Jump to content

User:Ermenrich/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


North Sea Germanic
Ingvaeonic, Ingveonic,[1] coastal Germanic[1]
Geographic
distribution		Originally the North Sea coast from Friesland to Jutland; today, worldwide
Native speakers
325 million (2004)
Linguistic classificationIndo-European
Subdivisions
Language codes
Glottolognort3175

North Sea Germanic, also known as Ingvaeonic (/ˌɪŋviːˈɒnɪk/ ING-vee-ON-ik),[2] is a subgrouping of West Germanic languages that consists of Old Frisian, Old English, and Old Saxon, and their descendants. These languages share a number of commonalities, such as a single plural ending for all persons of the verb, the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law, common changes to the Germanic vowel *a, a plural form -as, and a number of other features which make scholars believe they form a distinct group within West Germanic.

It is debated whether the shared features of North Sea Germanic are inherited from a common proto-language or formed via later contact and influence. Additionally, the membership of the group is sometimes debated. Some scholars exclude Low German for lacking a number of features associated with North Sea Germanic. Other scholars include Dutch for sharing some features with the group.

Name

[edit]

The name Ingvaeonic derives from ancient Roman sources such as Tacitus, who describes a tribal group called the in Ingvaeones. In current scholarship, the term "North Sea Germanic" is preferred, as it is more description of where these languages are spoken and also more neutral as to whether any connection exists to the Ingvaeones.[3] Other names used include "Coastal Germanic" and "North Sea West Germanic."[4]

Membership

[edit]

The North Sea Germanic languages are usually defined as consisting of the Anglo-Frisian languages (English and Frisian) and Low German.[5] The status of Low German in the group is sometimes questioned, but most scholars believe that its oldest attested form, Old Saxon, shows clear North Sea Germanic features. Low German has been steadily influenced by High German, causing it to lose some of its North Sea Germanic features.[6] Scholars further debate whether these languages shared a single proto-language, or whether their common features are the result of contact and influence - some of them are also shared with the North Germanic languages.[7]

Additionally, some scholars have argued that Dutch belongs to the North Sea Germanic languages, as it shares some characteristics with the others. On the other hand, there are arguments for grouping Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian (the ancestor of Dutch) together, as they also share features that are lacking in Anglo-Frisian.[8][9] Within Dutch, forms that resemble those of the North Sea Germanic languages are called "Ingvaeonisms". These can can be further divided into older Ingvaeonisms, which are found through Low Franconian, and younger Ingvaeonisms, which are only found in the coastal areas.[10]

Characteristic phonetic changes

[edit]

lowering of *u

[edit]

Through Northwest Germanic (North Germanica and West Germanic), stressed *u lowered to *o when *a was found in the next syllable:[11]

  • Proto-West Germanic *fulką > Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old High German folk, Old English folc "troop, tribe"

However, *u was not lowered before a nasal consonant and a following consonant:[12]

  • Proto-Germanic *pundą > Old Norse, Old English, Old Saxon pund, Old High German [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help) "pound"

In the North Sea Germanic languages and North Germanic, however, *u was not lowered before a single nasal consonant, whereas in Old High German, lowering occurred:[13]

  • numanaz > Old English numen, Old Saxon ginuman, but Old High German ginoman "taken"

Unlowered *u is also found in some other environments in northern West Germanic as opposed to Old High German.[14]

Loss of unstressed and syllable final *z

[edit]

All West Germanic languages lost final -z in unstressed final syllables (Proto-Germanic *hundaz > Proto-West Germanic *hund). However, all North Sea Germanic languages and Old Low Franconian also lost syllable-final z in unstressed prefixes, whereas High German retained and rhoticized them, thus Old High German er-bitten vs. Old Saxon a-biddian "to ask for".[15][16]

In northern West Germanic dialects, Germanic word final -z was also lost in monosyllables and caused compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, whereas in southern West Germanic, it became -r:[17]

  • Proto-Germanic *hiz > Old English hē, Old Frisian/Old Saxon hī "he" (cf. German er with final r)

This same change is attested for most Low Franconian dialects as well (Dutch hij); in modern Low Franconian, enclitic forms with a final -r are still found in South Low Franconian.[18] Similar enclitic forms are also found in Old Frisian.[19]

Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law

[edit]
Main article: Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law

Old English, Old Frisian, and Old Saxon all share the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law, in which a nasal is lost before a fricative consonant and the preceding vowel is first nasalized and then lengthened:[20][21]

  • Proto-West Germanic *fimf > *fįf > Old English, Old Saxon, Old Frisian fīf "five"
  • Proto-West Germanic *gans > *gąs > Old English, Middle Low German, Old Frisian gōs "goose"

Although Old Saxon consistently shows the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law,[22] Middle Low German dialects restore many nasal consonants lost through the spirant law, giving forms such as ander rather than Old Saxon ōthar ("other"). In some words, the presence or absence of the nasal fluctuates by dialect, with western dialects using us ("us") while eastern dialects use uns. Some of these changes may be due to leveling of forms with and without the nasal, while others point to High German influence. High German influence on Low Saxon vocabulary is already visible in the Old Saxon period, as Old Saxon attests words such as kind and urkundeo that do not follow the nasal spirant law.[23][24]

Low Franconian shows some cases of the nasal spirant law through its whole dialect area, such as vijf "five", whereas others are restricted to coastal dialects, such as mui(den), used for river mouths in place names and cognate with standard Dutch mond "mouth".[10]

Among High German dialects, Central German Ripuarian, Moselle Franconian, and Lorraine Franconian all feature the pronominal form ūs via Ingvaeonic influence. Other n-less forms are also found in these dialects, such as islands where the word Gans lacks an n (e.g. horregeise "wild geese"). Upper Hessian likewise shows gās. However, most cases have been replaced by forms featuring n.[25]

Nasalization and Rounding

[edit]

Throughout North Sea Germanic, *a was nasalized in unstressed positions when before a nasal consonant. Additionally, West Germanic *a become rounded before a nasal when in stressed position:

  • Proto-North West Germanic *mānō > Old English/Old English mōna "moon"
  • Proto-West Germanic *langaz > Old English/Old Frisian long "long"

Long *ā was more regularly affected than short *a. Many forms in Old English show variants with both a and o, e.g. dranc ~ dronc ("drank").[26]

This change is only occasionally attested in Old Saxon with forms such as hond "hand". Ringe and Taylor suggest that the lack of consistency with which the rule is either applied or not applied in Old Saxon points to High German dialect influence.[27] By Middle Low German, forms with a have come to dominate. However, in cases where the nasal consonant has been lost before a spirant and the o lengthened, the o remained: Middle Low German gōs "goose" (see e.g. modern Eastphalian gous).[28][29][a]

Forms with a > o are also found in Western Dutch dialects of Hollandic, Flemish, and Zealandic in some cases, e.g. sochte "soft" in medieval Flemish (modern standard Dutch zacht). These forms appear connected to the related change in Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon.[31]

Fronting

[edit]

Proto-West Germanic *a was frequently fronted in the ancestor of Old English, less frequently in the ancestor of Old Frisian:

  • Proto-West-Germanic dag > Old English dæg, Old Frisian dei "day"

While this change is exceptionless in Old English (all stressed examples of *a became *æ except those that were rounded or nasalized), subsequent developments mean that it is difficult to tell if it was as exceptionless in Old Frisian.[32]

In Old Saxon, the change is only partially attested, producing doublets of words with a/e in Old Saxon. In Middle Low German, most of these doublets were eliminated in favor of the a version. Of the Old Saxon variants glas and gles ("glass") only glas is found in Middle Low German.[22][33]

Some Dutch dialects also show signs of palatalization of a to e, most often before sp and sk (e.g. modern standard Dutch fles, cf. High German Flasche). This has sometimes been claimed to be an Ingvaeonism, although other factors, such as i-umlaut or analogy, can be used to explain most instances.[34]

Palatalization of velars

[edit]

The North Sea Germanic languages show a tendency toward palatalizing velar consonants before front vowels.[35] Old English and Frisian both palatalize the velar consonants k and g before the front vowels i and e in many or all cases:

  • Proto-West Germanic *kirika > Old English circe (modern English church), Old Frisian tzierka[22]

Fulk argues that this change occurred early and possibly in Proto-Anglo-Frisian or even Proto-North Sea Germanic, given evidence of palatalization in Old Saxon.[36] Ringe and Taylor, however, argue that Frisian palatalization differs from the Old English pattern, meaning that the two languages likely experienced palatalization as a parallel development.[37]

Palatalization of k and g is also common in Old Saxon and Middle Low German. Palatalized k is indicated in the orthography by ⟨ki⟩ (e.g. kiennen, cf. High German kennen) or in some cases by ⟨z⟩ (e.g. zind, cf. High German Kind), while palatalized g is indicated by ⟨i(j)⟩ or sometimes ⟨gi⟩ (e.g. ielden, cf. High German gelten).[38] The palatalization of /k/ probably occurred over a wide area and to differing amounts in different dialects; in modern Low German, it has in most but not all cases been reversed to /k/.[39] Outside of many place names, one modern survival is the word sever ("beetle"), still used in many Low German dialects and equivalent to High German Käfer.[40] Earlier /ɡ/, on the other hand, often alternates with /j/ or is a palatal fricative in modern Low German German dialects, often including in the environment of back vowels.[41]

r-metathesis

[edit]

Metathesis of sequence of vowel, /r/, and a following consonant has traditionally been considered a North Sea Germanic trait:[4][42]

  • Proto-West Germanic *brinnen > Old English beornen, Middle Low German bernen, Old Frisian berna "burn"

Metathesis of r clusters can be traced in Old English from the 8th century and infrequently in Old Saxon (hors "horse" vs. Old High German hross) from the 9th century onward.[43][44] However, metathesis is not frequent in Old Saxon compared to later periods.[45] Among the modern languages it is most frequent in Frisian.[46] From Low German, r-metathesis spread south into the High German area, a process that is seen through the presence of place names with the element -born rather than -bron/brunn(en) "spring".[47]

R-metathesis is also common in Dutch (cf. Dutch bernen "burn"); however, it appears to have begun in the Flemish area in the 11th century and is thus unconnected to the r-metathesis in Old Saxon or Anglo-Frisian.[48]

Monophthongization of *au and *ai

[edit]

A. Campbell regarded the monophthongization of Proto-Germanic au to ā as one of the chief characteristics of the North Sea Germanic languages, though he also noted that Old Saxon instead has an outcome ō.[5] Additionally, the monophthongization of ai to ǣ or ā can be considered a North Sea Germanic feature, though Old Saxon again differs, having ē.[49] However, the reflexes of the two diphthongs also differ in Old English and Old Frisian: au becomes ēa in most Old English dialects, via an intermediate stage ǣo. ā is thus only attested as an outcome in Old Frisian. ai becomes ā in Old English, but ē in Old Frisian except under certain phonological circumstances where it became ā.[50][b]

The usual Old Saxon reflexes of au and ai as ō and ē except when an i or j occurred in a following syllable is a shared feature with the majority of Old Low Franconian dialects. It forms an important isogloss between Low German and most Low Franconian dialects on the one hand and High German and South Low Franconian on the other. In those latter dialects, au and ai were instead raised to ou and ei in most situations.[52][53] The different dialects thus show the following characteristic differences:[52]

  • Proto-Germanic *augō > Old Saxon/Old Low Franconian ōga, Old Frisian āge, Old English ēage "eye"
  • Proto-Germanic *raipaz > Old Saxon rēp (Middle Dutch reep), Old Frisian/Old English rāp "band"

Shared grammatical characteristics

[edit]

Verbs

[edit]

Unitary plural

[edit]
The Einheitsplural line (red), dividing Low Saxon/Low German (orange) from Low Franconian (yellow).

North Sea Germanic languages have generalized the 3rd person plural ending to the 1st and 2nd person in all moods and tenses, developing what is called "unitary plural" (German Einheitsplural, Dutch Eenheidspluralis):[54][55]

  • Present indicative: Old High German werdumēs "we become", werdet "you become", werdent "they become" vs. Old English weorþað, Old Frisian werthath, Old Saxon werđađ "we/you/they become"
  • Present subjunctive: Old High German werdēm "may we become", werdēt "may you become", werdēn "may they become" vs. Old English weorþen, Old Frisian werthe, Old Saxon werđen "may we/you/they become"

The indicative unitary plural form is general thought to derive from the nasal spirant law's effect on the older 3rd person plural ending: *-anþ > -*ąþ > -*aþ. This meant that there was very little difference between the third and second person plural ending (originally -*iþ), and lead to their merger and then the replacement of the former first person plural ending via leveling.[56]

In continental West Germanic, the presence or absence of the unitary plural is used to determine whether a dialect belongs to Low German/Low Saxon or to Low Franconian.[57][c] In the Middle Low German period, the difference in endings between the indicative and subjunctive was lost. Most West Low German dialects use the old indicative form, -(e)t, for both indicative and subjunctive, whereas East Low German dialects have generalized the former subjunctive form -en to the indicative.[59][57]

Class III stative weak verbs

[edit]
The South Low Franconian dialect area. The East Limburgish–Ripuarian transitional area which features forms of 'have' and 'say' that pattern with High German is labelled "1".

The North Sea Germanic languages have transferred most class III stative weak verbs into class II (-ō-), e.g. Old Saxon ērōn, Old English ārian, vs. Old High German ērēn "to honor", where the class III statives have been maintained but their conjugation simplified.[60] However, the North Sea Germanic languages also retain a relic class of at three stative class III Germanic weak verbs, 'have' (Old Saxon hebbian), 'say' (Old Saxon seggian) and 'live' (Old Saxon libbian). These feature an alternation in their present stems between a final -ja- and -ē- (< -*ai-). The forms with -j- have undergone West Germanic gemination and umlaut, whereas those without -j- have not.[61] In High Germanic, however, the alternation has been leveled -ē- to all forms, and they thus lack umlaut or gemination (habēn, sagēn, lebēn).[62] Low Franconian includes only 'say' (zeggen) and 'have' (hebben) in this class, but not 'live', which patterns with High German as leven.[63] The divide between the High German and the North Sea Germanic forms runs through South Low Franconian and is referred to as the "sagen/seggen-line".[64]

Changes to class II weak verbs

[edit]

In the North Sea Germanic languages, class II Germanic weak verbs (with the thematic vowel ō) were altered so that the infinitive, 1st and 2nd person singular, and unitary plural were based on a form -ōj(a)-, with -ōj- contracted to -i- in the attested languages:

  • Proto-West-Germanic *ardōn > Proto-North Sea Germanic *ardōjan > Old English eardian "to dwell"

This innovation is always attested in Old English and Old Frisian, but is in competition with the original form in Old Saxon; most likely, Old Saxon originally had the change but it was suppressed under High German influence.[65]

Nominals

[edit]

Masculine a-stem plurals

[edit]

The North Sea Germanic languages developed a new plural form for the a-stem masculine nouns, -*ōs. This is reconstructable from Old English -as ,Old Saxon -os/-as, and Old Frisian -ar (from a voiced variant -*-ōz with rhoticism). As other West Germanic languages seem to attest a plural ending -ō (< Proto-Germanic -ōz), the precise origins of this new ending are uncertain. Several theories have been advanced, including that it represents a double plural ending -ōsis, that it is a Verner variation of final -*z (attested in the other languages) caused by secondary stress on the ending, and that it is the result of a cliticized demonstrative s- fusing with the ending.[66][67][68]

The three North Germanic languages differ in the extent to which the -ōs plural is present.[69] Old English had -ās as the sole pluralization strategy for a-stems, and in the Middle English period, this plural (as -(e)s) would come to replace other regular pluralization strategies.[70] Old Saxon attests variants -os/-as and -a. It appears to have originally only had a plural form -os, but adopted the alternative ending -a under either High German or Low Franconian influence.[71] In the Middle Low German period, -(e)s became rare, but is today the most common strategy of pluralization in Low German.[72][73] Old Frisian had not only -ar but also variants -a and -an. In Old West Frisian, -ar was replaced by -an/-en over the course of the 13th-15th centuries, but -ar (as -er) remains in East Frisian and in the insular dialects of North Frisian (it was lost in mainland North Frisian).[74]

The origins of the frequent s-plural in modern Dutch are disputed; the ending became common in the Middle Dutch period.[75] In minor Old Low Franconian sources, -as plurals such as nestas ("nests") are attested alongside -a plurals, but it is possible that the s-plurals derive from Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, or even Latin influence on the manuscripts: the main sources in Old Low Franconian only attest -a plurals.[76][77] It has variously been argued that the frequent -s ending in Middle Dutch originated in language contact with Old French, spreading from the area of Calais into other dialects; that the form originated in coastal dialects and is a native Ingvaeonic feature; or that it originated in eastern dialects under the influence of Old Saxon.[78]

s/z-stem plurals

[edit]

The Germanic z-stem originates with the Proto-Indo-European -s stem nouns; in West Germanic the original ending has been lost in the singular and rhoticized to -r in the plural.[79] In Proto-West Germanic and Proto-Germanic, these words formed a very small class of exclusively neuter nouns that were mostly terms for young animals such as *lamb/lamberu "lamb/lambs".[80][81] In most High German dialects and part of Low Franconian, the ending -eru experienced umlaut of the e to i, giving an Old High German ending -ir that caused i-umlaut (kalb, kelbir "calf, calves") whereas in the other West Germanic languages (including the High German Central Franconian dialects), this did not happen: Old English (West Saxon) cealf, cealfru, Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, Middle Franconian calf, kalvere.[82] The absence of umlaut for this plural can thus be considered a North Sea Germanic feature.[35]

Low German and Dutch experienced an expansion of the number of words that take the -er plural ending during the Middle Ages, with Low German experiencing a further expansion in the early modern period. In most cases, the words that have joined the plural declension are shared with High German.[83] West Low German -er plurals do not show umlaut (e.g. kalver "calves", lammer "lambs"), but East Low German has generally adopted umlauted forms from High German influence.[84] In Dutch, on the other hand, only 15 -er plurals (in the double-plural form -eren) still exist. These plurals do not show umlaut except in South Low Franconian (Limburgish).[85] In West Frisian, the ending was lost entirely during the High Middle Ages; Saterland Frisian has extended the use of the ending to a larger class of nouns, probably partially under Low German influence, whereas other dialects have lost it. English, meanwhile has lost the ending entirely except in the double-plural children.[86]

n-stem declension

[edit]

Neuter adjectives

[edit]

In North Sea Germanic and Low Franconian[citation needed], the Proto-Germanic strong nominative/accusative neuter adjective ending -at has been lost, whereas in Old High German the ending has been retained as an option: Old Saxon blind vs. Old High German blindaz (-at with the High German consonant shift) or blind "blind". In North Sea Germanic, neuter plural adjectives also receive no ending.[87]

Pronouns

[edit]

3rd person pronouns with h-

[edit]

The North Sea Germanic languages and Old Low Franconian share the innovation of using at least some third person singular pronouns that begin with h-, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old Low Franconian hī, Old English hē (cf. Old High German er).[35] Outside of this single form, however, the degree to which h- has spread throughout the paradigm varies by language. In Old English, all person and numbers came to feature initial h-, including the creation of a new feminine pronoun heo "she" and a nominative/accusative plural form hī "they". Frisian shows the same extension except that it uses a possessive form sīn for the masculine and neuter singular.[88] In Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian, however, only the masculine nominative features h-: hī, accusative ina "him".[69][d] Masculine nominative forms with initial h- are also found in the West Central German dialects bordering Low German and Low Franconian, including transitional forms between he and German er such as her.[90]

Loss of the 3rd person reflective pronoun

[edit]

Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and Old Low Franconian (Old Dutch) have lost the original Proto-Germanic 3rd person reflexive pronoun *sik, instead using the same pronouns to mean, e.g. him and himself.[91][92] However, the High German reflexive pronoun sich has subsquently been imported into both Low German and standard Dutch.[93] Southwestern, Northwestern, and most Eastern Low Franconian dialects continue to use the same pronoun for both "him" and "himself".[94] English innovated a new reflexive pronoun using -self, whereas Frisian continues to allow the use of the same forms for both personal and reflexive pronouns.[95]

Although they lost the reflexive *sik, Old Low Franconian, Old Frisian, and Old Saxon retained the reflexive possessive adjective *sīn in the more general meaning "his", possibly under High German influence. In Old English, *sīn is attested in its original meaning "his own", but only rarely.[96][97]

Shared accusative-dative pronominal forms

[edit]

The North Sea Germanic languages and Old Franconian share a tendency to replace the accusative forms of the first and second person singular pronouns with their dative equivalents: Old English mē, ðē, Old Frisian/Old Saxon mī, thī.[98] The same tendency is found in Middle Dutch.[99][e] The original accusative forms are still attested in their original meaning in the Anglian dialect of Old English.[101] Although the loss of distinct accusative/dative pronouns for the first and second person singular had already occurred in Old Saxon, accusative forms are occasionally attested, and they resurface as general forms for both dative and accusative in some dialects of Middle and New Low German.[102][103]

Typical vocabulary

[edit]

Characteristics

[edit]

Broadly speaking, the changes that characterise the Ingvaeonic languages can be divided into two groups, those being changes that occurred after the split from Proto-Northwest-Germanic (Ingvaeonic B) and those preceding it (Ingvaeonic A).[104] Linguistic evidence for Ingvaeonic B observed in Old Frisian, Old English and Old Saxon is as follows:


  • Development of numerous new words, such as the replacement of *newun "nine" with *nigun and *minni "less" (adverb) with *laisi[105]

Changes originating in Ingvaeonic A, like Old Norse but unlike Gothic and Old High German, include:[106]

  • Dative plurals and first person plural forms in numerous paradigms reduced to -um/-un. Compare an-stem dative plural han-ōm/ōn (OHG) and han-am (Gothic) with hǫn-um (ON), han-um/un (OS) and han-um (OE).
  • Elimination of the weak stem -in- in n-stem noun paradigms. For example, OHG gen/dat. sg. han-en and Gothic han-in(s) versus OE han-an, OS han-an/on, OF hon-a, and ON han-a.
  • Shortening of pronominal and adjectival non-feminine dative singulars like ON þeim, OE þǣm~þām, OF thām, and OS thēm, all of which have eliminated the final vowel; contrast Gothic þamma as well as OHG dëmu, dëmo, thëmu, thëmo and the like.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Anthonia Feitsma, 'Democratic' and 'elitist' trends and a Frisian standard, in: Andrew R. Linn, Nicola McLelland (eds.), Standardization: Studies from the Germanic Languages, 2002, p. 205 ff., here p. 205
  2. ^ "Ingvaeonic". CollinsDictionary.com. HarperCollins. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  3. ^ Kaiser 2021, p. 34.
  4. ^ a b Wolf 2022.
  5. ^ a b Fulk 2018, p. 18.
  6. ^ Stiles 2013, pp. 19–20.
  7. ^ Nielsen 2001, p. 512.
  8. ^ Rübekeil 2017, pp. 997–998.
  9. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 26.
  10. ^ a b Van Bree 2013, p. 105.
  11. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 27–28.
  12. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 29–31.
  13. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 31–32.
  14. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 32–33.
  15. ^ de Vaan 2017, pp. 87–88.
  16. ^ Voyles 1971, p. 142.
  17. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 86–87.
  18. ^ de Vaan 2017, p. 87.
  19. ^ Stiles 2017, pp. 418–419.
  20. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 139–141.
  21. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 72.
  22. ^ a b c Rübekeil 2017, p. 997.
  23. ^ Stiles 2013, p. 20.
  24. ^ Krogmann 1970, p. 236.
  25. ^ Zhirmunski 2010, pp. 443–444.
  26. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 142–145.
  27. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 145–146.
  28. ^ Foerste 1957, p. 1743.
  29. ^ Krogmann 1970, pp. 237–238.
  30. ^ Zhirmunski 2010, pp. 442–443.
  31. ^ de Vaan 2017, pp. 217–230.
  32. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 146–155.
  33. ^ Krogmann 1970, p. 237.
  34. ^ de Vaan 2017, pp. 203–215.
  35. ^ a b c Stiles 2013, p. 18.
  36. ^ Fulk 2018, pp. 130–131.
  37. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 203–214.
  38. ^ Krogmann 1970, pp. 239–240.
  39. ^ Lasch 1974, p. 178.
  40. ^ Krogmann 1970, p. 240.
  41. ^ Lasch 1974, pp. 180–184.
  42. ^ Versloot & Adamczyk 2017, p. 144.
  43. ^ van Loon 2003, p. 145.
  44. ^ Gallée 1993, pp. 153–154.
  45. ^ Zhirmunski 2010, p. 440.
  46. ^ van Loon 2003, p. 141.
  47. ^ Zhirmunski 2010, pp. 140–141.
  48. ^ van Loon 2003, p. 166.
  49. ^ Versloot & Adamczyk 2017, p. 129.
  50. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 170–172.
  51. ^ Versloot & Adamczyk 2017, p. 142.
  52. ^ a b Kroghe 2013, p. 158–159. Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTEKroghe2013158–159" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  53. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 77.
  54. ^ Stiles 2013, pp. 17–18.
  55. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 158–160.
  56. ^ Stiles 2013, p. 19.
  57. ^ a b Wiesinger 1983a, p. 824.
  58. ^ Van Bree 2013, p. 118.
  59. ^ Lasch 1974, pp. 226–227.
  60. ^ Foerste 1957, p. 1734.
  61. ^ Van Bree 2020, pp. 114–115.
  62. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 93–95.
  63. ^ Van Bree 2020, p. 117.
  64. ^ Frings 1916, pp. 212–213, 239.
  65. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, p. 161.
  66. ^ Euler 2022, p. 79.
  67. ^ Versloot 2016, pp. 466.
  68. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 114–116.
  69. ^ a b Voyles 1971, p. 143.
  70. ^ van Kemenade 1994, p. 120.
  71. ^ Versloot 2016.
  72. ^ Foerste 1957, p. 1782.
  73. ^ Dingeldein 1983, p. 1200.
  74. ^ Krogmann 1970a, p. 193, 203.
  75. ^ van der Wal & Quak 1994, p. 75.
  76. ^ Adamczyk 2022, p. 409.
  77. ^ Van Bree 2020, p. 155.
  78. ^ Adamczyk 2022, pp. 409–410.
  79. ^ Klein 2013, p. 169.
  80. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 176.
  81. ^ Euler 2022, pp. 106–107.
  82. ^ Klein 2013, pp. 170–183.
  83. ^ Klein 2013, pp. 187–189.
  84. ^ Foerste 1957, p. 1811.
  85. ^ Adamczyk 2022, p. 416.
  86. ^ Klein 2013, pp. 190–192.
  87. ^ Voyles 1971, p. 142-143.
  88. ^ Fulk 2018, pp. 191–192.
  89. ^ Van Bree 2020, p. 253-259.
  90. ^ Frings & Lerchner 1966, pp. 70–71, 77.
  91. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 188.
  92. ^ Harbert 2007, p. 179.
  93. ^ König 1994, p. 155.
  94. ^ Van Bree 2013, p. 116.
  95. ^ Harbert 2007, pp. 179–180.
  96. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, p. 165.
  97. ^ Van Bree 2020, p. 256.
  98. ^ Fulk 2018, pp. 182–183, 186.
  99. ^ Howe 1996, p. 207.
  100. ^ Howe 1996, p. 105-107.
  101. ^ Foerste 1957, p. 1733.
  102. ^ Howe 1996, p. 255.
  103. ^ Lasch 1974, pp. 211–214.
  104. ^ Stiles 2013, p. 24.
  105. ^ Ringe & Taylor 2014, pp. 165–166.
  106. ^ Stiles 2013, pp. 21–23.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The form Gans is found in the East Low German dialects.[30]
  2. ^ Forms with reflexes similar to those in Frisian are also found in some early Old Saxon texts.[51]
  3. ^ In many Low Franconian varieties (including standard Dutch), the historical second person plural form has acquired a singular function (e.g. standard Dutch jij maakt 'you (sg.) make'), and a new plural has formed, taking the ending -en. This change has produced a secondary unitary plural that is historically unrelated to the Low Saxon unitary plural.[58]
  4. ^ In Dutch, h- has subsequently spread from the masculine subject form hij to the object form hem as well as the feminine/plural object/possessive form haer (attested in Old Low Franconian as iro). Both it and het/hit "it" are attested in Middle Dutch.[89]
  5. ^ Howe connects the change to the loss of final -z (-r) on the dative pronominal forms, noting that the Scandinavian languages that undergo this change have also generalized the dative form.[100]

Works cited

[edit]
  • Adamczyk, Elżbieta (2022). "Plural inflection in varieties of Dutch: Patterns of restructuring and geographical redistribution". Nederlandse Taalkunde. 27 (3): 394–427. doi:10.5117/NEDtAA2022.3.005.ADAM.
  • Bloemhoff, Henk; Niebaum, Hermann; Twilhaar, Jan Nijen; Scholtmeijer, Harrie (2013a). "Low Saxon phonology". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 454–475. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.454.
  • Van Bree, Cor (2013). "The spectrum of spatial varieties of Dutch: The historical genesis". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 100–128. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.81.
  • Van Bree, Cor (2020). Leerboek voor de historische grammatica van het Nederlands - Deel 2: Flexie woordvorming (2 ed.). Universitet Leiden.
  • Dingeldein, Heinrich J. (1983). "Spezielle Pluralbildungen in den deutschen Dialekten". In Besch, Werner (ed.). Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 1196–1202. doi:10.1515/9783110203332-006.
  • Euler, Wolfram (2022). Das Westgermanische. Seine Rekonstruktion von der Herausbildung im 3. Jahrhundert bis zur Aufgliederung im 7. Jahrhundert (2 ed.). Verlag Inspiration Unlimited. ISBN 978-945127-414. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
  • Franck, Johannes (1910). Mittelniederländische Grammatik (2 ed.). Tauchnitz.
  • Fischer, Hanna (2024). "Von der Flexion in die Wortbildung und darüber hinaus. Zur diachronen Entwicklung des s-Suffixes im Deutschen". Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik. 52 (2): 257–286. doi:10.1515/zgl-2024-2013.
  • Foerste, William (1957). "Geschichte der niederdeutschen Mundarten". In Wolfgang Stammler (ed.). Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt. pp. 1729–1898.
  • Frings, Theodor (1916). "Mittelfränkisch-niedererfränkische Studien". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. 41: 193–271. doi:10.1515/bgsl.1916.1916.41.193.
  • Frings, Theodor; Lerchner, Gotthard (1966). Niederländisch und Niederdeutsch: Aufbau und Gliederung des Niederdeutschen. Akademie Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783112701034.
  • Fulk, R. D. (2018-09-15). A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages. Studies in Germanic Linguistics. Vol. 3. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/sigl.3. ISBN 978-90-272-6313-1. S2CID 165765984.
  • Gallée, Johan Hendrik (1993). Altsächsische Grammatik. Mit Berichtigungen und Literaturnachträgen. Nach Wendelin Försters letzter Ausgabe in Auswahl bearbeitet und mit Einleitung und Glossar versehen (3 ed.). Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110920147.
  • Harbert, Wayne (2007). The Germanic Languages. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80825-5.
  • Härd, John Evert (1980). "Mittelniederdeutsch". In Hans Peter Althaus; Helmut Henne; Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.). Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Berlin, New York: Max Niemeyer. pp. 584–588. doi:10.1515/9783110960846.584.
  • Howe, Stephen (1996). The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages: A Study of Personal Pronoun Morphology and Change in the Germanic Languages from the First Records to the Present Day. de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110819205.
  • Kaiser, Livia (2021). Runes Across the North Sea from the Migration Period and Beyond: An Annotated Edition of the Old Frisian Runic Corpus. de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110728224.
  • van Kemenade, Ans (1994). "Old and Middle English". In König, Ekkehard; van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). The Germanic Languages. Routledge. pp. 110–141.
  • Klein, Thomas (2013). "Zum r-Plural im Westgermanischen". NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution. 66 (2): 169–196. doi:10.1075/nowele.66.2.03kle.
  • König, Werner (1994). dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache (10 ed.). Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
  • Kroghe, Steffen (2013). "Die Anfänge des Altsächsischen". NOWELE. 66 (2): 141–168. doi:10.1075/nowele.66.2.02kro.
  • Krogmann, Willy (1970). "ALTSÄCHSISCH UND MITTELNIEDERDEUTSCH". In Schmitt, Ludwig E. (ed.). Kurzer Grundriß der germanischen Philologie bis 1500. Band 1: Sprachgeschichte. de Gruyter. pp. 211–252. doi:10.1515/9783110822717.211.
  • Krogmann, Willy (1970a). "Altfriesisch". In Schmitt, Ludwig E. (ed.). Kurzer Grundriß der germanischen Philologie bis 1500. Band 1: Sprachgeschichte. de Gruyter. pp. 190–210. doi:10.1515/9783110822717.190.
  • Lasch, Agathe (1974). Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik (2 ed.). Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111393124.
  • van Loon, Jozef (2003). "De Chronologie van de R-Metathesis In Het Nederlands En Aangranzende Germaanse Talen". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 57 (1): 141–167. doi:10.1163/18756719-90000136.
  • Niebaum, Hermann; Macha, Jürgen (2014). Enführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110338713.
  • Niebaum, Hermann; Macha, Jürgen (2014). Enführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110338713.
  • Nielsen, Hans Frede (1989). The Germanic Languages: Origins and Early Dialectal Interrelations. The University of Alabama Press.
  • Nielsen, Hans Frede (2001). "Frisian and the Grouping of the Older Germanic Languages". In Munske, Horst Haider; Århammar, Nils; Faltings, Volker F.; Hoekstra, Jarich F.; Vries, Oebele; Walker, Alastair G.H.; Wilts, Ommo (eds.). Handbuch des Friesischen. Niemeyer. pp. 512–523. doi:10.1515/9783110946925.512.
  • Paul, Hermann; Wiehl, Peter; Grosse, Siegfried (1998). Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (24 ed.). Niemeyer.
  • Rabanus, Stefan (2005). "Dialektwandel im 20. Jahrhundert. Verbalplural in Südwestdeutschland". In Eggers, Eckhard; Schmidt, Jürgen Erich; Stellmacher, Dieter (eds.). Moderne Dialekte – Neue Dialektologie. Akten des 1. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD) am Forschungsinstitut für deutsche Sprache „Deutscher Sprachatlas“ der Philipps-Universität Marburg vom 5.–8. März 2003. Stuttgart: Steiner. pp. 267–290. hdl:11562/23971.
  • Ringe, Donald; Taylor, Ann (2014). The Development of Old English – A Linguistic History of English, vol. II. United States of America: Oxford University Press.
  • Rübekeil, Ludwig (2017). "The dialectology of Germanic". Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2. de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 986–1002. doi:10.1515/9783110523874-013.
  • Stiles, Patrick V. (2013-01-01). "The Pan-West Germanic Isoglosses and the Subrelationships of West Germanic to Other Branches". NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution. 66 (1): 5–38. doi:10.1075/nowele.66.1.02sti. ISSN 0108-8416.
  • Stiles, Patrick V. (2017). "The Comparative Method, Internal Reconstruction, Areal Norms and the West Germanic Third Person Pronoun". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 77: 410–441. doi:10.1163/18756719-12340083.
  • van der Wal, Marijke J.; Quak, Aad (1994). "Old and Middle Continental Germanic". In König, Ekkehard; van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). The Germanic Languages. Routledge. pp. 72–109.
  • de Vaan, Michiel (2017). The Dawn of Dutch: Language contact in the Western Low Countries before 1200. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/nss.30.
  • Versloot, Arjen (2016). "Die Endungen -os/-as und -a des Nominativ/Akkusativ Plurals der a-Stämme im Altsächsischen". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 76 (4): 464–477. doi:10.1163/18756719-12340052.
  • Versloot, Arjen; Adamczyk, Elżbieta (2017). "The Geography and Dialects of Old Saxon: River-basin communication networks and the distributional patterns of North Sea Germanic features in Old Saxon". In Hines, John; IJssennagger-van der Pluijm, Nelleke (eds.). Frisians and their North Sea Neighbours: From the Fifth Century to the Viking Age. Boydell and Brewer. pp. 125–148. doi:10.1515/9781787440630-014.
  • Voyles, Joseph B. (1971). "The Problem of West Germanic". Folia Linguistica Historica. 5 (1–2): 117–150. doi:10.1515/flin.1969.5.1-2.117.
  • Weijnen, A. (1958). Nederlandse dialectkunde (PDF). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.
  • Wiesinger, Peter (1983a). "Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte". In Besch, Werner (ed.). Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 807–900. doi:10.1515/9783110203332-003.
  • Wiesinger, Peter (2017a) [1975]. "Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch". In Wiesinger, Peter; Patocka, Franz (eds.). Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. pp. 341–437.
  • Wolf, Henk (2022) [2013]. "Nordseegermanisch". Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (WSK) Online. de Gruyter.
  • Zhirmunski, Viktor M. (2010). Naidich, Larissa (ed.). Deutsche Mundartkunde. Peter Lang.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ermenrich/sandbox&oldid=1258778132"