40. GRØNVIK, OTTAR. 1999. Runeinskriften fra Ribe. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 114: 103-127.
  41. HILL, EUGEN. 2004. Das germanische Verb für 'tun' und die Ausgänge des germanischen schwachen Präteritums. Sprachwissenschaft 29: 257-303.
  42. HOGG, RICHARD. 1992. A grammar of Old English. Oxford: Blackwell.
  43. HOWELL, ROBERT B., AND JOSEPH C. SALMONS. 1997. Umlautless residues in Germanic. Amer- ican Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9.83-111.
  44. INKELAS, SHARON, & DRAGA ZEC. (1990). The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  45. IVERSON, GREGORY K., AND JOSEPH C. SALMONS. 2004. The conundrum of Old Norse Um- laut: Sound change versus crisis analogy. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16:77-110.
  46. IVERSON, GREGORY K., AND JOSEPH C. SALMONS. MS. Naturalness and the life cycle of lan- guage change.
  47. JAKOBSON, ROMAN, GUNNAR FANT, AND MORRIS HALLE. 1952. Preliminaries to speech anal- ysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  48. JANDA, RICHARD D. 2003. "Phonologization" as the start of dephoneticization -or, on sound change and its aftermath: of extension, lexicalization, and morphologization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D, Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, p. 401-422. Oxford: Blackwell.
  49. JASANOFF, JAY. 2003. Plus ça change. . . Lachmann's Law in Latin. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
  50. KING, ROBERT D. 1971. Syncope and Old Icelandic i-umlaut. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 86: 1-18.
  51. KING, ROBERT D. 1973. Rule insertion. Language 49: 551-578.
  52. KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1984. On the Lexical Phonology of Icelandic, in C.-C. Elert, I. Johnson, and Eva Stangert (eds.), Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
  53. KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1988. Phonological Change. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge Survey of Linguistics, Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP.
  54. KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1998. Sievers' Law as prosodic optimization. In Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (edd.), Mír Curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Inns- brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
  55. KIPARSKY, PAUL. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17:351-367, 2000.
  56. KIPARSKY, PAUL. To appear. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Diane Jonas (ed.), Proceed- ings of the 8th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference.
  57. KIPARSKY, VALENTIN. 1932. Johdatusta fonologiaan. Virittäjä 36: 230-250.
  58. KÖBLER, GERHARD. 1983. Altfriesisch-neuhochdeutsches und Neuhochdeutsch-altfriesisches Wörter- buch. Giessen-Lahn: Arbeiten zur Rechts-und Sprachwissenschaft.
  59. KÖBLER, GERHARD. 1987. Sammlung aller Glossen des Altsächsischen. Giessen-Lahn: Ar- beiten zur Rechts-und Sprachwissenschaft.
  60. KOCK, AXEL. 1888. i-omljudet och den samnordiska förlusten af ändelsevokaler. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 4.141-162.
  61. KÖNIG, WERNER. 1994. dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. KORHONEN, MIKKO. 1969. Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Methode im Lappischen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 37: 203-62.
  62. KORTLANDT, F. 1989. The Germanic weak preterit. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren German- istik 28:101-109.
  63. KRAUSE, WOLFGANG. 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Win- ter.
  64. KRAUSE, WOLFGANG, AND HERBERT JANKUHN. 1966. Die Runeninschriftem im älteren Futhark. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  65. KRÜER, FRIEDRICH. Der Bindevokal und seine Fuge im schwachen Präteritum bis 1150. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.
  66. KROGH, STEFFEN. 1996. Die Stellung des Altsächsischen im Rahmen der germanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  67. LAHIRI, ADITI. 2000. Hierarchical restructuring in the creation of verbal morphology in Ben- gali and Germanic: Evidence from phonology. In Aditi Lahiri (ed.) Analogy, Levelling, Markedness.
  68. LAHIRI, ADITI, TOMAS RIAD, AND HAIKE JACOBS. 1999. Diachronic prosody. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 335-422. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  69. LIBERMAN, ANATOLY. 1991. Phonologization in Germanic: Umlaut and vowel shifts. In Elmer H. Antonsen and Hans Hock (eds.) Staefcraeft. Studies in Germanic linguistics: Select papers from the 1st and 2nd symposium on Germanic linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  70. LÜHR, ROSEMARIE. 1984. Reste der athematischen Konjugation in den germanischen Sprachen. In Untermann, Jürgen, and Béla Brogyanyi (edd.) Das germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  71. MATZEL, K. 1990. On the origin of the dental present of the verba pura. In Lühr, R., J. Ricke, and C. Thim-Mabrey (eds.), K. Matzel: Gesammelte Schriften. Heidelberg: Winter.
  72. NIELSEN, HANS FREDE. 2000. The early runic language of Scandinavia. Heidelberg: Winter. NOREEN, ADOLF. 1913. Geschichte der nordischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.
  73. NOREEN, ADOLF. 1923. Altisländische Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.
  74. PADGETT, JAYE. 2003. Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. Natural Language & Lin- guistic Theory 21: 39-87.
  75. PENZL, HERBERT. 1951. Zur Enstehung des i-Umlauts im Nordgermanischen. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 66: 1-15.
  76. PIPPING, HUGO. 1901. Gotländska studier. Uppsala: Akademiska bokhandeln.
  77. PIPPING, HUGO. 1922. Inledning till studiet av de Nordiska språkens ljudlära. Helsingfors: Söderström.
  78. RIAD, TOMAS. 1992. Structures in Germanic prosody. Stockholm: Dept. of Scandinavian lan- guages, Stockholm University.
  79. ROBINSON, ORRIN W. 1976. A 'scattered' rule in Swiss German. Language 52: 148-163.
  80. ROBINSON, ORRIN W. 1980. An exception to Old High German umlaut. In Klar, Kathryn, Mar- garet Langdon, and Shirley Silver (eds.) American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies. Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler. The Hague: Mouton.
  81. ROCA, IGGY. 2005. Strata, yes, structure-preservation, no. In Geerts, Twan, Ivo van Ginneken, and Haike Jacobs (eds.) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Amsterdam: Ben- jamins.
  82. RUBACH, JERZY. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17, 39-64.
  83. SCHULTE, MICHAEL. 1998. Grundfragen der Umlautphonemisierung. Berlin: de Gruyter. SEHRT, EDWARD H. 1966. Vollständiges Wörterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsächsischen Gene- sis. 2., durchgesehene Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  84. SIEVERS, EDUARD. 1878. Zur Accent-und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen. PBB 5: 63- 163. SKOMEDAL, TRYGVE. 1980. Syncope, omlyd og brytning i nordisk. In Hovdhaugen, Even (ed.) The Nordic languages and modern linguistics. Proceedings of the Fourth International Con- ference of Nordic and General Liguistics in Oslo 1980, 120-139. Oslo: Univeritetsforlaget.
  85. SMITH, NORVAL, AND KLASKE VAN LEYDEN. MS. The unusual outcome of a level-stress situ- ation: the case of Wursten Frisian.
  86. SNAEDAL, THORGUNN. s.a. Gotlands runinskrifter 3. Lokrume socken, G 252 -G 254. http://www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_lokrume.pdf.
  87. SNAEDAL, THORGUNN. 2002. Medan världen vakar: Studier i de gotländska runinskrifternas språk och kronologi. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
  88. STEINKRÜGER, PATRICK, AND MANFRED KRIFKA (ed.) 2009. On inflection. Berlin: Mouton. STREITBERG, WILHELM. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.
  89. SVERDRUP, J. 1929. Das germanische Dentalpräteritum. NTS 2:5-96.
  90. SYRETT, MARTIN. 1994. The unaccented vowels of Proto-Norse. Odense: Odense University Press.
  91. TOPS, GUY A.J. 1974. The origin of the Germanic dental preterit. Leiden: Brill.
  92. TOPS, GUY A.J. 1978. The origin of the Germanic dental preterit: Von Friesen revisited. In J. Fisiak (ed.) Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague/Paris/New York: Mouton.
  93. TWADDELL, W. FREEMAN. 1938. A note on OHG umlaut. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 30.177-181.
  94. VALENTIN, PAUL. 1969. Phonologie de l'allemand ancien. Les systèmes vocaliques. Paris: Klincksieck.
  95. WACKERNAGEL, JAKOB AND A. DEBRUNNER. 1954. Altindische Grammatik, II.1. WELLS, J. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: CUP.

Related papers

Selected Problems in Germanic Phonology: Production and Perception in Sound Change
George Estes

2018

Author(s): Estes, George Alexander | Advisor(s): Rauch, Irmengard | Abstract: This dissertation investigates three sound changes in the early history of Germanic with an approach grounded in phonetics. Historical phonology has traditionally focused on the articulatory aspects of change (e.g., Hoenigswald 1960; King 1969). However, more recent work in phonetics on sound change has emphasized the acoustic and auditory aspects of sound change, alongside the articulatory (e.g., Beddor 2009; Blevins 2004; Ohala 1981). The present work has two goals: first, to advance the state of research on the sound changes in question; and second, to show how the findings of modern laboratory phonetics can complement the study of historical phonology.In Chapter 2, I review past approaches to sound change, as well as more recent work in phonetics. In Chapter 3, I consider OHG i-umlaut, a longstanding problem in the field. Although umlaut-type changes are common in Germanic, and other types of vowel har...

View PDFchevron_right
The Conundrum of Old Norse Umlaut: Sound Change versus Crisis Analogy
Gregory Iverson

Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Commentary of Lahiri and Dresher (1999), Open syllable lengthening in West Germanic
Ariel Gutman

2013

View PDFchevron_right
A New Approach to the Origin of Germanic Strong Preterites Implications for the Phonology Morphology Interface and Diachronic Learnability
Sam Zukoff

2014

1. 1. How is the system of Germanic strong verbs, as best represented by Gothic, to be analyzed synchronically (sections 2–3)? • This systemmarks past tense through vowel change (ablaut), and less commonly, reduplication. • We argue that the attested patterns of past tense marking result from the relative rankings of faithfulness constraintswith respect to twomorphological constraints, Realize-Morpheme (Kurisu 2001) and Anti-Ident (Crosswhite 1999). 1. 2. How is the ancestor of that system in Proto-Germanic, inherited from Proto-Indo-European, to be analyzed synchronically (section 4)? • This systemconsistentlymarks past tensewith reduplication (thus a /Red/morpheme), inwhich vowel alternations depend upon accentual properties. 1. 3. How can the changes between the inherited and attested systems be motivated and modeled? • This is a crux of Germanic historical linguistics: how can a grammar with consistent reduplication become a grammar without it? • There is a “gap” between the gra...

View PDFchevron_right
Germanic phonology and morphology
Frederik Kortlandt
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • History
  • Sound change
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved