The Determination of Stages in the Historical Development of the Germanic Languages by Morphological Criteria: An Evaluation [Reprint 2017 ed.]
 9027923892, 9789027923899

Table of contents :

Citation preview



Indiana University

Series Practica,




by K A R E N R.



© Copyright 1973 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.


Printed in Hungary


I should like to express my appreciation to Dr. Elmer H. Antonsen, who has shown interest in this book since its inception, for his wise guidance and helpful suggestions. His comments and encouragement were a constant source of inspiration. I am also indebted to Dr. Robert Howren for his suggestions and assistance in setting up the rules in the phrase structure. Finally, I should like to thank my husband, Donald, for his patience and help in proofreading.


Acknow ledgement








0. Introduction


1. History of the Problem


2. Phonological Development 2.1. Proto-Germanic 2.2. Gothic 2.3. Northwest Germanic 2.4. West Germanic 2.5. Old High German (East Frankish) 2.6. Old Saxon 2.7. Old English (West Saxon) 2.8. Common Nordic

51 51 53 54 56 57 60 62 64

3. Morphology 3.1. Methodology 3.2. Symbols 3.3. Noun Phrase Structure 3.4. Adjective Phrase Structure 3.41. Strong Adjectives 3.42. Weak Adjectives .3.5. Verb Phrase Structure

67 67 70 72 82 82 84 84



3.6. Transformations 3.61. Proto-Germanie 3.62. Gothic 3.63. Northwest Germanic 3.64. Old English (West Saxon) 3.65. Old Saxon 3.66. Old High German (East Frankish) 3.67. Common Nordic 4. Dialectal Paradigms 4.1. Explanation of Tables 4.2. Noun Paradigms (Tables 19—30) 4.21. ft'Jo-stems (Tables 19—22) 4.211. Masculine o-stems (Table 19) 4.212. Neuter o-stems (Table 20) 4.213. Masculine jo-stems (Table 21) 4.214. Neuter jo-stems (Table 22) 4.22. (j)a-stems (Tables 23 and 24) 4.221. a-stems (Table 23) 4.222. jo-stems (Table 24) 4.23. ¿-stems (Table 25) 4.231. Gothic 4.232. Old Saxon 4.233. Old High German 4.234. Old Icelandic 4.235. Old English 4.24. «-stems (Table 26) 4.25. Consonant-stems (Table 27) 4.26. »-stems (Tables 28—30) 4.261. Masculine »-stems (Table 28) 4.262. Feminine »-stems (Table 29) 4.263. Neuter »-stems (Table 30) 4.3. Adjective Paradigms (Tables 31—36) 4.31. Strong Adjectives (Tables 31—33) 4.311. Strong Masculine Adjective (Table 31) 4.312. Strong Feminine Adjective (Table 32) 4.313. Strong Neuter Adjective (Table 33) 4.32. Weak Adjectives (Tables 34—36) 4.321. Weak Masculine Adjective (Table 34) 4.322. Weak Feminine Adjective (Table 35) 4.323. Weak Neuter Adjective (Table 36) 4.4. Pronouns (Tables 37—39). . 4,41, First Person Pronoun (Table 37)

96 96 102 105 108 112 114 117 123 123 123 123 123 125 127 127 127 127 132 132 132 133 133 133 136 137 137 142 142 145 145 146 146 146 148 148 151 151 151 151 152 153


4.42. Second Person Pronoun (Table 38) 4.43. Third Person Pronouns (Table 39) 4.5. Verb Paradigms (Tables 40—49) 4.51. Strong Verbs (Tables 40—44) 4.511. Present Indicative (Table 40) 4.512. Present Subjunctive (Table 41) 4.513. Imperative (Table 42) 4.514. Past Indicative (Table 43) 4.515. Past Subjunctive (Table 44) 4.52. Weak Verbs (Tables 4 5 - 4 9 ) 4.521. Present Indicative (Table 45) 4.522. Present Subjunctive (Table 46) 4.523. Imperative (Table 47) 4.524. Past Indicative (Table 48) 4.525. Past Subjunctive (Table 49)


153 155 157 157 157 162 162 164 166 169 169 171 171 176 176

5. Conclusion 5.1. The Value of Morphological Criteria 5.2. The Priority of Phonological Criteria 5.3. Diagrammatic Representations of the Development of Germanic.

181 181 190 202



Author index


Subject index



1. Changing Relationships of t h e Germanic Languages According to Forstemann . 25 2. Comparison of "Urnordisch" and Gothic Inflectional Endings 32 3. Features Signifying t h e Dissolution of West Germanic Community 41 4. Changing Relationships Within t h e Germanic Community 42 6. Prehistoric Stages of Germanic According t o Antonsen 44 6. Proto-Germanic Short Vowel System 52 7. Proto-Germanic Long Vowel System 52 8. Gothic Short Vowel System 53 9. Gothic Long Vowel System 54 10. Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic Short Vowel Systems 55 11. Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic Long Vowel Systems 56 12. Effects of t h e High German Consonant Shift 58 13. Northwest Germanic and Old High German Short Vowel Systems 58 14. Northwest Germanic and Old High German Long Vowel Systems 69 15. Northwest Germanic and Old Saxon Long Vowel Systems 61 16. Northwest Germanic and West Saxon Short Vowel Systems 63 17. Northwest Germanic and Old English Long Vowel Systems 64 18. Common Nordic Short and Long Vowel Systems 65 19. Masculine o-stems 124 20. Neuter o-stems 126 21. Masculine jo-stems 128 22. Neuter jo-stems 129 23. Feminine a-stems 130 24. Feminine ^o-stems 131 25. ¿-stems 134 26. w-stems 138 27. Consonant-stems 140 28. Masculine w-stems 143 29. Feminine n-stems 144 30. Neuter n-stems 146 31. Strong Masculine Adjective 147 32. Strong Feminine Adjective 149 33. Strong Neuter Adjective 150 34. Weak Masculine Adjective 160 36. W e a k Feminine Adjective 162 36. Weak Neuter Adjective 162



37. First Person Pronoun 38. Second Person Pronoun 39. Areal Distribution of Third Person Pronouns (Demonstrative and Personal) According to Moskal'skaja 40. Present Indicative of Strong Verbs 41. Present Subjunctive of Strong Verbs 42. Imperative of Strong Verbs 43. Past Indicative of Strong Verbs 44. Past Subjunctive of Strong Verbs 45. Present Indicative of Weak Verbs 46. Present Subjunctive of Weak Verbs 47. Imperative of Weak Verbs 48. Past Indicative of Weak Verbs 49. Past Subjunctive of Weak Verbs 50. Northwest Germanic Phonological System 51. Old English (West Saxon) Phonological System 52. Old Saxon Phonological System 53. Old High German (East Prankish) Phonological System 54. Common Nordic Phonological System 55. Development Leading to Old English 56. Development Leading to Old Saxon 57. Penzl's Reconstructed Phases of the Old High German Consonant Shift . . . . 58. Development Leading to Old High German 59. Development Leading to Common Nordic

154 155 156 158 163 165 166 168 170 172 173 174 177 194 195 196 197 198 199 199 200 200 201


1. Schleicher's Stammbaum 2. Germanic Interrelationships According to Borchling 3. Germanic Interrelationships According to Maurer 4. Division of Germanic Languages According to Jungandreas 5. Early Division of Germanic Community According to Schwarz 6. Division of Germanic Community, 3rd Century A. D., According to Schwarz 7. Division of Germanic Dialects According to Adamus 8. Development of Subgroups from Protolanguage 9. IsoglosseB Representing General Differences in Composition of Grammatical Forms 10. Isoglosses Representing Differences in the Leveling of Doublet Forms Arising from Ablaut 11. Isoglosses Representing Differences in the Leveling of Doublet Forms Arising from Verner's Law 12. Diagrammatic Representation of the Development of the Germanic Dialects . . 13. Diagrammatic Representation of Minor Dialect Areas Within Northwest Germanic

24 33 35 36 38 38 40 48 187 188 189 202 203


sing pi nom gen dat aco Goth IE NWGmc OE OHG Olcel OS PGmc

singular plural nominative genitive dative aoousative Gothic Indo-European Northwest Germanic Old English Old High German Old Icelandic Old Saxon Proto-Germanic

See also 3.2. Symbols, p. 70, and the special abbreviations used in the Rules beginning at 3.3. Noun Phrase Structure.


For approximately two centuries, scholars have occupied themselves with the question of the relationship of the Germanic languages to each other. Early investigators, such as Adelung, Rask, and Grimm, suggested that certain language groups were more closely related to each other than to others. With time and with greater understanding of the processes of linguistic change, more theories have emerged, some based on phonological evidence, some based on morphological evidence, some on combinations of both. Attempts have also been made to link linguistic and archeological-anthropological evidence, and thereby to establish connections between ancient dialects and the tribal groups in the Germanic area. The first chapter deals with brief sketches of the main theories of the development and relationships of the Germanic languages, which have been proposed by previous investigators. Recently, a number of scholars have attempted to delimit the prehistoric stages of Germanic by internal reconstruction. While most of the work has been done on the phonological level, critics have suggested t h a t morphological evidence might be equally as valid. The purpose of this study is to consider both phonological and morphological evidence in order to determine the best means of delimiting the stages of development of the Germanic languages and thus establish their relationship to each other. I n Chapter 2, the phonological development is traced from Proto-Germanic into each of five dialects: Gothic, Old English (West Saxon), Old Saxon, Old High German (East Frankish), and Common Nordic. The study of the morphological development of the Germanic languages is based on this foundation. Often because of inconsistency in the treatment of the various morphological systems, incompatible hypotheses have sometimes been proposed. For the purpose of avoiding contradictions and inconsistencies, a rigid methodology is to be sought. Due to an inherent inflexibility, the model of the generative grammar provides the desired methodological severity in dealing with the development of Germanic morphology. Chapter 3 contains a limited generative grammar of Proto-Germanic. Through morphophonemic transformations, the



development of the main noun, adjective, and verb paradigms is traced into the dialects mentioned above. The final composition of the paradigmatic systems in the Germanic dialects was not entirely determined by phonological development. Other factors, such as analogy and paradigmatic leveling, also played an important role. Consequently, Chapter 4 is devoted to a comparison of the forms generated by the grammar and those actually attested in each of the dialects. Whenever the attested form differs from the generated one, an attempt is made to explain the discrepancy. In Chapter 5, the morphological evidence is compared with the evidence of phonology in order to determine the best criteria for the delimitation of the Germanic dialects and their stages of development. Finally, certain isoglosses are suggested, which mark the periods of development from ProtoGermanic to the emergence of independent dialects.


The attempts during the last two hundred years to delimit the Germanic languages, to trace their development, and to express the varying relationships between them present a complex and often confusing picture. The approaches to the problem differ as greatly as the conclusions which have been drawn. In the following, I have attempted to summarize the main ideas and proposals of the various scholars. In 1776, Karl Friedrich Fulda (Sammlung und Abstammung Oermanischer Wurzelwörter) proposed a historical division of the Germanic languages into a "high" group and a "low" group. The former, he suggests, included the High German and Scandinavian dialects, while the latter consisted of Frisian, Low Frankish, and Saxon.1 Using the name "Deutsche" to designate the Germanic peoples, J. C. Adelung, another of the earliest grammarians to speculate on the division of the Germanic languages, notes in his Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache (1782) that the numerous tribes in the earliest history of the people had their own dialects.2 Though Adelung recognizes the greater age of "McesoGothic", he does not consider it to be the mother tongue of the Germanic dialects, as other scholars later did. Rather, he regards it as a language closely related to High German (p. 21). Several years later in his Mithridates (1808), Adelung notes that the relationship between the modern Germanic languages goes far back into history. Now employing the term "Germanen", he explains its use as follows: Ich nehme das Wort, wie bereits andere vor mir gethan haben, in seiner weitesten Bedeutung, so dass es alle an Herkunft, Sitten und Sprache genau verwandte Völker umfasst,


Karl Friedrich Fulda, Sammlung und Abstammung Germanischer WurzelwSrter (Halle, 1776), pp. 3—4. * Johann Christoph Adelung, Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache, zur Erläuterung der Deutschen Sprachlehre für Schulen 1 (Leipzig, 1782), p. 17.



welche in den frühesten Zeiten von der Donau in Süden, bis in den äussersten Norden, und von dem Rheine in Westen bis an und über die Weichsel wohnten. 3

Proceeding from the languages spoken, Adelung assumes a two-way division of the Germanic tribes, one with a "higher" and one with a "lower" language. Only the southern German area belongs to the former, while the latter encompasses northern Germany, the Netherlands, and all of the North. However, for his own purposes, Adelung divides the languages further into a southern or "German" (Deutsch) and a northern or Scandinavian group (p. 175). The southern Germanic tribes, according to Adelung, were divided from the very beginning into two groups, the "Swabian" in the East, who spoke the "higher" language, and the "Cimbrian" in the West, who spoke the "lower" language (pp. 1 7 6 - 7 7 ) . I t is interesting to note t h a t Adelung considers Gothic to be one of the older languages of the "Upper German" tribes, i.e. a "higher" language (p. 183). H e believes t h a t Scandinavia was settled by speakers of the "lower" language, b u t t h a t the Goths and Herulians may have caused a mixing of the dialects (pp. 294—95). English, "eine sehr ausgeartete Germanische Tochter", developed, he says, from the language of the Angles and the Saxons, but was influenced by Danish, and is thus related both to Scandinavian and to "German" (pp. 316— 17). Rasmus Rask took offense at Adelung's calling the Nordic languages "Germanic" 4 and at his considering them part of Low German (p. 108). Rask advocates dividing the languages first into Nordic (Scandinavian) and "German" (Deutsch, Germanisch), with the latter divided into two lesser groups, Lower and Upper German (p. 112). According to Rask, only one language dominated in the north, which was similar to modern Icelandic (p. 113). I n his Vejledning til det Islandske eller gamle Nordiske Sprog (1811), Rask proposes using the term Gothic (Gotisk) to designate the entire language family to which both "German" and Nordic belong. H e prefers this name to "Germanic", because the latter was never used by the dwellers of the North in reference to themselves. Rask explains: Goter derimod er det eneste betydelige Folk, hvoraf vi finde sikre Spor baade i Norden og Syden, og hvis Sprog vi paa begge Steder vide at have vaeret aegte Grene af hin store


Johann Christoph Adelung, Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachkunde 2 (Berlin, 1809) pp. 167—68. * Raamus Kristian Rask, "Bemerkungen über die skandinavischen Sprachen, veranlasst durch das 2. Theil des Adelungschen Mithridates", Zeitung für Litteratur und Kunst in den königl. Dänischen Staaten 3. (Kiel, 1809), p. 14b; reprinted in Rask's Udvalgte Afhandlinger 2, ed., Louis Hjelmslev (Copenhagen, 1932), p. 108.



Sprogstamme; det synes derfor den eneste bekveme Foreningspunkt, hvoraf et faelles N a v e n k a n tages. 5

Danish, Bask explains, although strongly influenced by "German", is rightfully a daughter of Icelandic (p. xvii). As characteristics which distinguish Nordic from "German", he lists the enclitic article, a special passive form, the infinitive ending in a vowel, and lexical similarities (p. xviii). Rask reaffirms his manner of dividing the Germanic languages in Undersogelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandsice Sprogs Oprindelse (1818). Next to Old Norse there was the Germanic language, which had two branches, Saxon and German. To the former he reckons Old Frisian, modern Dutch, Low German, Anglo-Saxon, and modern English; to the latter, "Mceso-Gothic" and modern High German.6 Anglo-Saxon was most closely related to Old Norse, Rask says, because of the influence of the Norsemen on the language of the people they conquered (pp. 81—82). The controversy was continued with the appearance of Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik. In the introduction to the first volume, Grimm comments about the terminology: Ich bediene mich, wie jeder sieht, des Ausdrucks d e u t s c h allgemein, so dass er auch die nordischen Sprachen einbegreift. Viele würden das W o r t g e r m a n i s c h vorgezogen und unter seine Allgemeinheit das Deutsche und Nordische als das Besondere gestellt haben. Da indessen nordische Gelehrte neuerdings förmliche Einsprache dawider t h u n , dass ihr Volksstamm ein germanischer sey, so soll ihnen die Theilnahme an diesem seit der Römerzeit ehrenvollen N a m e n so wenig aufgedrungen werden, als der von ihnen vorgeschlagene allgemeine r g o t h i s c h gebilligt werden kann. Die Gothen bilden einen sehr bestimmten S t a m m , nach dem m a n unmöglich andere Stämme benennen darf. D e u t s c h bleibt d a n n die einzige allgemeine, kein einzelnes Volk bezeichnende Benennung. Von seinem Ursprung zu reden, ist hier nicht der Ort. Dass sich die Norden selbst nicht Deutsche heissen, sondern ihnen entgegensetzen, m a c h t keinen gründlichen Einwurf, da sich auch die offenkundig aus aus [sie] Angeln und Sachsen gewanderten Engländer, weder Deutsche, noch einmal Germanen nennen. 7

Grimm's picture of the division of the tribes is somewhat different from Rask's: 5

"The Goths, on t h e other h a n d , are t h e only significant people, of whom we find sure traces both in t h e N o r t h and South, and whose language in both places we know t o have been genuine branches of t h a t old language t r u n k ; it seems, therefore, t h e only convenient point of union, f r o m which a common n a m e can be t a k e n . " R a s m u s Kristian Rask, Vejledning til det Islandske eller gamle Nordiske Sprog (Copenhagen, 1811), p. viii. Later, R a s k expressed t h e same views in t h e introduction t o his Anvisning till Isländskan eller Nordiska Fornspr&ket (Stockholm, 1818). 6 R a s m u s Kristian R a s k , Undersogelse om Det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sproga Oprindelse (Copenhagen, 1818), p. 65; reprinted in Udvalgte Afhandlinger 1, pp. 80—81. ' J a c o b Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik 1, (Göttingen, 1819), p. xxxviii.



Die vier grossen Stämme zeigen sich unter einander in mehrfachem Verhältniss. So stehen der erste (gothische) und zweite (hochdeutsche) in unleugbar niherer Verwandtschaft gegenüber dem dritten (niederdeutschen) und vierten (nordischen). Den Uebergang zwischen 2 und 3 vermitteln die Franken; zwischen 3 und 4 Friesen und Angeln; zwischen 1 und 2 (vermuthlich) die Quaden, Markomannen; zwischen 1 und 4 lässt sich gar kein Mittelglied erkennen, aber die grosse Vollkommenheit, worin sich in diesen beiden die alte Sprache geschichtlich erhalten hat, vermittelt die wichtigsten Berührungspuncte. In anderer Rücksicht darf m a n auch die drei ersten Stämme dem einzigen vierten entgegenstellen (p. Ii). G r i m m later a p p r o a c h e d t h e p r o b l e m b y discussing b o t h Tacitus' division o f t h e Germanic tribes (Invaeones [sic], l i v i n g o n t h e o c e a n ; Herminones [sic], t h e m i d d l e group; a n d Iscaevonen [sic], covering t h e rest of t h e Germanic tribes) a n d t h a t of P l i n y ( Vindili, Ingvcevones [sic], Isccevcevones [sic], Hermiones [sic], Peucini). H o w e v e r , h e refuses t o c o n n e c t t h e m w i t h t h e " G e r m a n " dialects: F r a g t es sich nun nach dem unterschied deutscher dialekte, so ist klar, dasz dieser nicht weder in den dreitheiligen noch fünftheiligen der stamme aufgehn kann; sie mögen blosz nebenbei zugezogen werden, um den gang der dialekte zu ermitteln. 8 Grimm proposes t h a t all dialects s t e m m e d f r o m o n e source: alle mundarten und dialekte entfalten sich vorschreitend und je weiter m a n in der Sprache zurückschaut, desto geringer ist ihre zahl, desto schwächer ausgeprägt sind sie. ohne diese annahme würde überhaupt der ursprung der dialekte, wie der Vielheit der sprachen unbegreiflich sein, alle manigfaltigkeit ist allmählich aus einer anfänglichen einheit entsprossen und wie sämtliche deutsche dialekte zu einer gemeinschaftlichen deutschen spräche der vorzeit verhält sich die deutsche gesamtsprache wiederum als dialekt neben dem litthauischen, slavischen zu einer altern Ursprache (p. 578). H e considers G o t h i c t o b e t h e m o s t archaic a n d richest i n forms of all t h e Germ a n i c dialects. I n o p p o s i t i o n t o R a s k , however, h e perceives a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n S c a n d i n a v i a n a n d t h e s o u t h e r n Germanic languages: der grelle abstand der heutigen dänischen und schwedischen rede von hochdeutscher und niederländischer schwindet mit jedem schritt, den wir in das nordische alterthum zurück t h u n können, zwei vorstechende eigenheiten, artikelsuffix und übertritt der medialen intrasitivform in strenges passivum erscheinen früher seltner und müssen in noch tieferer vorzeit fast ganz unterblieben sein, das R der flexionen s t a t t des goth. S, der Wegfall des auslautenden N sind eben so sicher erst zu bestimmter zeit eingetretne abweichungen von dem ursprünglichen typus als die ahd. laut Verschiebung auf die gothische und diese auf den getischen stand der stummen consonanten zurückweist (p. 579). I n 1837 K a s p a r Zeuss also u s e s t h e t e s t i m o n y of T a c i t u s i n his i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e relationship of t h e Germanic tribes a n d their languages. T o t h e t h r e e groups m e n t i o n e d b y T a c i t u s , interpreted b y Zeuss as t h e Herminen, Ingaeven, a n d Istaeven, h e a d d s t h e Hillevionen, m e a n i n g t h e S c a n d i n a v i a n peoples. 8

Jacob Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache!* 1, (Leipzig, 1880), p . 578.



However, since the latter were separated by the sea, Zeuss adds that they can be considered as a second major group in contrast with the first major group composed of the former three.9 In connection with the language of these peoples, Zeuss makes the following classifications. The language of the Goths (Istaeven) is to be considered as a separate dialect from that of the Upper German peoples (Herminen), although the language of the latter was close to that of the Goths. Later, the Herminic language branch, "ursprünglich wohl gleich", was divided into High German, Old Saxon, and Old Frankish. The language of the third group (Ingaeven) later became Anglo-Saxon and Old Frisian. Thus, Zeuss assumes an early division of the Germanic languages into a Nordic (Scandinavian) and a "German" (Deutsch) group (p. 79). In tracing the origin of the Germanic languages, August Schleicher establishes three periods: the Indo-European period, the Slavo-German (Slavodeutsch) period, and the period of the "deutsche Grundsprache".10 The last period, according to Schleicher, began with the separation of the one language into several dialects and has continued up to the present. The separation was threefold: a Gothic, a Nordic, and a German branch. Gothic, in Schleicher's opinion, was closest to the original Germanic language. The "German" branch was early divided into two main branches. Further branchings are illustrated in Figure 1. Schleicher also sees a closer connection both in vocabulary and in grammar between Gothic and Nordic. His chief grammatical criterion is the formation of the second singular past indicative of the strong verb: -t in Gothic and Nordic, -e in "German" (pp. 90—95). Since we are concerned only with the language of the Germanic peoples and how the Germanic linguistic community disintegrated, Schleicher's opinion about the nonlinguistic division of the Germanic tribes is still valid today: Die geschichtliche Seite, die Frage nach dem Volke selbst, nach dem Weiterbilden seines geistigen Lebens in diesen vorhistorischen Perioden, nach den Sitzen, die es inne hatte, und den Wanderungen, die es zurücklegte, lassen wir bei Seite, da wir hier vor der Hand kaum Vermuthungen wagen könnten (p. 88).

Some years after Schleicher proposed his Stammbaumtheorie, E. Förstemann made certain amendments. He calls the oldest purely Germanic language "Alturdeutsch", which existed until the Gothic language came into being. The following stage, he proposes, was "Mittelurdeutsch", a common language, though already split into dialects, which continued until the ancestors of the Nordic peoples migrated and set their own course of development. Those 8 Kaspar Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme (reprint of first edition of 1837, Heidelberg, 1926), pp. 71 — 78. 10 August Schleicher, Die deutsche Sprache (Stuttgart, 1860), p. 88.





peoples not participating in the migrations to Scandinavia spoke dialects of "Neuurdeutsch" until the division into Low and High German.11 Förstemann's suggestions as to the changing relationships between the branches of the Germanic languages are represented in Table 1. As can be seen from the table, Förstemann considers the Low German group of dialects to be the successor of "Neuurdeutsch": Die nächste stelle nimmt das neuurdeutsche ein, die dann folgende das althochdeutsche, mittel- und neuhochdeutsche und die neueren hochdeutschen dialekte. Was nun noch nach ausscheidung dieses zweiges als Überrest des alten stammes anzusehen ist, bildet die niederdeutsche gruppe, deren Charakteristik am besten mit ihrer zu reconstruirenden grundsprache, der ursächsischen, zu beginnen ist (p. 185).


Deutsche Grundsprache

a — b — c — d — e — f — g — h — i — k — 1—

Gotisch Deutsch Nordisch Hochdeutsch Niederdeutsch in weitern [sie] Sinne Friesisch Sächsisch Angelsächsisch, später Englisch Altsächsisch Plattdeutsch Niederländisch

Figure 1. Schleicher's Stammbaum (1860, p. 94)

With Schleicher and Förstemann, then, one first finds the view that Gothic was more closely related to the Scandinavian dialects than to High German. Also concurring in this point of view was Adolf Holtzmann.12 In 1872, Johannes Schmidt published Die Verwantschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Although he was treating the entire Indo-European language community, his theory of the conditions of mutual influence existing


E . Förstemann, "Alt-, mittel-, neuurdeutsch", Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach-

forschung 12

18 (1869), p p . 163 — 64.

Adolf Holtzmann, Altdeutsche Grammatik (Leipzig, 1870), p, 1,




Changing Eelationships of the Germanic Languages According to Forstemann (1869, p. 186) 1 gegen 2, 3, 4

hohes alter der trennung, zurückbleibendes gegen vordringendes

1, 2 gegen 3, 4

reihenfolge der trennung, ostgermanisch gegen westgermanisch

1, 2, 3 gegen 4

getrennte zweige gegen fortentwickelung des grundstockes

1, 3 gegen 2, 4

Südgermanen gegen Nordgermanen, continentale gegen maritime mundarten, unter letzteren vielfache spätere berührungen

2 gegen 1, 3, 4

dort nähere beziehungen zum finnischen sprachstamm, hier verhältnismässiger mangel derselben

3 gegen 1, 2, 4

dort nähere berührung mit romanischem, hier geringere

1 = Gothic, 2 = Nordic, 3 = High German, 4 = Low German

between languages had a great impact on later studies of the Germanic languages. From this point one begins to find the concept of the development of the Germanic languages not as distinct branches of a "Stammbaum", but as a complicated system of mutually interacting dialects. H. Zimmer (1876) cites certain differences, phonological, grammatical, and lexical, which he feels indicate a division into East and West Germanic, the former including Gothic and Scandinavian. The main phonological criteria offered by Zimmer are the loss of final -s (-z) in West Germanic, the loss of w in the clusters gw, kw, hw in medial and final position, and the correspondence of East Germanic ggv to West Germanic uw.13 Zimmer's grammatical criteria include the presence of the derivational suffix -an in East Germanic (Goth. vato, vatan, Old Norse vatn 'water') as opposed to the West Germanic suffix -ar (Anglo-Saxon vater, OS watar, OHG wa^ar) (p. 414), the existence of a true reflexive in East Germanic (p. 436), and the weak declension of the present participle in East Germanic in contrast with both weak and strong declensions in West Germanic (p. 421). Disagreeing with Zimmer's concept, A. Bezzenberger (1880) chose to emphasize Forstemann's proposal of continued common development of Scandinavian and West Germanic after the Gothic dialect became separated from the main stream. In support of such a division, Bezzenberger cites three points: (1) Goth. 13

H. Zimmer, "Ostgermanisch und Westgermanisch", Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 19 (1876), pp. 397—405.



e = Scandinavian—West Germanic ä, (2) Goth, i, u = Scandinavian—West Germanic e, o, (3) Goth, z (s) = Scandinavian—West Germanic r. In addition, Bezzenberger offers the ¿-umlaut of a as a fourth feature common to Scandinavian and West Germanic. A later division of the non-Gothic group resulted in North Germanic and West Germanic. In answer to the opposing view that Gothic and North Germanic formed an entity, Bezzenberger states that those things which seem to indicate such a relationship prove nur, dass die westgermanischen Dialekte eine Periode gemainsamer Entwicklung durchlebt haben, die zu manchen Neuerungen führte, durch welche ein Gegensatz zwischen ihnen einerseits und dem Nordgermanischen und Gotischen andererseits geschaffen wurde, nicht aber, dass die letztgenannten Dialekte eine besondere Spracheinheit bilden. Das, worin sie übereinstimmen, sind lediglich einige Alterthümlichkeiten, die zufällig in beiden gleichmässig bewahrt sind. 14

Although he notes certain similarities between Gothic and Scandinavian (retention of final z, a weak declension in I, and the class of verbs in -nan), Karl Miillenhoff (1892) remarks that any similarities were u m den anfang unserer Zeitrechnung und in den ersten ihm folgenden Jahrhunderten gewis so gering, dass nicht nur die Westgermanen sich unter einander ohne mühe verständigten, sondern auch mit den Ostgermanen und umgekehrt . . . im lautsystem wie in der stammund Wortbildung, der declination und conjugation stimmen die germanischen sprachen im gründe so sehr überein, dass von u r a l t e r Spaltung und trennung nicht die rede sein kann. 15

However, on the basis of nonlinguistic evidence, above all the testimony of Tacitus and Pliny, Müllenhoff concludes that Scandinavia was settled by Germanic peoples from the Baltic area and sees in this good cause to agree with Zimmer that an East-West division of the Germanic peoples did exist.16 With his concept of "relative Sprachchronologie" in 1885, Otto Bremer attempted to avoid certain anachronisms: (1) comparing forms of a word where one may be older than another, (2) proposing a form of a word which shows two changes (A and C), while a third change (B) was already present before C occurred.17 Although he maintains that a phenomenon shared by several related languages is generally older than one not shared by all, Bremer does not consider Proto-Germanic features proof of a monolithic linguistic 14

A. Bezzenberger, "Die verwandtschaftliche Gruppierung der altgermanischen Dialekte", Nachrichten von der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-AugustsUniversität zu Göttingen (1880), pp. 154—65. 15 Karl Müllenhoff, Der Ursprung der Germanen (Berlin, 1892), pp. 202—03. 16 Karl Müllenhoff, Die Germania des Tacitus (Berlin, 1900), pp. 121 — 23. 17 Otto Bremer, "Relative Sprachchronologie", Indogermanische Forschungen 4 (1894), p. 8.



structure. "Proto-Germanic" is to him an abstract, and he believes in the existence of dialects during this period (p. 10). Gustav Kossina (1897), in maintaining that any conclusions about the division of the Germanic tribes are impossible on a purely linguistic basis, asserts the need for extralinguistic evidence. From archeological material, he determines that the East Germanic peoples originated in Scandinavia. 18 In the period 600 — 300 B.C., the Germanic peoples are considered by Kossina to be quite unified in their language, although he assumes that a slight differentiation did exist between the area of southern Sweden and northern Germany: Ich meine, dass vor der Übersiedlung der Nordgermanen an die Weichsel von einer schärferen Trennung der germanischen Sprache kaum die Rede sein wird. Und doch werden die beiden grossen Länderflächen, Norddeutschland und Südschweden, jede innerhalb ihrer Grenzen unwiderstehlich einigend, d. h. also auch nach aussen hin trennend gewirkt haben (p. 289).

Since the differences were so small, Kossina concludes that Tacitus' three tribal groups refer to all the Germanic people (except the East Germanic tribes, which had already departed from Scandinavia), with the Scandinavians included within the Ingvaeonic group (pp. 307 —10). Contributing little that is new, Karl Brugmann (1897) defends his preference for a three-way division (Gothic, Nordic, and West Germanic) by pointing out that the main criterion for an East-West division, the development of ii and uu into Goth, ddj, Olcel. ggj and Goth. Olcel. ggw respectively, is not supported by the oldest Nordic inscriptions. Instead of the expected *Nigwila, one finds Niuwila.19 Richard Loewe (18£9) cites several additional linguistic features which he believes demonstrate the varying relationships between the Germanic languages. He lists the following innovations shared by Gothic and North Germanic (not including those already presented by earlier investigators): (1) a present participle in -in, (2) loss of verbs tun, gän, stän. Innovations shared by West and North Germanic are (1) PI- > fl-, (2) -o > -u, -o + nasal > -u, (3) loss of -u after a long root, (4) unstressed ai > e, (5) the formation of two new ablaut types from the reduplicating preterit, (6) a demonstrative pronoun in -se, (7) the productive suffixes -inga and -ilinga, -laik, and -skapi. Innovations shared by Gothic and West Germanic include (1) a feminine suffix -injon, (2) the suffix 18 Gustav Kossina, "Die ethnologische Stellung der Ostgermanen", Indogermanische Forschungen 7 (1897), p. 277. 19 Karl Brugmann, Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs• und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen2 1 (Strassburg, 1897), pp. 15—16. Cf. Winfred P. Lehmann, "The Dialects, eds., Henrik Grouping of the Germanic Languages", Ancient Indo-European Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1966), p. 16.



-inassus20 Proceeding on the assumption that "die ethnische und die sprachliche Gliederung der Germanen doch im Grunde mit einander identisch sein mussen" (p. 1), Loewe explains the sharing of the above linguistic features by geographical contact. A geographical connection between North and West Germanic was provided by Jutland and the Danish islands. The Gotho-Nordic innovations can be explained, he says, by their common homeland, while the innovations shared between Gothic and West Germanic stem from the time when the Goths were living on the Vistula and were able to establish connections with the other Germanic tribes to the west (pp. 15—17). This point of view is held also by Otto Bremer, who considers the West Germanic language group to be of relatively late origin, arising after the birth of Christ.21 In his comments concerning the prevailing hypothetical divisions of the Germanic languages, Bremer notes that any characteristics shared by North and West Germanic are of later origin and thus are not crucial to the issue. Yet the oft-cited North-East characteristics, he says, are also not so decisive, since they could go back to Proto-Germanic or could be of independent origin. As the most meaningful correspondence between Gothic and Nordic, Bremer cites the first sing, present subjunctive Goth, -au, Nordic -a. To this he adds that vocabulary correspondences are important in illustrating the closer relationship between Gothic and North Germanic, but that they only show that this relationship prevailed before Christ and was probably shortlived (pp. 8 1 5 - 1 7 ) . Although he supports the division into East and West Germanic, Friedrich Kluge (1901) proposes that this division is relevant only to the linguistic community and has no bearing on ethnic relationships.22 To the features already offered in support of the presence of an East Germanic group (Gothic and Scandinavian), Kluge adds the lack of an inflected infinitive (p. 421). Continuing in the tradition of Miillenhoff and Kossina, Friedrich Kauffmann (1913) seeks to integrate the linguistic history of the Germanic peoples with the anthropological and archeological history of the peoples of northern Europe. Just as he posits three main ethnic groups, Kauffmann posits three main "Sprachgenossenschaften": North Germanic (Proto-Norse), West Germanic,

20 Richard Loewe, Die ethnische und sprachliche Gliederung der Germanen (Halle, 1899), pp. 4—12. 21 Otto Bremer, "Ethnographie der germanischen Stämme", Grundriaa der germanischen Philologie2 3 (Strassburg, 1900), pp. 809—10. 22 Friedrich Kluge, "Vorgeschichte der altgermanischen Dialekte", Grundrias der germanischen Philologie2 1 (Strassburg, 1901), p. 421; Kluge expressed these same views in the third edition of this work, which was titled Urgermanisch, Vorgeschichte der aUgermanischen Dialekte and published as a separate volume (Strassburg, 1913).



and East Germanic. The latter is, however, a branch of North Germanic and therefore remained more closely related to it, even after the migration to the continent.23 Rudolf Much, too, was concerned with both tribal and linguistic relationships between the Germanic peoples. While he maintains that no single tribe ever existed from which later tribes developed, Much assumes an original linguistic entity, which was first split into northern and southern regions by the migrations of the Cimbrians and Teutons. The southern area itself Much regards as divided into an eastern and western part, with the eastern tribes more closely related in their language to the tribes of the North because of the formers' northern origin.24 Much would therefore prefer the use of the terms North and South Germanic in speaking of the two main language communities.25 Several investigators have applied themselves to the problem of divisions within West Germanic. One of these was Hans Naumann (1914), who equates the "cult" tribes of the Ingvaeones, Istvaeones, and Erminones with the later "political" tribes of the Saxons, Franks, and Upper German Swabians.26 The cause of the numerous Frankish dialects, as determined by Naumann, lies in the mixing of the Franks with members of Erminonic (High German) tribes (p. 12).

Quite a different view is held by Ferdinand Wrede (1924), who bases his study on the evidence supplied by modern dialect geography. Wrede's observations rest on a division between northern "Ingvaeonic" and southern "German", as reflected in Low German f i f , High German fünf 'five' and in Low German he, High German er 'he'. Until the 8th century, he states, Ingvaeonic was independent, but then suffered domination by Frankish. As a result, Low German is now "verdeutschtes Ingwäonisch", quite different from Frisian and English.27 Wrede also notes certain Alemannic features shared with Ingvaeonic: loss of n before f and s, a uniform present plural form of the verb, and the disappearance of r in the possessive unser. To him, these things suggest an early connection between northern and southern German, which was later disturbed by some outside influence from the east (pp. 274—78). Because of several Gothic loanwords, Wrede assumes early contact between Gothic and the Bavarian dialect. Wrede then proposes the following course of events. The Gothic influence moved north and west, leaving Alemannic cut off from the remaining 23

Friedrich Kauffmann, Deutsche Altertumskunde 1 (Munich, 1913), p. 249. Rudolf Much, "Germanen", Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 2 (Straesburg, 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 1 5 ) , p. 180. 25 Rudolf Much, Deutsche Stammeskunde3 (Berlin, Leipzig, 1920), pp. 67 — 68. 26 H a n s Naumann, Althochdeutsche Grammatik (Berlin, Leipzig, 1914), p. 10. 27 Ferdinand Wrede, "Ingwäonisch und Westgermanisch", Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 19 (1924), pp. 272 — 74. 24



Ingvaeonic dialects. Yet, Alemannic retained some relic forms. Although the affected area retained its essentially West Germanic character, the Gothic influence resulted in some peculiarities, such as er (Goth, is) and the retention of three distinct forms in the present plural of the verb. Consequently, Wrede characterizes the High German dialects as "gotisiertes Westgermanisch" (pp. 278 — 82). At the same time, other scholars continued to discuss the problem as a whole. In his article "Die Gemeingermanische Zeit" (1925), Gustav Neckel defines Common Germanic as the period in which the Germanic tribes were migrating (up to the 6th century) and Common Norse as the period of movement in the northern regions, which lasted up to the 10th century.28 Because the migrating tribes were always mixed, he remarks, it is useless to look for tribal characteristics. This mixing allowed a uniformity of language, although Neckel suggests that this uniformity was "relative" (p. 4). In view of his concept of Common Germanic, Neckel's proposal for a North-South division for the Germanic languages is not surprising.29 The boundary between these large areas was formed by the Baltic with the Jutland peninsula representing a transition area. Once that area was colonized from the North, the Anglo-Frisian dialects came into contact with Nordic. Neckel proposes that this contact can explain the similarities in development between Anglo-Frisian and Nordic, such as "breaking" (p. 11). Neckel also proposes that the term "Proto-Norse", when applied to the earliest runic inscriptions, is a misnomer, since their language is not peculiar to Nordic.30 Agreeing with him is the Swedish scholar, T. E. Karsten, who, however, does use the term "Nordic" in reference to them, but only in the geographical sense of the word.31 In the same work, Karsten remarks that neither an East-West nor a NorthEast-West division of the Germanic tribes is wrong. The former designates an earlier stage; the latter, a later stage (p. 212). Karsten would only wish to substitute the term Northeast Germanic for the tribes generally designated as East Germanic (pp. 214—15). It must be noted that Karsten bases these divisions on archeological, anthropological, and onomastic evidence and then applies his conclusions to the state of the dialect relationships. Like Naumann and Wrede, Theodor Siebs (1931) devoted himself to the problem of dialect relationships within the West Germanic group. He employs anthropological, literary, and linguistic evidence to support his theory that an 28 Gustav Neokel, "Die gemeingermanisohe Zeit", Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 39 (1925), p. I. 29 Gustav Neckel, "Die Verwandtschaften der germanischen Spraohen untereinander", Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 51 (1927), pp. 1—2. 30 Neckel, "Zeit", p. 14. 31 T. E. Karsten, Die Germanen (Berlin, 1928), p. 162.



"English—Frisian" dialect existed at one time on the continent.32 Closer geographical proximity to the Frisians is reflected, he states, in a greater number of corresponding linguistic forms in certain Old English dialects (primarily Kentish) and in Old Frisian (pp. 55, 70—72). In reviewing the various theories prevalent at the time, Helmut Arntz (1934) criticizes the grouping of Scandinavian with West Germanic as opposed to Gothic for two reasons: (1) The East Germanic dialects might have undergone similar changes, had they stayed in contact with the remaining Germanic languages; (2) in comparing East Germanic with West and North Germanic, one compares forms differing in age by several centuries.33 Turning to the evidence of the runic inscriptions, Arntz notes that "die Sprache der ältesten Runeninschriften ist in ihrer Form altertümlicher als irgendeine andre germanische Sprache" (p. 66). However, he lists certain characteristics of this "Proto-Norse" (Urnordisch) language, which distinguish it from Gothic. See Table 2. Since Arntz considers Proto-G er manic to span the period from the first consonant shift until the emergence of the distinct Germanic dialects (p. 48), one might ask whether his concept of Proto-Germanic overlaps that of his "ProtoNorse" in the runic inscriptions. Unfortunately, Arntz leaves this question unanswered. In 1936 a new point of view was expressed by George van Langenhove. He proposes that the West Germanic languages are representative of Common Germanic and that Gothic and North Germanic represent innovating branches.34 He bases his assumption on the consonant gemination, which he maintains is a manifestation of a tendency already present in Indo-European (pp. 54—57), and on the presence of the aorist form in the second singular past indicative of the West Germanic languages, which he assumes to be the original condition, while the perfect forms of the first and third singular were substituted for the original aorist forms. North and East Germanic, according to him, went further in this substitution by replacing the second singular also (pp. 64—67). This proposal, however, has found no support among other investigators. H. Sparnaay (1938) agrees with Neckel in proposing a North-South grouping of the Germanic peoples, which, however, according to him, existed from the beginning of their culture. The original megalithic inhabitants of the later Germanic area show two types of graves, which, Sparnaay maintains, correspond 32

Theodor Siebs, "Die Friesen und die näohstverwandten Stämme", Mitteilungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 31 (1931), p. 69. 33 Helmut Arntz, "Urgermanisoh, Gotisch und Nordisch", Germanische Philologie, Ergebnisse und Aufgaben. Festschrift für Otto Behaghel (Heidelberg, 1934), p. 43. 31 George van Langenhove, "West-Germaanseh = Gemeen-Germaansch", Linguistische Studien (The Hague, 1936), p. 54.



Comparison of "Urnordisch" and Gothic Inflectional (Arntz, 1934, p. 67) "Urnordisch" (1) nominative/accusative sing, o- and ¿-stems



retention of a, i

syncope of a, i

(2) genitive sing, o-stems



(3) dative sing, o-stems



(4) genitive/dative sing, rt-stems



(5) dative sing,



(6) nominative pi. r-stems



(7) first sing, weak preterit




to the two-fold Germanic division. 35 Sparnaay's use of such archeological evidence rests upon his belief that all language change occurs through the influence of another language (p. 14). While he counts the Goths as members of the northern group, there are some characteristics which are shared by other members of that group and the South Germanic languages (pp. 22 — 23). The most important criteria for distinguishing South Germanic are its innovations, foremost of which, in Sparnaay's opinion, is the consonant gemination. This and other innovations shared with the North Germanic languages, but not with Gothic, are ascribed by Sparnaay to changes in the expiratory accent. However, he explains the greater changes wrought in the South Germanic language groups as the result of new " K r ä f t e " received under the influence of the Celts in that area (pp. 24—26). Wrede's concept of "gotisiertes Hochdeutsch" drew criticism from Carl Karstien (1939): Trotz dieser z. T. auffälligen Übereinstimmungen von Gotisch und Deutsch ist es m. E . ausgeschlossen, einen Teil der sprachlichen Abweichungen von Deutsch und Anglo friesisch durch gotische Einflüsse zu erklären. Erstens sind die Kriterien auf Grund ihrer Eigenart — Bewahrung von Altem oder gleiche Auswahl aus verschiedenem Alten im Gotischen und Deutschen — nioht tragfähig genug, zweitens stehen bei mehreren Kriterien, und zwar den wichtigsten, grammatische Bedenken einer deutschen Entlehnung aus


H . Sparnaay, "Germanisch und Südgermanisch. Die Wirkungen des expiratorischen Akzents", Neophüologus 23 (1938), p. 20.



dem Gotischen geradeswegs entgegen und drittens gibt die Geschichte der germanischen Stämme keine Handhabe für derartig tiefgehende ostgermanische Einflüsse auf die Bayern, wie sie nötig wären, u m allgemein westgermanische Neuerungen rückgängig zu machen. 3 6 Urgermanen Nordsee-Germanen


(Ingväonen u. Istväonen)


Figure 2. Germanic Interrelationships According to Borchling (1940, p. 8)

Those characteristics common to both Gothic and German, he states, are to be ascribed to early contact between the predecessors of the High German-speaking peoples with those of the later Goths (p. 19). Karstien continues by denying the existence of an original West Germanic entity. Any common innovations among the West Germanic dialects are for him quite late in origin and due merely to secondarily developed connections between the so-called West Germanic tribes (p. 19). Concentrating on the North Sea Germanic dialects, Gerhart Lohse (1940) combines archeological, linguistic, and historical evidence in order to derive his theories. H e ascribes the separation of the original North Sea Germanic language to the immigration of Jutish peoples into the areas of the southern North Sea coast in the 3rd or 2nd century B. C. The Chauki mentioned by Tacitus as a powerful tribe were the creators of a "Chaukian" common language, which Lohse believes formed the basis for later Proto-Saxon and ProtoFrisian. Lohse reckons with a later decline of the Chaukian hegemony and an ensuing development of two distinct dialects, Greater Chaukian (Proto-Saxon) and Lesser Chaukian (Proto-Frisian). Later Old Saxon, according to him, was 36

Carl Karstien, Hiatoriache deutache Qrammotik

(Heidelberg, 1939), p. 17.



a product of the penetration of this North Sea Germanic dialect into the interior and its mixing with the native German dialects. 37 Although mainly concerned with tracing the development of the North Germanic languages, Conrad Borchling (1940) offers the schematic view of the entire Germanic community presented in Figure 2. 38 These divisions are based on anthropological research, b u t are used to designate language groups. I n connection with the question of the character of the language of the oldest runic inscriptions, Borchling notes the uniformity of the runic language throughout the entire area, yet doubts t h a t so large an area could have contained a single language without differentiation (pp. 9 — 10). Friedrich Maurer, an advocate of the use of archeological evidence, rejects all previous divisions of the Germanic peoples and proposes his own five-way division, which he assumes to have existed before the birth of Christ: North Germanic, Elbe Germanic, North Sea Germanic, Weser-Rhein Germanic, and Oder-Weichsel Germanic. 39 Because of the late origin of the so-called West Germanic characteristics, Maurer rejects the concept of West Germanic and prefers to speak of North-Sea-Germanic—Merovingian developments. 40 From the testimony of certain linguistic parallels, Maurer concludes t h a t Elbe Germanic was originally closer to North Germanic and Gothic (Oder-Weichsel Germanic), b u t after the departure of the Goths, numerous phenomena were shared by the North, North Sea,' and Elbe Germanic groups. 41 Combining his linguistic evidence with evidence of literature and archeology, Maurer presents a diagram (Figure 3) to illustrate his new proposal for the division of the Germanic tribes and their languages (p. 135). Wolfgang Jungandreas (1946) presents an entirely different picture of the Germanic condition. H e assumes a common source language for Gothic and North Germanic, which he calls "Gotonordisch". 42 From this source shortly before the birth of Christ, the East Germanic group branched out and formed its own peculiarities (p. 32). Jungandreas goes so far as to say t h a t any innovations shared by West Germanic, which arose after the birth of Christ, with East or North Germanic do not indicate any connection between the respective


Gerhart Lohse, "Zur Frühgeschichte der nordseegermanischen (ingwäonischen) Dialekte", Oermanisch—Romanische Monatsschrift 28 (1940), pp. 38—39. 38 Conrad Borchling, "Die nordischen Sprachen in ihrer germanischen Eigenart", Zur Kenntnis des Nordens (Hainburg, 1940), p. 8. 39 Friedrich Maurer, "Nordgermanen und Alpengermanen", Forschungen und Fortschritte 19 (1943), p. 92. 40 Friedrich Maurer, "Die 'westgermanischen' Spracheigenheiten und das Merowingerreich", Lexis 1 (1948), pp. 225 — 28. 41 Friedrich Maurer, Nordgermanen und Alemannen3 (Bern, Munich, 1952), p. 84. 42 Wolfgang Jungandreas, Geschichte der deutschen und der englischen Sprache 1 (Göttingen, 1946), p. 29.





Illevionen ?



ältere/jüngere Elbgerm. Oder-Weichselgermanen Nordgermanen Nordseegermanen Weser-Rheingerm.


B a y e r n Langobarden Friesen Angeln Sachsen


Franken Hessen u.a.


Deutsche Figure 3. Germanic Interrelationships According to Maurer (1952, p. 135)

groups (p. 35). Jungandreas provides the diagram depicted in Figure 4 to illustrate his manner of dividing the Germanic languages. Another investigator who was primarily concerned with the problem of the West Germanic languages is A. Campbell. In his view, the dialects from the Low German area, Friesland, Groningen, and part of the central Netherlands were originally related to the Ingvaeonic dialect. This dialect he characterizes by the fronting of West Germanic a and a except before nasals (where it was either retracted or rounded), by the tendency to front g and k before front vowels, by the loss of nasals before spirants, by a strong tendency toward ¿-umlaut, and by the leveling of the plural verb under one form.43 Because Old English retained au as a diphthong, but reflected West Germanic ai as o, as Campbell sees it, the predecessor of Old English was already a separate dialect when the other Ingvaeonic languages developed their peculiarities (pp. 12—13). Campbell thus denies any common forerunner (other than West Germanic) for English and Frisian. The common treatment of West Germanic a by these two dialects, he maintains, came about during a period of closer contiguity, although both dialects had common potentialities of articulation for an ensuing common phonological development even after such contiguity ceased to exist (p. 14). It should be added here that Campbell's arguments do not hold up in the light of more recent phonological studies (see §2.7).

4 3 A . Campbell, "West Germanic Problems in the Light of Modern Dialects", Transactions of the Philological Society (London, 1947), p. 11.



g «8






73 „ ft


o .3 - -p




§ o

o .a -p - o W>

-p o O

-Sti I • Goth, -ggw-, Old Norse -ggv-; Germanic -it- > Goth. -ddj-, Old Norse -ggj-- One should not assign too much significance to this isogloss, since it may have existed already in Proto-Germanic, which certainly had minor dialect divisions, as all living languages do. (2) Retention of Germanic -z. This isogloss is entirely unacceptable, because the evidence in favor of it comes from widely dispersed chronological periods. (3) Presence of a feminine present participle in -in. This isogloss may represent a difference existing in Proto-Indo-European. Since retention of an old form is of little value in proving genetic relationship, this criterion must be rejected. (4) -t as the ending of the second singular past indicative of the strong verb. Again, we have an isogloss which may antedate Proto-Germanic. Therefore, its validity is also questionable. (5) Presence of a weak verb class with the suffix -na-. Traces of such verbs are also present in the other Germanic languages. 58 Consequently, the validity of this criterion is substantially weakened. (6) Lack of athematic verbs in -mi (don, stan, gan). Antonsen contends, however, that this "is contradicted by East Nordic ga and sta. The absence of a verb corresponding to OHG tuon, English do may simply represent a semantic replacement by gore gora, from which no conclusions of affinity can be drawn". 59 (7) Presence of zero grade of ablaut in the suffix of weak nouns. Here one must point out that Old English shares this phenomenon. 60 56

V. M. 2irmunskij, Vvedenie v sravniteVno-istoriSeslcoe izuSenie germanskix jazykov [Introduction to the Comparative-Historical Study of the Germanic Languages] (Moscow, Leningrad, 1964). 57 Cf. Adamus, "Nordic and Germanic", pp. 115 — 22; Lehman, Ancient Indo-European Dialects, pp. 13 — 27; Elmer H . Antonsen, "'Proto-Scandinavian' and Common Nordic", Scandinavian Studies 38 (1967), pp. 17—19. 58 Hermann Hirt, Handbuch des Urgermanischen 2 (Heidelberg, 1932), p. 164. M Antonsen, "Proto-Scandinavian", p. 18. 60 Hans Krahe, Qermanische Sprachwissenschaft4 2 (Berlin, 1961), p. 25.



(8) Goth, hwarjis, Olcel. hverr. Although the West Germanic languages do lack the formation with the -j- suffix, it must again be noted that the isogloss in question stems from the Proto-Indo-European period. 61 (9) -a/aw as the ending of the first singular present subjunctive. While the origin of the Gothic and Old Icelandic endings is a moot point, they are generally considered to be reflexes of Indo-European endings and therefore do not represent a common innovation. 62 (10) Nasal suffix in the strong verb fragen: Goth, fraihnan, Olcel. fregno,. However, one also finds similar forms in the West Germanic languages: OE frignan, OS third sing, fragn, pi. frugnum, OHG gifregnP (Cf. Wessobrunner Gebet: gafregin ih.)ei (11) Aorist present tense of treten: Goth, trudan, Olcel. troda. There are, nevertheless, aorist presents of other verbs in the West Germanic languages.65 (12) Ji-forms in the words for 'water' and 'fire': Goth, wato, genitive watins, Olcel. vatn ; Goth, fon, Olcel. funi. I t should be mentioned, however, that Nordic also has r-forms: cf. Olcel. fyrr (fyri, fürr). These words developed from Indo-European heteroclitic forms. Since both suffixes may have existed in Proto-Germanic, their later distribution is inconclusive in proving genetic relationship.66 (13) Goth, leitils, Olcel. litill in contrast with OS lutill, OE lytel, lytel, OHG lyzzil, liuzil. (14) Goth, sauil, Olcel. sol in contrast with OS sunna, sunno, OE sunne, sunna, OHG sunna. (15) Goth, himins, Olcel. himinn in contrast with OS OHG himil, Old Frankish, Old Frisian himel. However, it must be noted that Old English and Old Saxon also have forms with the n-suffix: OE heofon, OS heban,67 (16) Goth, auhns, Olcel. ogn in contrast ^Ich OHG ovan, Old Frisian oven, OE ofen. However, we also find forms with f in the Scandinavian languages: Olcel. ofn, Old Swedish ofn.6S


Sigmund Feist, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache3 (Leiden, 1939), p. 282. 8J Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen (Munich, 1953), p. 213; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 108. 83 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 164. 84 Wilhelm Braune, Althochdeutsches Lesebuch14 (Tübingen, 1962), p. 85. 85 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 168. 88 E . A. Makaev, "Imennoe sklonenie v germanskix jazykax [Noun Declension in the Germanio Languages]", Sravnitel'naja grammatika germanskix jazykov [A Comparative Grammar of the Germanic Languages] 3, ed., M. M. Guxman (Moscow, 1963), pp. 268—70. 87 2irmunskij, Vvedenie, p. 78. 88 2irmunskij, Vvedenie, p. 78.



The lexical parallels are inconclusive, especially when the parallelism breaks down, as in points 15 and 16. In criticizing Schwarz's use of lexical material, Adamus states that lexical morphemes can be freely borrowed by the most discrepant languages. In the best case they bear evidence of lexical (material) affinity, but in this sense of the word Gothic is also related with Finnish and [with] other Indo-European languages. The above . . . individual words cited . . . prove neither the provenance of Gothic and Nordic from one common protolanguage different from West Germanic nor a close relationship, for instance, that of being one dialect. 69

Much more important for the correct understanding of the course of development of the Germanic languages are the many features which are shared by Nordic and the West Germanic languages. 2irmunskij cites the more important of these:70 (1) Presence of umlaut phenomena. (2) e1 > a. (3) Rhotacism of Germanic z. While M. I. Steblin-Kamenskij posits this change before 700 A.D., 71 A. I. Smirnitzkij maintains that rhotacism of PGmc. /z/ > /f/ could have occurred as a single phenomenon in Scandinavian and West Germanic as early as the 5th century. Smirnitzkij contrasts the new phoneme with Goth, /z/ (/s/ in final position) of the same period.72 (4) pi- > fl-: Goth, pliuhan, OS OHG fliohan, Old Frisian flia, Old Frankish flien, OE fleon, Olcel. flyja. Since no Indo-European etyma of forms such as these exist,73 it might also be assumed that Gothic innovated, i.e., that PGmc. /fl-/ > Goth. /t)l-/. (5) Innovations within the class of reduplicating verbs. As will be pointed out in Chapter 5, there is no evidence that the reduplicating type of inflection is the older. In other words, the other dialects may merely reflect a different inflection type, based on vowel gradation, which was independent of the reduplicating type. Hence, the gradation type need not be considered an innovation, since its provenance also lies in Indo-European.74 (6) Lack of reduplication in the past plural of weak verbs. (7) Formation of a demonstrative pronoun in -s (-se). (8) Presence of certain abstract noun suffixes: OS OE Olcel. -dom, OHG -tuom; OS -skepi, OE -scipi, Olcel. -scapr, OHG skaf. 68

Adamus, "Nordio and Germanio", p, 151. 2irmunskij, Vvedenie, pp. 122—31. 71 M. I. Steblin-Kamenskij, "The Scandinavian Rhotaoism and Laws Governing the Change of Distinctive Features", Philologica Pragensia 6 (1963), p. 364. n A. I. Smirnitzkij, "Otpadanie koneSnogo z v zapadno-germanskix jazykax i izmenenie z v r [The Loss of Final z in the West Germanic Languages and the Change of z to r]", Trudy Instituta Jazykoznanija 9 (1959), pp. 135—36. 73 Krause, Gotischen, p. 50. 74 E. Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 176—79. 70



In respect to these features, I cannot agree with 2irmunskij when he says that we are dealing here with phonetic and morphological processes, which, in the contact development, covered the entire area of the West Germanic dialects as dialect group and spread outside its borders within the limits of intercourse closely related and mutually comprehensible tribal dialects, which continued between West Germanic and North Germanic throughout this entire period. 7 3

order of a single between to exist

On the contrary, there is no need to speak of features spreading from one distinct area to another. These features are due to common descent from one protolanguage. Antonsen states: The common descent of Scandinavian and West Germanic has been obscured over the years by the exaggerated emphasis placed on a relatively small number of isoglosses which supposedly connect Scandinavian more closely with Gothic after the breakup of the ProtoGermanic community and b y a corresponding neglect of the numerous, and in m a n y respects more important isoglosses which clearly link Scandinavian and West Germanic a s opposed to Gothic.' 6

Antonsen presents the following picture of the development. He points out that the West Germanic languages and the common parent of the Scandinavian languages all derive from a language which is essentially identical with that of the oldest runic inscriptions. His representation of the relationships of the three subgroups (Gothic, Scandinavian, and West Germanic) of a common protolanguage (Proto-Germanic) is given in Figure 8. X




Figure 8. Development of Subgroups from Protolanguage (Antonsen, 1967, p. 17)

X = Proto-Germanic, A = Gothic, B = the language of the oldest inscriptions, G = West Germanic

The purpose of the present study is to investigate further the internal evidence presented by thè Various Germanic languages in order to obtain a justifiable concept of the disintegration of the Germanic linguistic community 75 78

fermunskij, Vvedenie p p . 121—22. Antonsen, "Proto-Scandinavian", p . 18.



and the delimitation of individual dialects. Before proceeding, however, one more comment should be made about the frequent attempts to locate the speakers of prehistoric stages of the various Germanic dialects. Lehmann's rejection of such attempts in connection with the Proto-Germanic period is applicable to the entire prehistoric era: For linguistic purposes, establishing the relative chronology of Proto-Germanic is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n determining t h e location of its speakers. For both aims our only usabl® evidence to t h e present is linguistic; until we find inscriptions which enable us to relate prehistoric cultures of northern Europe with prehistoric linguistic communities, a t t e m p t s to locate t h e speakers of pre-Germanic or post-Indo-European dialects in northern Europe are completely speculative, if intriguing."

No attempt will be made in this study to correlate linguistic groupings with thnic entities.

" Lehmann, "Proto-Germanic", p. 68.




Before discussing the morphological development of the Germanic languages, it is necessary to consider the development of the phonological s y s t e m . 1 1 shall begin with the vowel system of Proto-Germanic as established b y Elmer H . Antonsen in his article " O n Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic". 2 T h e short vowel system in Proto-Germanic was composed of four vowel phonemes: high, (front-) spread /i/; high, (back-) rounded /u/; mid, (front-) spread /e/; and low, neutral /a/. E a c h of these phonemes developed several allophonic variants, depending upon the point of articulation of the unstressed vowels or semivowels in a following syllable. W h e n unstressed /i/, /I/, or /j/ followed, /e/ = [e'] (PGmc.

*/setja-/ = *[se"tja-]); /a/ =

[ae] (PGmc.


tiz/ = *[gaestiz]); /u/ = [ y ] (PGmc. */suni-/ = *[syni-]). W h e n unstressed/a/, /e/, or /o/ + consonant

/n/ followed, /i/ = [ f ] (PGmc. */ n ista-/ =


and /u/ = [o] (PGmc. */wurda-/ = *[worSa]). W h e n unstressed /u/, /w/, /on/, or /o/ in final position followed, /i/ = [ui] (PGmc. */silubr-/ = /e/ = [y]


*/leso/ = *[lyso"]);

and /a/ = [a]



Vhaggwa-/ —

*[haggwa-]). /a/ followed b y a velar sound /u w h r/ and then /i/,/i/, or /j/ =


(PGmc. */aduling-/ = *[g§ulii)g-]) (p. 26). 3 See T a b l e 6.4 T h e long vowel system also consisted of four phonemes: high, (front-) spread /i/; high, (back-) rounded /u/; low, (front-) spread /e/; and low, (back-) rounded /&/. These, too, developed allophones. W h e n unstressed /i/ or /!/ followed, /e/ = [eA] (PGmc. */leki-/ = *[le"ki-]);/u/ = [y] (PGmc. */musi-/ =


a n d / o / = [0] (PGmc. */domijan-/ = *[d0mijan-]). W h e n unstressed /u/ or /w/

The development of weakly stressed syllables will be treated in Chapter 3. Elmer H. Antonsen, "On Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic", Language 41 (1965), pp. 1 9 - 3 6 . 3 Several symbols have been substituted with those otherwise used by Antonsen: [ 9 ] now = [e"]( [A] now = [Y], and [[] now = [i"]. 1 Antonsen, "Germanic", p. 26. 1






Proto-Germanic Short Vowel System (Antonsen,

1965, p. 26)

[y ÌM

N [Œ] [iv]

[e'] [o]

M [Y] [88]

[a] [a]

M followed, /!/ = [ui] (PGmc. */wikwan-/ = *[wmkwan-]) a n d / é / = [y] (PGmc. */letum/ = *[lytum]) (pp. 2 6 - 2 7 ) . See Table 7.5 Vowel clusters also assimilated to following unstressed vowels or glides: /ei/ = [e'i] (PGmc. */steige/ = *[ste'ige]), but /ei/ before /a/ = [ei] (PGmc. */heira/ = *[he"ivra]); /eu/ alone = [yu] (PGmc. */beude/ = *[byii&e]); /eti/ before/a/ = [yo] (PGmc. */beuda/ = *[byo8a]);/eu/before/i/ = [y"y] (PGmc. */beudi-/ = *[by"y8i-]); /ai/ alone = [sei] (PGmc. */baite/ = *[baeite]); /ai/ before/u/ = [am] (PGmc. */kaikwan-/ — *[tauikwan-]); /ai/ before /a/ = [ai"] (PGmc. */baina-/ = *[bafna-]);/au/alone = [au] (PGmc. */baude/ = *[bauSe]); /au/ before /i/ = [ay] (PGmc. */draumijan-/ = *[draymijan-]); /au/ before /a/ = [ao] (PGmc. */bauda/ = *[baoSa]) (pp. 32 — 33). The allophone o f / e / before a nasal + consonant joined the /i/ phoneme during the Proto-Germanic period. When PGmc. /n/ before /h/ was lost, the preceding vowel was lengthened. I n the case of /a/ < /-anh-/, a dialect difference is found. While the reflex of this /a/ is /a/ in Gothic, Old High German, Old Saxon, and Old Icelandic, its reflex in Old English (and Old Frisian) is /o/ (PGmc. */t>anhta/ > OE /{johta/).6 Proto-Germanic consonant phonemes were / p t k f f j h s b d g z / ; resonants / r l m n j w/. 7 TABLE 7.

Proto-Germanic Long Vowel System (Antonsen, N [S] [§'] , / § / [V]

5 6 7

[y] /s/ [5]/ô/

Antonsen, "Germanio", p. 27. A. Campbell, Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959), p. 44. Antonsen. "Germanie", p. 31.

1965, p. 27)




The end of the Proto-Germanic period was marked by the loss of final /a e/, whereby [o] > / o / , by the redistribution of [iv] > / e / and [e'] > / i / , and by the lowering of /e 1 / to /a/, with the subsequent appearance of a new phoneme /e2/ (p. 31). One source of /e2/ is the a-umlaut of PGmc. /ei/ = [e'i"] (PGmc. */heira/ *[he"ira] > */he 2 r-/) (pp. 32—33).8 As a result of the transfer of [eA] to/i/, PGmc./ei/ [e'i] > / i i / > / i / . 2.2. GOTHIC

Generally speaking, pre-Gothic /i/ and /e/ fell together as one phoneme which exhibited two allophones [i] and [e]. The latter appeared regularly before /h r hr/. Likewise, pre-Goth. /u/ and/o/merged and had two allophones [u] and [o], the latter appearing before /h r hr/. However, the presence of such forms as Goth, aippau and aufto necessitates considering /e/ and /o/ as phonemes in Gothic.9 We can, therefore, posit the following short vowel system for Gothic: /i/, /e/ ai, /a/, /o/ au, and /u/. 1 0 See Table 8. TABLE 8. Gothic Short Vowel System, N ¡z/ ai M

Two long vowels were added to the system by the monophthongization of PGmc. /ai/ and /au/. This process seems to indicate that pre-Gothic was also subject to the influence of vowel mutation, with PGmc. /a/ raised and fronted 8 Another source of /e2/ may lie in the coalescence of the root syllable and the reduplicated syllable in the Class 7 strong verbs. Hirt explains: "Nun ist aber zweifellos das e oder ai des Gotischen im Westgermanischen und Altnordischen in u n b e t o n t e r Silbe zu e geworden. Aus gotischem haihaitum hätte also *hehetum werden müssen. Schwand dann die Doppelungssilbe, so erhalten wir *hetum mit e2, das zu hierum usw. wurde", Handbuch des Urgermanischen 2 (Heidelberg, 1932), p. 145. 9 Herbert Penzl, "Orthography and Phonemes in Wulfila's Gothic", Journal of English and Germanic Philology 49 (1960), pp. 225 — 30; Eric P. Hamp, "Gothic ai and au Again", Language 34 (1958), pp. 369—62; William H. Bennett, "Gothic Spellings and Phonemes: Some Current Interpretations", Taylor Starck Festschrift, eds., Werner Betz et al. (London, The Hague, Paris, 1964), p. 21. 10 Contrary to traditional thought, Gothic does not seem to display any instances where PGmc. /i/ or /j/ was lost due to regular phonological development. Therefore, umlaut variants in Gothic would still have been allophones, which would not be expressed in the orthography and are not traceable because the language became extinct before phonemicizatidn could have occurred. See Elmer H. Antonsen's review of Alexander Szule's Umlaut und Brechung, Language 42 (1966), p. 118.




by the influence of /i/ or raised and backed by /u/. These vowel clusters were then monophthongized as /I/ and/o/ respectively. As a result, the Gothic long vowel system contained /I/ ei, /§/, ft/ ai, /a/, /o/ aw, /o/, and /u/ {Journal of English and Germanic Philology 49, pp. 225 — 230). Several scholars have presented evidence to show that Goth, iu is merely a digraph representing a high back vowel. 11 However, Bennett places it in the high central region (p. 21). As Hamp proposes, the symbol /u/ will be used to designate this phoneme (p. 362). 12 See Table 9. T A B L E 9.

Gothic Long Vowel System /i/ei

/ a / iu

N f l j ai

M /o/ /of au

/&/ With the exception that the contrast voiced-voiceless among the fricatives was neutralized in final position and before /s/, there were no major changes in the consonant system in Gothic. 13


One possible change in the consonant system of Northwest Germanic was the rhotacism of /z/ > /f/. 1 4 Due to the redistribution of [iv] and [eA], PGmc. *[se"tja-] > NWGmc. */sitja-/ and PGmc. *[ni"sta-] > NWGmc. */nesta-/- With the phonemicization of /of, PGmc. *[wor8a-] > NWGmc. */worda-/. Taking these changes into consideration, one can then posit the following short vowel system for Northwest Germanic: /i/ with a back allophone [uz]; /e/ with a back allophone [v]; /a/ 11

Oscar F . Jones, "Gothic iu", Language 34 (1958), p p . 353 — 58; H a m p , "Gothic ai", p. 363; Bennett, "Gothic Spellings", p. 24. 12 The distinction between t h e " s h o r t " and "long" vowels m a y not have been t h a t of length, but rather t h a t of tenseness, or of a combination of both. For convenience, a macron is used to indicate t h e distinction, whatever its phonemic value m a y have been. 13 Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Qotischen (Munich, 1953), p. 123. 14 A . I . Smirnitzkij, "Otpadanie koneinogoz v zapadno-germanskix jazykaxiizmenenie z v r [The Loss of Final z in t h e West Germanic Languages and the Change of z to r ] " , Trudy Instituta Jazykoznanija 9 (1959), p. 135; M. I. Steblin-Kamenskij, "The Scandinavian Rhotacism and Laws Governing the Change of Distinctive F e a t u r e s " , PhUologica Pragensia 6 (1963), p p . 362 — 64.



with three variants [ae], [a], and [a]; /u/ with a front allophone [y]; and /of with a front allophone [0]. The latter arose through the analogical introduction of new /o/ in the place o f / u / into a syllable preceding /i/ or /j/ (NWGmc. */holti-/ > *[h0lti-]). See Table 10.15 TABLE 10. Proto-Germanie

and Northwest Germanic Short Vowel (Antonsen, 1965, p. 28)

Proto-Germanie /j/ ["']


Northwest Germanic [y] /«/

HI [w]

[y] /«/

i 1 VJ l /e/ [vl


M [vl

[9] /a/


[9] [n]




[«] /a/

The long vowel system in Northwest Germanic contained the following phonemes: /I/ with a back allophone [ra]; /e 2 /; /u/ with a front allophone [y]; /o/ with a front allophone [0]; and /a/ from PGmc. /e 1 / with allophones [se] < PGmc. [ e ] and [a] < PGmc. [y] (pp. 2 8 - 2 9 ) . See Table ll. 1 6 The loss of final /a/ and the redistribution of [e*] and [i*] also resulted in the phonemicization of several vowel clusters: /ao/ (PGmc. * / b a u d a / [bao&a] > NWGmc. */baod/), /eo/ (PGmc. */beuda-/ [byoSa] > NWGmc. */beoda-/), /ae/ (PGmc. */baina-/ [bafna-] > NWGmc. */baena-/, and /iu/ (PGmc. */beudi-/ [by'uSi-] > NWGmc. */biudi-/ [buiySi-]). Already within the Northwest Germanic period, there was a possibility for the merger of /au/ with /ao/ and /ai/ with /ae/. The contrast was extremely labile because of the phonetic similarity (/ai/ = [iei], /ae/ = [see], /au/ = [au], /ao/ = [ao]) and also because of the favorable morphological conditions for leveling, for example, in the past tense of strong verbs. Antonsen states: 15 Antonsen "Germanic", p. 28. Also his "'Proto-Scandinavian' and Common Nordic" Scandinavian Studies 38 (1967), p. 24. 18 Antonsen, "Germanic", p. 28 and "Proto-Scandinavian", p. 25.




T A B L E 11.

Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic Long Vowel Systems (Antonsen, 1965, p. 28) Northwest Germanic


IV [Ä]

[y] /Ü/

fi1 [»}

m w

[0] /ö/


[0] lòl


/è/ [ f ]


[a] /»/

The leveling of these contrasts in favor of the reflexes of /ae/ and /ao/ in pre-English, but generally in favor of / a i / and / a u / in the other dialects, constitutes one of the isoglosses marking the transition from Northwest Germanic to the later dialects and therefore represents a dialectal variation which we can posit for late Northwest Germanic.

The remaining vowel clusters and their allophonic variations stayed the same (pp.

34—35). 2.4. W E S T GERMANIC

Certain phonological changes allow us to posit a West Germanic dialect area within the Northwest Germanic linguistic community before the emergence of Old English, Old Saxon, and Old High German as clearly delineated dialects, since these changes were shared by all of the so-called West Germanic languages. Final /z/ (/f/) was lost in unstressed position throughout the entire West Germanic area (NWGmc. */sunuz/ (>*/sunuf/) > W e s t Germanic */sunu/). However, the additional loss of final /z/ under stress (as in the pronoun OE OS he, but OHG er) indicates the presence of dialect diversity within the West Germanic continuity. In addition to this, /z/ occurring between a vowel and a consonant was sometimes lost, with compensatory lengthening of the vowel; cf. OE med, but also OE meord. Elsewhere, NWGmc. /z/ > / r / > West Germanic /r/. 17 17

E. Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 84, 140; Campbell, Old English, p. 166; Smirnitskij, "Otpadanie", pp. 115—30; H a n s Krahe, Germanische Sprachwissenschafts 1 (Berlin, 1963), pp. 93 — 94.




Although there is some evidence of gemination in North Germanic, its farreaching effects were restricted to the West Germanic dialects, where the final consonant of a short syllable (except/r/) was doubled when immediately followed by / j 1 r w/. Dialect diversity is again indicated by the fact t h a t in some Old High German dialects gemination of /r/ occurred as well. When the voiced fricatives were so doubled, they were realized as long stops. 18 While NWGmc. /d/ [d 8] was realized solely as [d] in the West Germanic languages, the development of the remaining voiced consonants, NWGmc. /b g/, indicates dialect differences. Pre-High German realized NWGmc. /b/ only as [b] and /g/ only as [g], Pre-Saxon and pre-English realized /b/ as both [b] and [b]. /g/ was realized in pre-Saxon as [g], while pre-English realized the following allophones of /g/: [g] initially before Northwest Germanic back vowels, also medially following [g]; [g] in the geminate cluster and following [n]; [g] medially after Northwest Germanic back vowels; [g] initially before Northwest Germanic front and central vowels and medially after front and central vowels. 19 For further discussion of the development of these allophones in Old English, see §2.7. The loss of /n/ before the voiceless spirants was restricted to the so-called Ingvaeonic group of dialects (pre-English, pre-Saxon, and pre-Frisian). 20


Old High German is distinguished from the other Germanic languages by the High German consonant shift, which, however, varied from dialect to dialect within the High German area. The following remarks will apply to East Frankish. NWGmc. /p t k/ > /ff 33 hh/ in postvocalic position. NWGmc. /p t/ > /pf t3/ in word initial and postconsonantal position. NWGmc. /d/ > /t/. The resulting geminated consonants were later shortened following a long vowel or


V. M. 2irmunskij, Vvedenie v sravnitel'no-istoriiekoe izuöenie germanskix jazykov [Introduction to the Comparative-Historical Study of the Germanic Languages] (Moscow, Leningrad, 1964), pp. 111 — 12; Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 98—101; Prokosch, Grammar, pp. 87—88; Campbell, Old English, pp. 167—68; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, pp. 103—05. 19 Karl Brunner, Die englische Sprache2 1 (Tübingen, 1960), pp. 77—78; Antonsen, "Germanic", p. 34. Undoubtedly, palatal variants of both / k / and / g / existed already in Proto-Germanic. Except for Old English, where separate phonemes developed from these allophones, the distinction between palatal and velar obstruents remained phonetic in the Germanic languages. Therefore, it is not necessary to posit any palatal variants for the other dialects of Germanic. 20 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 111 — 12; Campbell, Old English, p. 47; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 116; Zirmunskij, Vvedenie, pp. 144—46.



Effects of the High German Consonant Shift (Braune, 1963, pp. 88) Northwest Germanic




Kast Prankish





f(f) t? ;(;)

k h(h)







vowel cluster and in final position. 21 For a comparison of the East Frankish consonant system with that of Northwest Germanic, see Table 12.22 As indicated in Table 13,23 certain vowel changes were also characteristic of T A B L E 13.

Northwest Germanic and Old High German Short Vowel Systems 1964, p. 193) Old High German

Northwest Germanic





[y] w




W l°l I /





M [v]



> ]'




i l




Old High German. With the reduction of unstressed vowels, the allophonic variants were either phonemicized or merged with other phonemes. 24 NWGmc. 21

Wilhelm Braune, Althochdeutsche, Grammatik11 (Tübingen, 1963), pp. 80—88. Braune, Grammatik, p. 88. 23 Elmer H . Antonsen, "Zum Umlaut im Deutschen", Beiträge zur Geschichte deutschen Sprache und Literatur 86 (Tübingen, 1964), p. 193. " A n t o n s e n , "Umlaut", pp. 186—93. 22





[UI] and [Y] merged with /i/ (NWGmc. *[lys5"] > OHG /lisu/; NWGmc. *[suilubr-] > OHG /silber/). NWGmc. [se] joined /e/ (NWGmc. */gasti-/ [gsesti-] > OHG /gesti/). When this happened, NWGmc. [a] > OHG /se/ (NWGmc. */niahti-/ [ m 9 h t i - ] > OHG/meehti/), except in the cluster NWGmc. [ay], where it merged with /0/ (see below). NWGmc. [a] merged with /a/ (NWGmc. */lando/ [lando'] > O H G / l a n d / ) , except in the cluster NWGmc. [au], where it merged with /o/ (see below). NWGmc. [y] and [0] were phonemicized (NWGmc. */suni-/ [syni-] > OHG/syni/ and NWGmc. */holti-/ [holti-] > OHG /h0lt3-/) (pp. 1 8 7 - 9 0 ) . The changes in the long vowel system in Old High German are indicated in Table 14.25 NWGmc. [ie] and [y] were phonemicized (NWGmc. */laki-/ [ l i k i - ] > TABLE 14. Northwest Germanic and Old High German Long Voivel Systems (Antonsen, 1964, p. 193) Old High German

Northwest Germanic />"/ M

[y] /o/





[0] 1 /o/

/e»/ '

/0s/ /



' '

[«] /



\ \ [a]\ ^









/ ([ay])7



/ (/a»/)

OHG /lsehi/ and NWGmc. */musi-/ [mysi-] > OHG /mys-/). NWGmc. /e/, /of, a n d [0] were diphthongized as /ia/, /uo/, and /yo/ respectively (NWGmc. */her/ > OHG /hiar/, NWGmc. */iov/ > OHG /fuor/, and NWGmc. */fori-/ [f0ri-] > OHG /fyori/). NWGmc. [ui] and [a] merged with /!/ and /a/ respectively (NWGmc. */gripo/ [gruipo'] > OHG /grlfu/ and NWGmc. */barum/ [bdrum] >• OHG /barum/). A new /o/ appeared through t h e monophthongization of NWGmc. /au/ and a new/S/through t h e monophthongization of NWGmc. [ay] before /h/ and all dental consonants (NWGmc. */baud/ [bauS] > OHG 25

Antonsen, "Umlaut", p. 193.




/b5t/ and NWGmc. */haunijan-/ [haynijan-] > OHG /honen/). A new /e/ appeared through the monophthongization of NWGmc. /ai/ before /r h w/ (NWGmc. */air/ [seir] > OHG/er/) (pp. 187-93). When they did not become monophthongs, NWGmc. /ai/ ( < [sei] and /ae/) became OHG /ei/, NWGmc. /au/ ( < [au] and /ao/) became OHG /ou/, and NWGmc. [ay] became OHG /oy/ (NWGmc. */bain/ [bsein] > OHG /bein/, NWGmc. */laug/ [laug] > OHG /loug/, and NWGmc. */draumijan-/ [draymijan-] > OHG /troymen/). NWGmc. /eu/ [yu] became OHG /iu/, NWGmc. /iu/ [uiy] became OHG /iy/, and NWGmc. /eo/ [yo] became OHG /io/ (NWGmc. */beude/ [byuSe] > OHG /biut/, NWGmc. */biudi-/ [buiySi-] > OHG /biyt-/, and NWGmc. */beoda-/ [byoSa-] > OHG /biota/) (pp. 186—93). 2.6. OLD SAXON

The development of the short vowel system in Old Saxon was similar to t h a t in Old High German with a few exceptions. Due to the loss of intervocalic /h/, NWGmc. */aha/ > OS /a/. 26 Where /a + n/ had not previously become/o + n/, / a / w a s lengthened when pre-Saxon /n/ was lost before spirants (pp. 43—44). I n some dialects /a + 1 + C/ > / o + 1 + C/ (p. 46). With the loss of /n/ before spirants, preceding /i/ and /u/ were lengthened (pp. 54, 58). The development of the long vowel system (Table 15), however, differed. While NWGmc. [ui] merged with /I/ (NWGmc. */wib5/ [wiubo"] > OS /wif/) and [a] merged with /a/ (NWGmc. */lagun/ [lagun] > OS /lagon/), as in Old High German, NWGmc. /e/ and /o/ remained, probably as tense vowels (pp. 18, 20). A new phoneme /e/ < NWGmc. /ai/ and a new phoneme /o/ < NWGmc. /au/ appeared (NWGmc. */slep/ > OS /slep/, NWGmc. */graip/ [grseip] > OS /grip/, NWGmc. */fdr/ > OS /for/, and NWGmc. */laug/ [laug] > OS /I5g/) (pp. 18, 20). Similarly, a new phoneme /oe/ arose from NWGmc. [ay] (NWGmc. */draumijan-/ [draymijan-] > OS /droemian/) (pp. 22—23). As in Old High German, NWGmc. [y], [0], and [ai] were phonemicized, although this is not readily discernible from the orthography. 27 Although the grammars of Old Saxon tend to view the reflexes of PGmc. /eu/ as diphthongs, 28 I should like to propose t h a t they were already monophthongs,


Johan Hendrik Gallee, AUsachaische Orammaiik2 (Halle, Leiden, 1910), p. 43. The reflexes of the ¿-umlaut o f / u u o 0/ did not have special orthographic symbols in Old Saxon. However, the occasional use of e in place of o before a syllable with i and the variant spellings ui, ue, u, it, for o and u confirm that ¿-umlaut was indeed present (Gallee, Altsacksische, p. 21.) Since /i/ had been lost in some positions (e.g., nominative-accusative singular of neuter jo-stems), /a 0 y y / must have been phonemic. 28 Cf. Gallee, Altsacksische, p. 25 and Ferdinand Holthausen, AUsachsisches Elementarbuch* (Heidelberg, 1921), pp. 39—40. 17



Northwest Germanic and Old Saxon Long Vowel Systems Northwest Germanic

Old Saxon (/eu/)

fil [t






since, like the other Proto-Germanic diphthongs, they appear as monophthongs in Middle Low German. 29 In addition, considering the reflexes of PGmc. /eu/ to be diphthongs is tantamount to recognizing an inconsistency in the canonic structure of the Old Saxon vowel system. Since all other Proto-Germanic diphthongs were monophthongized in Old Saxon, it is quite reasonable to assume that we are dealing with monophthongs here also. The digraph spellings, which were undoubtedly employed due to the lack of monographic symbols, present no obstacle to this hypothesis (cf. Old English, §2.7). PGmc. /eu/ has three phoneme reflexes in Northwest Germanic, /eo/ [yo], /eu/ [yu], and /iu/ [uiy]. In Middle Low German, the first of these appears as /e/, the latter two as /ü/. 30 Since the reflex of NWGmc. /eo/, written eo or io, was orthographically distinct from other long vowel phonemes and later became Middle Low German /§/, I would propose that it was a mid, central, spread phoneme /e/ in Old Saxon. Similarly, since the reflexes of NWGmc. /iu/ and /eu/, written iu, were orthographically distinct from other long vowel phonemes but not from each other and later became Middle Low German /y/, they can, in my opinion, be designated as one high, central, rounded phoneme /«/. 31


A. Lübben, Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik (Leipzig, 1892), p. 77. Gallöe, Altsächsische, p. 25. 31 It may be that NWGmc. /eu/ and /iu/ were reflected as separate phonemes in Old Saxon. However, since the orthography does not indicate this, they are best considered to have merged (probably through morphophonemic leveling). 30




NWGmc. /b/ was realized as [b] in initial position, after /m/, and in the cluster /bb/; elsewhere as [b]. NWGmc. /f/ was voiced in intervocalic position and fell together with [b]. As stated above, NWGmc. / g / > O S [g] (see § 2.4)./£)/ had a voiced allophone [S] in intervocalic position.32


Only in Old English (of the West Germanic languages) did the back allophones of the spread vowels become separate phonemes. In addition, they also occurred before /h r/ plus consonant. NWGmc. /i/ was retracted to [ui] before /h r/ plus a following consonant, [y] resulted not only from M-umlaut, but also by retraction of /e/ before /h r/ plus another consonant. Similarly, /a/ was retracted to [a] before/h r 1/ plus consonant. (NWGmc. */hirdij-/ = pre-English *[hrardij-], NWGmc. */werka-/ = pre-English *[wyrka-], NWGmc. */barna-/ = pre-English *[barna-], and NWGmc. */kwalda-/ = pre-English *[kwalda-]). 33 As in Old Saxon and Old High German, the front and central allophones of /a/ underwent a forward shift, [as] was raised and joined the /e/ phoneme (NWGmc. *[bsennj-] > OE /benn-/ benn), and the central allophone [9] took the place of [se] (NWGmc. *[alraligg] > OE /aejjuling/ cepuling), except in some dialects (e.g. West Saxon), where [a] in combination with the cluster /h/ + dental consonant was raised and merged with /ui/ (NWGmc. *[mahti-] > OE /muiht/ mieht).M Unlike Old High German and Old Saxon, in Old English /a/ [a] also became /se/, unless it occurred before /n/ or before a syllable containing /a/ (NWGmc. *[fate] > OE /fset/, NWGmc. *[band] > OE /band/, and NWGmc. *[tala-] > OE /tal-/). The back allophone [a] now moved forward and was realized as /a/ when it appeared before /f p w 1 m r h/; elsewhere it merged with/a/ (NWGmc. *[lando'] > OE /land/ land, pre-English * [ b a r n ] > OE /barn/ beam, and pre-English * [ k w a l d ] > O E /kwald/ cweald). The back allophene of /e/ appeared as /y/ before / f p w l m r h / and elsewhere merged with /e/ (NWGmc. *[myto'] > OE /metu/ metu, NWGmc. *[skyldu-] > OE /scyld-/ sceold, and pre-English *[wyrk-] >• OE /wyrk/ weorc). Similarly, the back allophone of/i/ [ui] was phonemicized b e f o r e / f p w 1 m r h/ and elsewhere M

Gallee, AUsachsische, pp. 160—64, 184. Elmer H. Antonsen, "Germanic Umlaut Anew", Language 37 (1961), pp. 226—27. For a traditional interpretation, see Campbell, Old English, pp. 50—136. Instead of positing separate variants of / i / and /e/ before /r/ + consonant followed by / i f , Antonsen now considers the variant spellings ie, io, iu to be allographs representing the reflex of «.-umlaut o f / i / , i.e. /ui/. See his "Proto-Scandinavian", p. 38n. 34 A similar raising of/Y/to/ui/before/h/ + dental is observed. Later/ui/ in this environment is fronted and becomes /if: pre-English *[knvht] > */knuiht/ > /kniht/ cniht, preEnglish *[mihti] > * /mrnht/ > / m i h t / miht. Cf. Campbell, Old English, p. 129. 33




Northwest Germanic and West Saxon Short Vowel Systems (Antonsen, 1961, pp. 225-28) HI1 M *

[y] M


Northwest Germanic

/e/ [r]



101 œ, e -8

/se/" œ

/ui/2-4,6te /u/ u fopea


lo/ o


/a/ ' a

became /i/ (NWGmc. *[stuigum] > OE /stigon/ stigon and NWGmc. *[suilubr] > OE /suilobr/ siolofr).3* See Table 16.36 J u s t as short [y] and [0] were phonemicized, so were long [y] and [ô].37 [m] merged with /i/ (NWGmc. *[wmbô'] > OE /wïf/). /â/ was fronted and merged with M (NWGmc. *[hâr-] > OE /hier/ and NWGmc. *[miëri-] > OE /mâëre/). The back allophone [a] now became /â/ (NWGmc. *[lagun] > OE /lagon/). 38 The long vowel system in Old English was expanded by the monophthongization of the Northwest Germanic diphthongs. NWGmc. /ao/ (and/au/) became /a/ la (NWGmc. */baod/ > OE /bad/ bead). NWGmc. /eu/ [yu] and /eo/ [YO] merged as /y/ (NWGmc. */beud/ [byu8] > OE /byd/ bëod and NWGmc. */beodan-/ [byoSan-] > OE /bydan/ bëodan). NWGmc. /ae/ (and /ai/) became /â/ except when /ai/ appeared before a syllable containing /i/, in which case /ai/ b e c a m e / » / (NWGmc. */bait/ > OE /bât/, but NWGmc. */hwaiti-/ [hwseiti-] > OE /hwœte/). The ¿-umlaut variants o f / a u / [ay] and /iu/ [uiy] merged as /w./ West Saxon le, non-West Saxon lo, formerly lu (NWGmc. */naudi-/ [naySi-] > OE /niude/ West Saxon niede and NWGmc. */biudi-/ [buiySi-] > OE /brad-/ West Saxon bled-).39 See Table 17. 35 36

37 36

Antonsen, " U m l a u t Anew", pp. 224—28. Cf. Antonsen, " U m l a u t Anew", pp. 225 — 28.

Campbell, Old English, pp. 78 — 79.

This interpretation is analogous to the development of NWGmc. / a / and its allophones in pre-English. There is no need to assume t h a t / â / was first fronted and then restored as Campbell proposes (Old English, pp, 62 — 64.). 39 Antonsen, "Proto-Scandinavian", p p . 38 — 39n.



TABLE 17. Northwest Germanic and Old English Long Vowel

Northwest Germanic


/i/ [a]I

[y] W


[0] /6/ [a]'


Old English

/uil ie, io


lyl y

/§/ e

¡1 ce, e ea^ ft/ eo,_ __ /«e/3-5 A

/a/ u 161 d


In the consonant system, NWGmc. /f Jj s/ became voiced in intervocalic position. 40 All palatal and velar variants of PGmc. /k/ and /g/ were phonemicized. Later, the palatal stops /c/ and /g/ were assibilated as /tj/ and / d j / respectively. The voiced palatal fricative /g/ merged with /j/, and the voiced velar fricative /g/ merged with /w/. 41


The vowel system in Common Nordic differed from that of Northwest Germanic as a result of the phonemicization of the umlaut allophones which occurred upon the loss of weakly stressed /-i/ and /-u/.42 See Table 18.43 Among the vowel clusters, we find the same morphophonemic coalescence of NWGmc. /ae/ with /ai/ [sei] and /ao/ with /au/ [au] (see §2.3). Since the conditioning factors, the glides, were not lost, the nuclei of the vowel clusters could be assigned to /ui/, /a/, /a/, or /ae/ (the new phonemes) or to /i/, /e/, or /a/. Con19

Campbell, Old English, p. 139. Herbert Penzl, "The Phonemic Split of Germanic h in Old English", Language 23 (1947), pp. 34—37; Brunner, Sprache, pp. 77—78. . 42 Elmer H. Antonsen, "The Proto-Norse Vowel System and the Younger Fujrark", Scandinavian Studies 35 (1963), p. 200 and "Proto-Scandinavian", p. 25. 43 Antonsen, "Proto-Scandinavian", p. 25. 41



sequently, these nuclei can be assigned to the following archiphonemes: /I/ = /i/ and /ui/; /A/ = /a/, /se/, and /a/; /E/ = /e/ and /a/. The vowel clusters in Common Nordic are, therefore, /Iy Iu Io Ey Au Ai/.44 This vowel system can easily be coordinated with the orthography used in the runic inscriptions. 45 Common Nordic later developed two main dialect areas, East Nordic and West Nordic. T A B L E 18.

Common Nordic Short and Long Vowel Systems (Antonsen, 1967, p. 25) N





44 45

M /a/






N /e/



Ivi lai N

M là! /a/

Antonsen, "Proto-Scandinavian", p. 38. Antonsen, "Proto-Norse", p. 201 and "Proto-Scandinavian", pp. 20—30.



In the past, diachronic analyses of Germanic morphology have largely been performed as a methodical comparison of individual, isolated forms, as they appear in early written documents, with each other and with reconstructed protoforms in Indo-European. While this method has yielded much information about the early development of the Germanic languages, some erroneous conclusions have also resulted. As an example, one can cite the common assumption that Goth, gasts, OE giest, OHG gast, OS gast, and Olcel. gestr are the reflexes of IE *ghostis > PGmc. *gastiz.1 Hirt discusses these forms as follows: Die maskulinen ¿-Stämme flektieren im Gotischen im Sing, ganz wie die o-Stämme. Es bandelt sich aber nicht um einen Übertritt, sondern in Wirklichkeit sind die Deklinationsklassen in gewissen Kasus zusammengefallen . . . I m Nominativ ist iz in urnordischen HlewagastiR, Sali-gastiR noch erhalten. Im Westgermanischen musste i nach kurzer Wurzelsilbe bleiben. Tatsächlich finden wir althochdeutsch wini 'Freund', risi 'Riese', quiti 'Ausspruch'. Dazu die zahlreichen altenglischen Fälle . . . Die langsilbigen haben zwar ihr i verloren, zeigen aber im Altnordischen und Altenglischen Umlaut. Im Gotischen ist das i geschwunden. 8

This explanation is, however, inadequate. Since i-umlaut is a regular phonetic feature of Proto-Germanic, another explanation for the lack of umlaut in Old Saxon and Old High German must be found. Another example is Krause's proposed three-way division of the Germanic languages according to the evidence of the nominative singular of the o-stems: dagaz- (North Germanic), dags- (East Germanic), and dag- (West Germanic) groups. These forms show, in the first instance, full retention of the IndcEuropean ending -os; in the second, syncope of the vowel; in the third, loss of


Hermann Hirt, Handbuch des Urgermanischen, 2 (Heidelberg, 1932), pp. 42—43; E. Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar (Philadelphia, 1939), p. 134; Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen (Munich, 1953), pp. 147—48. s Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 42—43.


the entire ending. 3 However, here Krause is guilty of comparing forms from different periods. Although his dagaz-group, inferred from runic inscriptions of the 2nd—6th centuries, 4 is chronologically close to the da^-group, inferred from Gothic evidence of the 4th century, 5 the dag-group is merely assumed to be contemporaneous with the other two groups. Krause posits its existence from the evidence of the so-called West Germanic dialects, 6 which are not attested until the 7th century and later. Thus, there is no real basis here for distinguishing both a dagaz-group and a (¿ag'-group. As Makaev has pointed out, there is no evidence that the early runic inscriptions are purely North Germanic in character. 7 Still another error, which has occurred as a result of isolated observations of grammatical forms, is the overlooking of the fact that a given ending, which occurs in two different systems, should develop in the same manner. For example, the first sing, present indicative I E *-o and the neuter nominative/ accusative pi. I E *-o should have the same reflexes. This is, in fact, the case, but with one exception. In West Saxon one finds neuter nominative/accusative pi. fatu, but first sing, present indicative here. Krahe attempts to explain the latter as "early weakening of the o to e".8 However, one must ask why the noun forms were not similarly weakened. Makaev has suggested that the verb ending -e was taken from the corresponding ending of the present subjunctive. 9 In order to avoid such errors, one must consider the development of the Proto-Germanic morphological system as a whole, keeping in mind that the evidence of earliest attested forms in the various languages stems from different periods. A method conforming to such a standard is to be found, I believe, in the application of the methods of synchronic generative grammar to diachronic analysis. Others have already taken steps in this direction. In 1965, Sol Saporta published an article entitled "Ordered Rules, Dialect Differences, and Historical Processes", in which he uses ordered rules to describe the processes of phonological merger, phonological split, analogy, and hypercorrection in dialects of Spanish. 10 The same year, Elizabeth Closs, in "Diachronic Syntax and Genera1

Krause. Gotischen, p. 41. Krause, Gotischen, p. 41. . s Krause, Gotischen, p. 42. 6 Krause, Gotischen, p. 64. 7 E. A. Makaev, "Ponjatie obScegermanskogo jazyka [The Concept of Common Germanic]", Voprosy germanshogo jazykoznanija (Moscow, Leningrad, 1961), pp. 55—66. 8 Hans Krahe, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft1 2 (Berlin, 1961), p. 96. 9 E. A., Makaev, "The Morphological Structure of Common Germanic", Linguistics 10 (1964), p. 35. 10 Sol Saporta, "Ordered Rules, Dialect Differences, and Historical Processes", Language 41 (1965), pp. 218 — 24. 1



tive Grammar", investigated changes in English syntax by applying the rules of generative grammar. 11 In the application of the model of a generative grammar to Proto-Germanic, one cannot, of course, attempt any syntactic analysis, since the reconstruction of Indo-European or Proto-Germanic syntax would be extremely tenuous. Therefore, the generative grammar proposed here will be limited to the noun, adjective, and verb systems. In order to avoid confusion and to facilitate interpretation, the phrase structure of Proto-Germanic is broken down into the following segments: (1) Noun (a) o-, jo-, a-, and ja-stem paradigms (b) i-, u-, and consonant-stem paradigms (c) »-stem paradigms (3) Verb (a) Strong verb paradigm (b) Weak verb paradigm.

(2) Adjective (a) Strong paradigm (b) Weak paradigm

A complete listing of all lexical morphemes which could be used here would exceed the scope of this study. Consequently, each root class under consideration is represented by at least one example. An attempt was made to employ roots common to all dialects under study. When this was impossible, more than one root was chosen, so that each root class is represented in each dialect. The phrase structure in Proto-Germanic is followed by the morphophonemic transformations, by which one can account for regular historical developments in the morphological system. Since the purpose of this grammar is to illustrate the development of Germanic morphology, rather than to study the morphological structure as a whole, the morphophonemic transformations have been restricted to those changes which apply to the lexical and grammatical morphs under immediate consideration only. Guidelines in the progression of this development are furnished by developments in the phonological system, which were discussed in Chapter 2. Using Antonsen's criterion of the change of PGmc. /e 1 / to /a/ as the beginning of the Northwest Germanic period, the morphophonemic transformations following the rule which accounts for the change of /e 1 / > /a/ apply only to Northwest Germanic to the exclusion of Gothic. Still other transformation rules are then proposed, which account for the changes which are peculiar to the development of the independent Germanic languages: Gothic, Old English (West Saxon), Old Saxon, Old High German (East Frankish), and Common Nordic. However, even after these rules are applied, it becomes apparent that other factors, not accounted for by morphophonemic rules, were active in the devel11 Elizabeth Closs, "Diachronic Syntax and Generative Grammar", Language 41 (1966), pp. 402—15.



opment of the various morphological systems before, during, and after the Proto-Germanic period. Such factors are analogy and the processes closely related to it, gender and number differentiation and system pressure. An analogical change which took place in Proto-Germanic so that it affected the course of development of the entire Germanic continuity is included in the transformational section of the grammar. Individual analogical reformations (or such changes affecting some but not all later dialects) are discussed in Chapter 4. 3.2. SYMBOLS

The following is an explanation of terms and symbols used in the generative grammar. (1) + A plus indicates t h a t those elements bounded by it are related and t h a t one follows the other. For example, in B + C, the plus indicates t h a t B and C are related and that B precedes C.12 When parentheses, braces, and square brackets are used, the presence of a plus sign is understood. (2) The double cross serves as a terminal marker. When it precedes a symbol, it indicates t h a t nothing precedes t h a t symbol. Following a symbol, it indicates t h a t nothing follows. Thus, in + , the first double cross shows t h a t nothing precedes A; the second, t h a t nothing follows B. 13 (3) —+ — • Arrows symbolize the process of rewriting. The string to the left of the arrow is rewritten as the string to the right. I n the phrase structure, the arrow is broken —+ and has the meaning 'is'. I n the transformational p a r t of the grammar, a solid arrow — • is used with the meaning 'is derived from'. For example, A + B means 'A is (rewritten as) B'; A -*• B means 'B is derived from A'. 14 (4) ( ) Parentheses indicate t h a t the string enclosed by them is optional. For example, A -—+ B(C) means t h a t A is either B or B plus C.15 (5) { } Paired braces are used to indicate mutually exclusive alternative replacements for the same symbol. Thus, in B C D 12

Andreas Koutsoudas, A Beginner's Manual for Writing Transformational (Bloomington, Ind., 1964), p. 7. 13 Koutsoudas, Manual, p. 7. 14 Koutsoudas, Manual, pp. 7—8. ls Koutsoudas, Manual, p. 9.




one can choose to rewrite A as B or as C or as D, but only one can be chosen in a given application of the rule. Sometimes it is convenient to list the alternatives linearly with commas placed between each choice. When this is done, the braces are generally omitted. Thus, the above rule can also be stated A —•> B, C, D.16 (6) [ ] Though square brackets are used by some grammarians only to indicate the replacement of symbols in the same environment, it is convenient to expand their use. An example of the former use is the rule A




C E This is interpreted to mean that B in the environment A is rewritten as D (in the environment A) and that C in the environment A is rewritten as .E (in the environment A). However, B in the environment A cannot be rewritten as E, nor C as D. In other words, one must rewrite the symbols on the left by the symbols on the right which appear on the same level. One can also use square brackets in the following way: A




D B B Here, C in either environment A or environment B is to be rewritten as D, while A remains A and B remains B. 17 An alternative method for stating the environment is to place the context to the right of the rule following a slash, with a blank indicating position. For example, B D >A A C E can also be written /A+ - . C E Here, as the blank indicates, B and C must follow A. A





can be written C 18



Koutsoudas, Manual, pp. 13—14. Emmon Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars (New York, 1964), pp. 18—19; Koutsoudas, Manual, p. 15. 18 Koutsoudas, Manual, p. 27. 17



(7) * An asterisk is used to indicate that a given rule is dialectally restricted. (8) Occasionally coyer symbols are used in order to abbreviate parts of a rule. Each time a cover symbol is used, it is defined to the right of the rule, since its value is limited to the rule in which it appears. For example: X +A + B

*A + B

X = any string

This rule is interpreted as follows: any string (X) when it appears before A plus B is deleted. 19 Koutsoudas gives the following steps in applying the rules in a generative grammar: Apply the rules (a) One at a time (b) In the order indicated (by the number on the left of each rule) (c) Choosing one alternative replacement for a symbol whenever a choice is given, skipping any rule(s) expanding optional element(s) that we have not chosen previously.20

These directions are sufficient for the application of the ensuing rules. The meanings of individual symbols used in the grammar will be stated as they occur. 3.3. NOUN PHRASE STRUCTURE

1. # N #

Nr + T + C


= noun

N r = noun root T

= thematic suffix


= case suffix

N m = masculine noun root N n = neuter noun root

2. N,r Nf NS GS DS 3. C

18 10

Nf = feminine noun root NS = nominative singular GS = genitive singular DS = dative singular


AS = accusative singular


N P = nominative plural


GP = genitive plural


DP = dative plural


AP = accusative plural

Koutsoudas, Marmai, p. 15. Koutsoudas, Manual, p. 18,



The phrase structure is restricted to the nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative cases because the other Indo-European cases are either not present as distinct cases or not represented in all of the Germanic languages. Only Old High German and Old Saxon, for example, have a distinct instrumental case, which is, however, limited to the singular of the o-stems. Makaev states: Internal reconstruction of the Germanic noun inflection does not provide any basis for the positing of a Common Germanic instrumental singular formative, the more so since the Common Indo-European formative of this case was lacking. The reflex of the IndoEuropean instrumental singular with the formative -o. . .is usually seen in OHG tagu, which is attested in the earliest documents,. . . and OS dagu, dago 'day'. Thus, this form is represented only in a part of the West Germanic area,. . .at that only in the o-stems. . . Therefore, it ought to be viewed as an areal West Germanic innovation, arising on the basis of a definite Indo-European model. 21

Likewise, a distinct vocative is found only in Gothic. In the other Germanic languages, the nominative has taken over the function of the vocative.22 Therefore, no common vocative case can be posited. The Indo-European locative and ablative cases are not distinct in Germanic. The Goth, dative sing, -a in the o-stems may go back to the IE ablative sing. -od, -ed, but this is not certain, since Goth, -a can also be derived from IE -oi, a locative ending. The Indo-European locative is retained in the Germanic languages, but as a dative ending.23

ÍNS 4.


NAS ->

/Nn + T + NAP

NAS = nominative-accusative singular NAP = nominative-accusative plural

Neuter nouns differ from the masculines only in the nominative and accusative cases of the singular and plural. However, the nominative and accusative in the singular have the same formative, as do the nominative and accusative in the plural. 21 E. A. Makaev, "Imennoe sklonenie v germanskix jazykax [Noun Declension in the Germanic Languages]", Sravnitel'naja grammatika germanskix jazykov [A Comparative Grammar of the Germanic Languages] 3, ed., M. M. Guxman (Moscow, 1963), pp. 160—61. 22 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 236. 23 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 36; Prokosch, Grammar, pp. 234—36; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 156—60.



5. N„

6. N,

7. W


N mo

N mo


masculine o-stem root

N •

N •


masculine jo-stem root

N mi

N mi


masculine i-stem root

N mu



masculine w-stem root




masculine consonant-stem root

Nmn .

N ran


masculine w-stem root



feminine a-stem root


feminine ja-stem root

N fl

N fi

N fu

N fu


feminine «-stem root


N fC


feminine consonant-stem root

N fn

N fn


feminine n-stem root

N no

N do


neuter o-stem root

N ni0

N ni0


neuter jo-stem root

N nn .



neuter «-stem root


feminine i-stem root

In Proto-Germanic the o- and ^'o-stem declension contained both masculine and neuter nouns, while the a- and ja-stems contained only feminines. 24 Consequently, one must distinguish between masculine and neuter o- and jo-stems. N,mi N„



- i-stem root


N u = w-stem root


N c = consonant-stem root

N,fu N,mC N,fC

Although the i-, u-, and consonant-stems contain all three genders, the feminine and masculine declensions were identical in the Indo-European period. 25 This is then the condition assumed here for early Proto-Germanic. Of the neuters, only traces are left in the Germanic languages. Gothic has only the singular of faihu (w-stem) and fon (consonant-stem). The former is also present in the 24 25

Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 175. . Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 187, 215, 253—54.



nominative and accusative singular of OS fehu, fihu and OHG fihu, but is otherwise declined as an o-stem. In addition, Old Saxon has nominativeaccusative widu. Former neuter ¿-stems are reflected in OE spere, OS ur-legi, OHG meri, bini. Besides Goth, fon, only OE scrud and ealu were originally neuter consonant-stems.26 Since the neuter nouns in these three stem groups are rare, they are not taken into consideration here. N„


N mjo

har (not OHG), herd


fat (not Goth.), barn


kun, rile


geh, lair (OHG, OS, OE), run (Goth., Common Nordic) sib, haip (Goth., Common Nordic), gard (OHG, OE),



sund (OS) gast, win (not Goth.), naud, stad, hüd


sid, wald (OS, OE), walp (OHG, C o m m o n Nordic), hand



mann, föt, naht



N„r N,fn

aug tung

N Jä + T + NS

eve N jä + i + N S / N j ä = I (evee C = any consonant V = any long vowel or vowel cluster V = any short vowel

The thematic vowel i is a reflex of the stem formant of the Indo-European i-stems. I t was generalized in the nominative singular of the Proto-Germanic ja-stems after a long root syllable.27 11. 26

"Nt •

T -

28 Nt + 5 l N j ä + jö ]'5J

A. Campbell, Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1969), p. 259; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 28—29, 34, 36. " Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 63—64; Prokosch, Grammar, pp. 244—45; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 23; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 184—86. 28 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 58 — 62; Prokosch, Grammar, pp. 244—45.



NAP 12.



5/ ,Nno






N mj0 "

N' njo •








/ -

N mjo • '

+ GS if Goth., OHG, OS 31

Nmi0 N,njo

je 32

T 15.

N„ N mjo •

N mjo • '

^71 jO.




N , + T + GS

> N j + ai + GS / if Goth. 33


N ; + T + GS

> Ni + ei + GS 34


N u + T + GS




N u + au + GS 35 Nj


N u + aw


+ D S if Goth.

Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 162—64. Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 162—64. 31 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 35; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 234; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 9. 32 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 34—37; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 9—11; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 160—70. 33 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 65; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 30; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 190. 34 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 65; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 30; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 190. 3t Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 46; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 32; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 219. 29




Ni + e j

Ni N„

N u + ew


/ - + DS

The dative suffixes for the i- and «-stems in Indo-European are generally cited as èi and eu/ou respectively,36 which are derived from IE eii and eui/o-ui.37 Because it is difficult to explain the development éi > NWGmc. i, it seems advisable to posit the uncontracted endings for Proto-Germanie. In addition, the ablaut variant of IE ei, i.e. IE oi, is posited as the thematic suffix in ProtoGermanic (cf. eu/ou in the «-stems), from which Goth, ¡1/ ai could have developed. 21.

" Nj "



" N; + ej ' N u + ew

22. N t + T

> Nj + i39

23. N u + T

> N u + u 40

24. N c + T

> N c + 0"





(a)n /

Nnn - N

f n

1- GP if Common Nordic


Besides the forms in Old Icelandic with zero grade of ablaut in the theme of the genitive plural of the «-stems, Goth, abne, 'man', auhsne, 'ox', and OE oxna also show zero grade. In addition, Goth, dative pi. abnam and the entire plural of Goth, namo 'name' have zero grade.42 *26. N mn + T

> N m + e n / - + NS if Goth., Common Nordic43

*27. N mn + T

> N mn + 5n / - + NS if OE, OS44


Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 66; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 30, 32. Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 221. 38 Hirt, Urgermanischen p. 43; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 27, 33; Makaev, Imennoe", p. 191. 38 Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 188—94. 0 Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 218—23. 41 Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 250. 42 Krause, Gotischen, p. 152. 43 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 53; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 44; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 198. " H i r t , Urgermanischen 2, p. 53; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 44; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 198. 87



28. N ^ + T

>N n m +

29. N nn + T




T -

— - >


en/ —





32. N fa + T

Nmn —








* N fn + ön" N jä


N mo + a 33. NS

34. NS


Nmjo + ja Nj





- 0« es

35. N c + GS--

as ez az

The Indo-European formatives for the genitive singular of the consonant stems were es and os.52 Through the effects of the stabilization of the accent on the 45

Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 53; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 44; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 198. 48 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 53; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 46; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 206—07. 47 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 44—45; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 202—03. 48 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 45—46; Makaev; "Imennoe", pp. 203—06. 49 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 47; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 209. 40 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 34, 46, 49, 61, 65; Prokosob, Grammar, p. 232; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 9, 14, 26, 32, 35; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 152. 51 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 53, 58—59; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 232; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 20, 44, 46, 48; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 175, 197, 206, 209. 52 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 50; Krähe, iSprachwissenschaft 2, p. 35; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 256.



root syllable, both voiced ez/az and voiceless es/as could have resulted in ProtoGermanic.

36. GS

> az/

37. GS


38. GS

> sa55



if OS, OHG, Common Nordic56

*39. DS ~ — 0 / 40.


- i"



> m58

*42. NP

s/ ]

N mo

Nmj0 + jö

- if OE, OS, (Goth.)

The Indo-European nominative ending -s shows two reflexes in the Germanic languages due to the fluctuation of accent in the Indo-European o-stems. Root accent caused IE -s to be realized as -z in Germanic, while suffix accent caused -s to remain voiceless. In the dialect predecessors of Old English and Old Saxon, " Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 44; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 202. 54 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 21, 30, 32; Makaev,. "Imennoe", pp. 177, 190, 219. 55 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 34; Prokosch, Qrammar, p. 234; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 9. 66 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 59 — 60; Prokosch, Qrammar, pp. 235 — 36; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 21; Makaev, "Imennoe,", p. 179., 5 ' Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 35—36, 50, 59; Prokosch, Qrammar, pp. 234—36; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 10, 21, 35, 45; Makaev, "Inaennoe", pp. 160, 179, 203, 221, 257. 58 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 34, 43, 46, 50, 59; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 233; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 10, 21, 27, 32, 35, 45; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 160, 181, 191, 203, 222, 257.



the voiceless form was generalized in the nominative; in those of Old High German and Old Icelandic, the voiced phoneme. Whether Gothic had the latter or the former is impossible to determine, since the contrast voiced/voiceless was neutralized in final position among the Gothic fricatives. 59 N, + ej 43. NP-- - >



Nu - f e w Nn

The Indo-European nominative plural suffix for the ¿-, u-, and consonantstems is given as -es.60 While there seems to be no evidence for the ablaut variant -os in other Indo-European languages,61 the development in Germanic suggests the former presence of such a variant in the form -az. All consonant stems in Old Icelandic and Old English show ¿-umlaut in the nominative plural and thus reflect the Proto-Germanic formant -iz. However, OS OHG man without umlaut and Goth, mans, baurgs without -i- indicate that the ProtoGermanic forms must have been * / m a n n a z / a n d */burgaz/, which later lost the final -a-, a phenomenon characteristic of all Germanic languages.62 The Scandinavian reflexes of the latter have /o/ leveled throughout the paradigm. This would also seem to indicate the former presence of a suffix with -a-, causing a-umlaut of /u/. 83 44. N P

az /

The lack of ¿-umlaut in any reflexes of the Proto-Germanic »-stem nominative plural suggests that the ending generalized for the nominative plural was the ablaut variant of I E -es, i.e. -os, which became PGmc. -az. 45. N P 49

*z 6 4

Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 152. Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 43, 47, 60; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 191. 61 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 54. M Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 133; Hans Krähe, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft6 1 (Berlin, 1963), p. 128. S3 The assumed "irregularity" of ¿-syncope noted by Prokosch (p. 134) is similar to the situation confronting us in the retention or syncope of /-i-/ in Gothic compounds; e.g. naudi-bandi, but brüpfaps. In both instances, it is much simpler to assume that /-i-/ never existed. See Elmer H. Antonsen's review of Alexander Szulc's Umlaut und 'Brechung, Language 42 (1966), p. 121. 64 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 11, 21—22; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 162, 182. 60




N,110 O 46. GP


>• m /

47. GP

> 5m66

48. D P

> mz

The precise form of the Germanic dative plural is a moot question. The IndoEuropean instrumental ending -miz is reflected in OE poem, twmm with ¿-umlaut of PGmc. /ai/. However, in the noun declensions, there is no evidence of ¿-umlaut, except in those stems where i or j occur in the stem formant. The IndoEuropean dative-ablative suffix -mos has also been suggested as the dative plural suffix which was generalized in Germanic as -maz. One would expect then to find evidence of a-umlaut, but this is also lacking. Makaev and Prokosch suggest t h a t the Germanic dialect area developed a contracted form -mz, which was adopted as the dative plural formant for the entire noun system. 67 Although Prokosch and Makaev do not attempt to explain why the vowel of the formative was lost, I should like to propose that either -a- or -i- was lost in early ProtoGermanic in analogy with the accusative plural formant -nz. Hence, there are no traces of umlaut except for the relic forms OE pcem, twcèm. 68

50. A P

> nz 69

51. NAS

-> 0 / N m + ön +

52. NAS 65


m 71

Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 37, 61; Prokosch, Qrammar, pp. 239 — 40; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 11, 22; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 164, 182. 66 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 27, 33, 45; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 191, 205, 223, 258. 67 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 240; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 169. 68 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 22—23; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 183. 69 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 11, 28, 33; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 170, 205. 70 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 46; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 206. 71 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 37; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 233; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 12.



53. NAP 54. NAP

ö / N, > 0λ

+ on H



3.41. Strong


The strong adjectives in Indo-European were originally identical with the socalled vocalic noun declensions. Some forms, however, adopted pronominal endings, and thus there developed differences between the paradigms of the various adjective stems and the corresponding noun stems. Once the continuity of the noun-type declension was broken by the addition of pronoun endings, further pronoun endings could easily be adopted. This happened in different degrees in the separate Germanic dialects. 74 However, some pronominal endings are common to all the Germanic languages and therefore can be considered old. They are included in the following phrase structure for the o- (masculine and neuter) and â - (feminine) stems. With the exception of the pronoun endings, the adjectival jo-,jâ-, i-, and w-etem declensions correspond to the noun declensions; therefore, they need not be considered here. 55.


56. Aa

* Ar + Ts + C


— strong adjective


= weak adjective

Ar Ts

= adjective root = strong thematic suffix

T m o = masculine o-theme T„„ = neuter o-theme

57. T.



58. C

- NS, GS, DS, AS, NP, GP, DP, A P





= feminine ä-theme


/Ar + T n o +



Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 46; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 207. Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 37; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 237; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 12; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 163, 208. 74 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 85 — 86; Prokosch, Grammar, pp. 259 — 61; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 75—76. 73



A r + Tmo + AS


A r + Tmo



•> A r + an +

AS 7 5

i N P 176 >Ar +




A , + aiz +

GP 7 7

fä 63.

A r + Tfg + GS


Ar + Tfä

A r + aiz + Ar +

*65. A r






A , + Tno + N A P

*68. A ,


A r + az + D S / if Goth. 79

• A r + ez +



->• A r + ö +


A r + e + G S / i f Goth., O H G , OS

••> a

69. 70.

GS 78


*0/Ar +

a i + -

8 1

0/Ar + ö +




* 5m / A r + an H




öz / A r + aiz +


Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 61. Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 63—64. "Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 63—64. 78 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 62. 79 Kralle, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 61. 80 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 61. 81 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 63. 82 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 61. 83 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 62. 7t





- — ->




/ Ar + a H


75. 76.

GS -





- ->


| -

[ n a s








mö 85






-> me / A r + oz -\

79. 80.

>z/Ar + ö +

— ->

-»- m öm

-•*• mz




lang 3.42. Weak


T h e weak adjective declension was formed on the basis of the an- (masculine a n d neuter) and on- (feminine) stems of the noun system. The phrase structure for the weak adjective is thus identical with t h a t of the w-stems. 3.5. V E R B P H R A S E STRUCTURE # v #

V r + T + TM


= verb


= verb root


= thematic suffix


= tense-mode suffix


= strong verb root


= weak verb root



= present indicative



= present subjunctive



= past indicative



= past subjunctive



= imperative

' y


— --

v V


TM —

84 85



w .

Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft

2, p. 61. 2, p. 61.



y ,s

V gl

= strong verb root, Class 1


= strong verb root, Class 2

V s3

= strong verb root, Class 3

V s4

= strong verb root, Class 4

V s5

== strong verb root, Class 5


= strong verb root, Class 6 The seventh class, the so-called reduplicating class, of strong verbs presents a special problem. With the exception of Gothic, there are few traces of reduplication in the other Germanic languages. Former reduplicating verbs are reflected in the following past tense forms: OHG teta, OS dede, OE dyde 'did'; 86 Olcel. rera 'rowed', sera 'sowed', snera 'turned', grera 'grew', gnera 'rubbed'; OE heht 'was called', leolc 'jumped'; Anglian leort (• /-ai-/ before any consonant, including / - j - / < /-e-/; 93 (2) /-oj-/ was lost before any vowel except /-e-/ > /-]-/. Thus, /-ojC-/ > Goth. /-aiC-/> as in the preterit indicative sing. 1 hdbaida, but /-ojV-/ > /-V-/, as in the present indicative pi. 3 haband (/-(9j)onti/ > Goth, /-and/) (pp. 138 — 39). In Old English some of the verbs of this class have been reformed according to the second class. Others have forms characteristic of both the first and second classes. Old Saxon and Old Icelandic similarly show reformation based on both Class 1 and Class 2.94 Only Gothic has preserved the fourth class of weak verbs as an independent class. Original Class 4 weak verbs with -n- are found in the other Germanic languages, b u t they have been absorbed into the other weak verb paradigms. One finds, for example, Old Norse vakna 'waken' as a second class weak verb, b u t OE wcecnan as a first class weak verb. Having the same formant -n- are a l s o O l c e l . sporna,

O H G spornon,


O S mornon,

O E murnan,


others. 95 91

Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 171. William H. Bennett, "The Parent Suffix in Germanic Weak Verbs of Class III", Language 38 (1962), p. 137. 83 Bennett says: "Since the theme vowel -e- became -j- when coming to stand between vowel and consonant, the sequence -d(j)eC- likewise produced -ajC- > Goth. -aiC, e.g. present indicative active sing. 2 -a(j)esi > -ajzi > Goth, -ais as in habais" ("The Parent Suffix", p. 138). 94 Johan Hendrik Gallee, AUsachsische Orammatik1 (Halle, Leiden, 1910), p. 266; Adolf Noreen, Altislandische und altnorwegische Orammatik^ (Halle, 1923), p. 360; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 121 — 22. 95 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 164; Prokosch, Grammar pp. 156 — 57; Krause, Ootischen p. 231; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 122. Although Old Icelandic has more verbs of the fourth class type than the West Germanic languages, I cannot agree with the investigators who maintain that Old Icelandic should be grouped with Gothic. In Old Icelandic, the ihflection is clearly that of the Class 2 weak verb, and therefore these verbs cannot be considered as a separate verb class, as in Gothic. 92



Since the reflexes of both Class 3 and Class 4 weak verbs have been greatly altered by reformation (in all dialects save Gothic perhaps), they are not taken into consideration here in the phrase structure.

V 89.

Va3 V s4

Vpri v >


Vpr3 Vpr4



V s8

Vpr6 _ _

90. P R I -

Vprl = present root, Class 1 ^pr2 = present root, Class 2


= present root, Class 3

+ T • PRS

/ -


= present root, Class 4 ^prS = present root, Class 5 Vpr6

= present root, Class 6


P R I s l = 1 sing, present indicative


PRI 8 2 = 2 sing, present indicative


PRIjg = 3 sing, present indicative

PRI,pi PRI,p2

P R I p l = 1 pi. present indicative


PRIpg = 3 pi. present indicative

P R I p 2 = 2 pi. present indicative

The dual forms will not be considered here since they are retained only in Gothic.96 91. T -

>o/Vprl_fl + - +


PRI, 92. T

e/V,prl—6 + -



93. T

> a / Vprl—6 +


P R Ilpi PRI,P3

Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 139; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 209; Krause, Gotischen, p. 209. Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210; Campbell, Old English, p. 297; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 96 — 9 7 ; Braune, Grammatik, p. 258. 9 8 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 177; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210;' Krause, Gotischen, p. 210; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 96 — 97. 9 9 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 177; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210; Krause, Gotischen, p. 210; K r ä h e , Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 9 6 — 9 7 . M


88 94.






5 1

P R I,s2 *95. T

> e /Vwl


{pRI, P R I , s2



je / Vwl



ioo if O E , O H G , O S 1 0 1 102

P R I s3 P R I p2



-— > j a

+ -


*98. T —— » ö j ö

/ Vw2

*99. T —— * ö j a


+ + -

100. T —— ö

/ Vw2

101. T —— > a i

/ Vprl—e

102. T —— > j a i


103. T —— > ö j a i / V w 2 104. T —— > ö a i

+ -



{ PRIp3) + P R I s l if O E 1 0 4 f P R T si,

s2, s3

1 106

.++ + + -

P R I ,p l , p 2 , p 3 J

+ P R S if O E , (OS) 1

100 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 177—79; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210; Campbell, Old English, p. 322; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 117—18; Braune, Grammatik, p. 258. 101 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 177 — 79; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 117—18; cf. Campbell, Old English, p. 322, and Braune, Grammatik, pp. 259 — 61. 102 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 177—79; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, 117 — 18; cf. also Campbell, Old English, p. 322 and Braune, Grammatik, pp. 260 — 62. 103 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 177—79; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 117—18; cf. also Campbell, Old English, p . 322 and Braune, Grammatik, pp. 260—62. 104 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 179; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 212; Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 119 — 20. 105 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 179; Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 119 — 20. 108 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 179; Prokosch, Grammar, p . 212; Krause, Gotischen, p . 228; Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 119—20; Braune, Grammatik, pp. 258 — 62. 107 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 216; Krause, Gotischen, p. 213; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 108 — 09; Braune, Grammatik, p. 263. los p r okosch, Grammar, p. 216; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 126; Braune, Grammatik, p. 263. 109 Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 126; Braune, Grammatik, p. 263. 110 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 126; Braune, Grammatik, p. 263.


105. T —— » 5


106. T ——*• ai


107. T ——> e

/ ^prl—6

108. T —— * je


109. T — 110. T —-

/ V w2

111. P I

ö 0



V s4

+ P R S if Goth., OHG, OS 111


+ PRS 1 1 2


+ I 113


+ I1"


+ I 115 + PI 1 1 6 P I s l = 1 sing, past indicative


PI s 2 = 2 sing, past indicative


PI s 3 = 3 sing, past indicative


P I p l = 1 pi. past indicative


PIp2 = 2 pi. past indicative

P I P3

P I p 3 = 3 pi. past indicative vv


v* ps2

V32 V s3



V *112.

+ + + + + +


vv >


v ps4

V s5

v ps5

V s6




h PI 9 „ if Goth., Common Nordic 117

V p8l = past sing, root, V ps2 = past sing, root, Class 2 V ps3 = past sing, root, Class 3 V ps4 = past sing, root, Class 4 V p8ä = past sing, root, Class 5 V ps6 = past sing, root, Class 6


Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 126; Braune, Grammatik, p. 263. Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 126. 113 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 215; Krause, Gotischen, p. 214; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 110. 114 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 186; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 216; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 128. 115 Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 129. 118 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 100. 117 Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 100. 112



v psl

V vv


VS3 V84


115. T

v ps2




f pT


v V ps4

/ -

1 118

si I







vv ppl 119

V ppl = past pi. root, Class 1



V pp2 = past pi. root, Class 2


V pp3 = past pi. root, Class 3



V pp4 = past pi. root, Class 4



V pp5 = past pi. root, Class 5



V pp8 = past pi. root, Class 6



ps5 ps6

(i)dö/V w l + - + PI 9l 120

What is presented here as the thematic suffix appearing in the past tense of weak verbs is actually a composite of the thematic vowel, here -i-, plus the dental formant, characteristic of weak preterits in Germanic. Although this manner of presentation may strain the concept of the true nature of the thematic suffix, the two formatives are presented as a unit in order to facilitate the presentation of the personal endings. 121 The thematic vowel -i- is represented as an optional element in Proto-Germanie, since the conditions for its presence or absence are not clear. Each of the attested Germanic languages has its own relationship between reflexes of forms with -i- and forms without -i-. These varying relationships will be discussed later (see §5.1). 118 Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 100; Braune, Grammatik, p. 268. 119 Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 100—02. 120 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Krause, Gotischen, pp. 211, 223; Campbell, Old English, p. 322; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26; Braune, Grammatik, p. 294. 121 An alternative method of presentation would involve rewriting the thematic suffix as a thematic vowel plus dental formant in Rules 115—127. The result of this breakdown would be the addition of a number of rules not essential in view of the aims of this grammar.


pi8! 116. T






P I ,s8 P I pi

*117. T

* ided

/Vwl H

P I .P2

if Goth.123

P I p3 P I Pi 118. T


/Vwl +


P I ,p2


P I ,p3 119. T — - > ö d ö

/Vw2+ -

120. T

/ Vw2

-- - > öde

* 1 2 1 . T — -> ö d e d

122. T

123. T


—> i




if Goth.127

/Vw2 H

/Vw2 +

/ Vppi-6 H


1- P S 1 2 9

122 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Krause, Gotischen, pp. 211, 223; Campbell, Old English, p. 322; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26; cf. Prokosch, Grammar p. 198. 123 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 199; Krause, Gotischen, p. 223; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26. 124 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26; Braune, Grammatik, p. 294. 125 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Krause, Gotischen, p. 223; Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26. 129 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Krause, Gotischen, p. 223; Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123—26. 1 2 7 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Prokosch,Grammar, p. 199; Krause, Gotischen, p. 223; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26. 128 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 155; Campbell, Old English, p. 333; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 123 — 26. 129 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 198; Krause, Gotischen, p. 213; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 109; Braune, Grammatik, p. 270.



> idedl / V w l


h P S if G o t h . 1 3 0


/ Vwl


b PS131

> ödedi / V w 2


(- P S if G o t h . 1 3 2

> odi


f- P S 1 3 3

*124. T 125. T *126. T 127. T







= 1 sing, s u b j u n c t i v e




= 2 sing, s u b j u n c t i v e




s3 = 3 sing, s u b j u n c t i v e





= 1 pi. s u b j u n c t i v e





= 2 pi. subjunctive





= 3 pi. subjunctive

129. I *130. P R I s l 131. P R L *132. P R I S 2 133. P R I S 2 *134. P R I s 3 135. PRI S S *136. PRI P L 137. P R I P L 130

> mi

/ Vw2 + Ö + -


= 2 sing, imperative


= 2 pi. imperative

if O H G , OS



> zi

/ if C o m m o n N o r d i c , (Goth.) 1 3 6

> si 1 3 7 > J)i

/ if O E , OS, (Goth.) 1 3 8

> di 1 3 9 > m e s / if O H G > maz

Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 128 — 29. Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 128—29. 133 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 128 — 29. 133 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 128—29. 134 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 211; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 120; Braune, Grammatik, p. 258. 135 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210; Campbell, Old English, p. 297; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 96, 117, 119; Braune, Grammatik, p. 258. 136 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 211; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 96, 117, 119. 137 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210; Campbell, Old English, p. 297; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 96, 117, 119. 138 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 210; Campbell, Old English, p. 297; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 96, 117, 119. 139 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar p. 210; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 96. 131



The formant generally cited for Proto-Germanic is -miz < -mez < IE -mes (cf. Greek pheromes). However, as other investigators have failed to recognize, this suffix -miz would have caused ¿-umlaut, which is not observed in any of the Germanic languages. Therefore, it seems more probable that besides IE -mes ( > P G m c . -mes¡mez), the ablaut variant IE -mos (cf. Latin ferimus) also existed in Proto-Germanic as -maz. Some dialects then generalized the form -maz, which later lost -az by regular phonological change, while others generalized -mes, which is reflected in the first person plural present indicative in Old High German.140 138. PRI p 2 *139. PRI p 3

> de141 * ndi/ if Goth., OHG142

140. P R I p 3

> nt>i143

141. P I *


142. PI s l

> m145

/V p 8 l _g -\


143. PI 82

> ta / Vpal_g -\


144. PI a2

-»-ez / V p p l _ 6 - |


*145. PI s2


146. PI^

> s149

147. PI sS



/ i f Common Nordic, (Goth.)148


Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 138. Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 210; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 97, 117, 119. 142 Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 210; Krause, Gotischen, p. 228; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 97—98, 117, 119. 143 Campbell, Old English, p. 297; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 210; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 97 — 98, 117, 119. 144 Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 160; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 102. 145 Hirt, XJrgermanischen 2, p. 136; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 198; Krause, Gotischen, p. 211; Campbell, Old English, p. 322; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 124. 146 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 136; Prokoseh, Grammar,-p. 160; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 102—03. 147 Prokoseh, Grammar, pp. 160—61; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 102—03. 148 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 198; Krause, Gotischen, p. 211; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 124. 149 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 198; Krause, Gotischen, p. 211; Campbell, Old English, p. 322; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 124. 150 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 136; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 160; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 103. 141


148. P L 149. Pip! 150. PI,p2


-C -> me 1 5 2 de 1 5 3 d

151. PI,p3 152. S 9l *153. Sb2

154. S,82 155. S,b3



1» -> m 155 / i f O E , C o m m o n N o r d i c , (Goth.) 1 5 6

z 8157

d 1158 . M

156. S,pi

•> me 1 5 9

157. S,P2

> de 1 6 0

158. S.P3 151




Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 198; Krause, Gotischen, p. 211; Campbell, Old English, p. 322; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 124. The IndoEuropean ending was /-t/, which became PGmc. /})/ or /d/, depending upon the position of the pre-Germanic accent. Since the dental was subsequently lost in final position, we cannot tell whether /d/, /{)/, or both actually existed in early Proto-Germanic. 152 Krause, Gotischen, p. 212; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 103, 124—25. 163 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 103, 124—25. 164 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 103—04, 124—25. 155 Krause, Gotischen, p. 213; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 108, 126. 15« Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 216; Krause, Gotischen, p. 228; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 108, 126. 157 Prokoseh, Grammar, p. 216; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 108, 126. 158 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 108, 126. ».5» Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 108, 126. 160 Hirt, Ur germanischen 2, p. 137; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 109, 126. 161 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 109, 126.



-> 0 1 8 2 -> de 1 6 3

159. I , 160. I„ v







werp >










baud warp >

bar las for


r ppl







wurp >







' wl w2


tal (not Goth.), war, dom salb (not Common Nordic), panic (not Goth.

162 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 215; Krause, Gotischen, p. 215; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, pp. 110, 128—29. 163 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, p. 137; Krause, Gotischen, p. 214; Campbell, Old English, p. 298; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 111.




In the following rules, all transformations are obligatory, and all vowels are weakly stressed, unless indicated as stressed vowels (').


165. j

cVcc ij /


C = any consonant . 161


' — stress V = any long vowel or vowel cluster V = any short vowel

Ex.: N S


P R I s l — dömjö

> X + ssa165

166. X + d + t a #

E x . : PI s 2 — baudta-

nmz 167.


168. zm

X = any string


mmz V

(n)nm 1 nnn

herdijaz domijo



I — hananmz — mannm • — tungônm • — mannnz •


' = stress V = any vowel


• mann •


• mannz

mm 167

Ex.: D S —



164 Hirt, Urgermanischen 2, pp. 39—40; Krause, Gotischen, p. 101; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 13. 165 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 88; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 86; Krause, Gotischen, p. 119; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 109. 168 Cf. Prokosch, Grammar, p. 253; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 45; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 206. 187 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 122, 2, p. 82; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 86; Krause, Gotischen, p. 107; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 113; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 341.




Ci + m

Cx + um

C2 + n

C2 + un


/ -

Cj = any consonant ^ m C2 = any consonant ^ n C = any consonant

E x . : AS

burgum berunp

— burgm •

— hemp


V = any unstressed vowel




v V169


V = nasalized vowel

— dagam — stadim

——dagä ——> stadl

— geböm

——>- gebo ——hane ——>- gripi

— hanen - gripim .0170


E x . : PRSpa — werpaind • PI p 3 — wurpunp • PIgg


V Ex.



->• dömide


C / -


V = any unstressed vowel C = any consonant






(C)i 173.

werpatn wurpun





C = any consonant


i / -

E x . : D S — herteni N P — gastejez

— —

hertini gastijiz

1 , 8 Hirt, Urgermaniechen 1, p. 59; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 46; Krause, Gotischen, p. 71; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 64; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 268. 188 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 130—31; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 140; Krause, Gotischen, p. 105; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, pp. 123 — 24; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 160. 170 Hirt, XJrgermanischen 1, p. 130; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 140; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 125. 1 , 1 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 113; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 205. 172 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 41; Krause, Gotischen, pp. 87, 148, 155; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 64; cf. also Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 191, 203.



mes # 1 7 3

174. mes #

Ex.: PRI,pi — beudames •


me / if OE, OS, OHG, Common Nordic *175. me # Ex.: PRS p l — faraime faraime Rules 174 and 175 do not represent regular phonological changes. By analogy with the ending of the first plural subjunctive, the ending -mes of the first plural present indicative became -mes. Later, the ending -mes was often substituted for the original subjunctive ending. Cf. early OHG first pi. present subjunctive /nemem/, later /nememes/. 171 In some dialect areas of ProtoGermanic, the final vowel of the first plural subjunctive must have been shortened in analogy with the ending -me of the first plural past indicative, since no reflexes of this final vowel are present in any dialect except Gothic. 176.

# ,

> 0 / Vr + VX + - 1 7 5

Vr = verb root V = any unstressed vowel

Ex.: PRI 62 — f a r i s i PRI p 2 — farede PRS p l — domijaime • 177.


e #


X = any string not ending in j • faris • fared domijaim


d d Ex.: PI p l — forme — PI p 2 - forde -

•form ford

Rules 176 and 177 describe the leveling process by which the final vowels of the secondary verbal suffixes were lost in analogy with the primary endings. 178. m #

- > u m # / C + -177

Ex.: PI p l — form 179. d # 173


= any consonant


*• forum

ud#/Vr((X)d) -178

V r = verb root X = any string

Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 97. Braune, Grammatik, p. 264. 175 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 137,139; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 133; Krause, Gotischen, p. 86; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, pp. 128—29. 176 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 133; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 128. 177 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 59; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 46; Krause, Gotischen, p. 71; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 54. 178 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 217; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 103. 171


MORPHOLOGY • förud taldud salbodud

E x . : P I vP22 — förd

P I p 2 — taldd P I p 2 — salbodd

A -u- was added t o the ending of the second plural past indicative in analogy with -um and -un of the first and third person plural. 180.

iji "





/ -

E x . : N P — gastijizD S — sidiwi •





E x . : DS DS

gastijz sidiu




naudaji sidawi •

naudäi sidäu

N m n = masculine n-etem

Nn 182.

ni # •


Ex.: DS — DS —

N„ N,fn

hertini langoni





neuter «-stem


feminine «-stem


= adjective root


= any unstressed vowel

->- hertin langon

After t h e contraction of the dative singular endings of the i- and it-stems (Rules 180 and 181), the -i of the dative singular in the »-stems was also lost, perhaps because it was the only short vowel in final position serving as a case ending for a noun containing three syllables. Another possibility is simply t h a t final -i may always have been lost when it occurred in the third syllable. 181 183. au


Ex.: NS — 1,8


' --- stress X = any string I = i, I, j, I, ! ndydiz

Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 128; cf. also Krause, Gotischen, pp. 148, 151; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 191, 221. 180 Cf. Krause, Gotischen, p. 91; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 190, 221. 181 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 139; Krause, Gotischen, p. 86; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 129; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 203. 182 See § 2.1.



+ X V C(X)I 183

184. a -

Ex.: DS — nahti-


ndhti '

= stress






= any string ^ n + C, C + j, C + i,






— bauda — graipa — beudain — sidauz — burgo


——»- baoda ——>- graepa ——»- byodain ——> sedauz ——>- borgo





= a, e, 6, o + X t


= any consonant

X x = any string





= stress




= i, i, !, i, j




X j = any string ending in a consonant









— beudis — gardl NS — herdijaz NS — burgiz NP — lest PSfl1 — domijo — hudiz NS — greipand PRIpa PRIh«


stress h, 1 any consonant any string ending in a consonant i, i, j, i, !



= = = = =




' Xv C X I

See § 2.1. See § 2.1. See § 2.1.

——>• biuydis ——>• gazrdi ——hirdijaz ——y byrgiz ——»- lest ——>- domijo ——»- hydiz ——>- griipand

X = any string












' / ^ (XjìUiX)"


— stress

U = u, u, o # , w, 6 + n + V, o + n # X ! = any string ending in a consonant X = any string V = any unstressed vowel

— sidumz -

Ex. : D P

PRI s l — werpo


— barno



188. i + i-

• •

swdumz vrxrpö barno Ifsun

= stress

. 7187

Ex.: PRI s l — griipö 189. au




190. Ex.:

PRSsl — i



. j . Ex.:








i . j .


PRI g l — panköjö j#




laeräi pankäjö

C = any consonant

See § 2.1. Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p . 38; Prokosch, Grammar, p . 105; K r a u s e , Gotischen, p. 74; K r ä h e , Sprachwissenschaft 1, p . 53. 188 Prokosch, Grammar, p . 137; K r a u s e , Gotischen, p . 91. is» Cf Prokosch, Grammar, p . 137. 1 9 0 Cf. Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p . 137; K r a u s e , Gotischen p . 91; K r ä h e , Sprachwissenschaft 1, p . 134; Makaev, " I m e n n o e " , pp. 179, 221. 1 , 1 Hirt, Urgermanischen l , p . 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p . 133; K r a u s e , Gotischen p. 86; K r ä h e , Sprachwissenschaft 1, p . 134. 186




baod baud

Ex.: PI g l — baoda baude PL, 193.

• i1

j #

• tceli gcerdi

Ex.: I s — tcelj NS — gmrdi




ij(i) Ex.: I s — NP —

# domi -> gcestiz

domij gcestijz

3.62. Gothic





Ex.: NAP — bornö DS NS PIg3 196. V-

— dags — hane — wceride

. V195

V = nasalized vowel V = unnasalized vowel

Ex.: GP — gebo A S — dagä • 197. a(z) #

- barnä • dagä, hanä wceridä

gebö • daga


Ex.: NS — dagaz A S — daga

> dagz >- dag

192 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 133, 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 134; Krähe, wissenschaft 1, pp. 96, 127, 131; cf. also Krause, Gotischen, p. 89. 183 Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 14. 194 Krause, Gotischen, pp. 88—89; cf. also p. 91. 195 Cf. Krause, Gotischen, p. 105. 196 Krause, Gotischen, p. 87.





au ao



as a


a 0 e Y

o e


' =


YU yo





T e


UI Ex.:


— grmp — graep — baud — baod — ngydiz — gcestiz - nahti — nahtumz — domija — berima

——> grip ——'- grip ——+b5d ——>b5d ——> nodiz ——>• gastlz ——>• nahti ——»- nahtumz ——> domija ——>• berima

197 See §2.2. I t should be noted that the symbols to the right of the arrow represent phonemes, which, however, may have had the allophonic variants given on the left.



P R I si

byudä " byodand - bmydiz - bydiz

s 2


- borgz - gybä - geböz

NS KP NS 199.

-> g'ifcä g'itöz -y

- siuduz



C = any consonant


Ex.: AS NS


berun büdä budand -> budiz budiz -> burgz



" bfrun


— harj >hari — harjz —-—> hariz





Ex.: PIp3 PRIs3

ir)199 h

' - stress


-wurpun- wirpip -


201. äi gibt

E x . : D S — gibäi -


202. äu Ex.: D S

203. e





^ i202

Ex.: GS

204. iji Ex.: GS


205. i + j + V 198

Krause, Gotischen, See §2.2. 200 Krause, Gotischen, 201 Krause, Gotischen, 202 Krause, Gotischen, 203 Krause, Gotischen, 204 Krause, Gotischen,

^j+ V

rikis 204

V = any unstressed vowel

pp. 100, 141; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft


p. 91; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 137. p. 91; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 137. p . 71. p. 142. p . 142,

2, p. 14.



Ex.: N P —








Ex.: AS


i a

herdi barna




juz 206

207. iwz

E x . : N P — suniwz



> m207

208. mz

Ex.-: D P — dagamz •

209. z #

• s #



E x . : N P — dagoz —

dagos 209






Cv = any voiced, nonresonant consonant C vl = voiceless consonant

stads Ex.: NS PI g l - bad

211. nns


Ex.: NS —

staps böp 2


-> mans

3.63. Northwest 212.

r e— a ~i f



Ex.: PS p 3 — It sin — PIp 3 — Ijsun — 213. 5 #



' = stress

Icesin läsun

* u #212


Krause, Gotischen, p. 142. Krause, Gotischen, p. 102. 207 Krause, Gotischen, p. 107. 208 Krause, Gotischen, p. 123. 208 Krause, Gotischen, p. 123. 210 Cf. Krause, Gotischen, p. 160. 211 See §2.3. 212 Hirt, TJrgermanischen 1, p. 133; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 137; Krähe, schaft 1, pp. 132—33; Makaev, "Imetmoe", p. 163. 206




E x . : N A P — barno *214.

Ü / -


n #

if OHG, OS, Common Nordic218

(n)n + V

V = any unstressed vowel

E x . : A S — tungön N P — tungönaz

tungün tungünaz




215. V

V = nasalized vowel V = unnasalized vowel

E x . : G P — barno A S — daga •

barnö daga

au 216.

5 Ex. : DS — GS —

waldau waldöz

waldä waldäz

ai 217.

-> 5216 e'


Ex.: DS - hüdäi PRS pa gripin 218. ö(z) # •


E x . : N P — dagöz G P — dogò *219.


hüde gripen

dagäz daga

• u / - + X + u if OE, Common Nordic218 X = any string

E x . : PIpg — panködun

220. ö 213



* ä / if OE, Common Nordic219

Prokosch, Grammar, p. 138; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 66; Makaev, "Imennoe", p . 212. 214 Krahe, Sprachunssenschaft 1, p . 124. 215 Cf. Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 137; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 221. 216 Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 133; cf. also Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 137; Makaev, "Imennoe", pp. 190—91. 217 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 139; Makaev, "Imennoe", p. 182; cf. also Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 133 — 34; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, pp. 126, 133. 218 A. Noreen, Geschickte der nordischen Sprachen3 (Strassburg, 1913), p. 75; Campbell, Old English, p. 139. 119 Noreen, Sprachen, p. 76; Campbell, Old English, p. 147.

MOBPHOLOGY • dagäs • panJcäde,

E x . : N P — dagos P I 8 l — pankode

*221. (CJCfCj + j


(CJCtrCA + j / if OE, OS, OHG220 ' = stress V = any short vowel C = any consonant Cj = any consonant

Ex.: PRI,



222. az #

224. E x . : NS — hcerjz AS — hirdij

225. ij



E x . : P R I s l — dSmiju

*226. z #

* 022S / if OE, OS, OHG

E x . : NS — dagz

•227. z

>• dSmiu

»- dag

* r 2 2 6 / if OE, OS, OHG

E x . : GP — langezä 220 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, pp. 98—101; Prokosch, Grammar, pp. 87—88; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, pp. 103—04. 221 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 133; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 128. 222 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 137; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 133; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 128. 123 Prokosch, Grammar, p. 134; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 14. 224 Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 2, p. 14. 225 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 131; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 140; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 126. 224 Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 131; Prokosch, Grammar, p. 84; Krahe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 126.



u 228.




N r = noun root


A r = adjective root CfCCj A, '


= stress

C = any consonant Cj = any consonant ^ j V = any short vowel V = any long vowel or vowel cluster Ex.: NAP — barnu NAP — langünu NS — gœrdi *229. V + n\> # Ex.: P R IP3

• barn languii gœrd

^ V + J)228/if OE, OS werpanp

V = any unstressed vowel

*• werpap

3.64. Old English (West Saxon) ui





Hirt, Urgermanischen 1, p. 138; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, pp. 129—30, 133—34. Campbell, Old English, p. 47; Krähe, Sprachwissenschaft 1, p. 116. "» See § 2.7.




Ex.: PRIb2 NT PRI8l PRIp3 PL, PI,si PRIpS PI,si PL PIp3 231.

->• bmdis ->- niudi bydu -y brdap

— — — —

buiydis naydi bYudu b-sodap baud baod — dfimiap — graep — grceip — lasun





bad -> bad ->- demiap -> grap -+grap lasun

/ -t- + r + C 2 3 0

C — = any consonant


e / -£-231

E x . : AS — 233. as #

v es


= stress

• gest

#232 dages

E x . : GS — dagas — 234.

= stress

hvirdl vrgrpap

E x . : AS — hirdi P R I p 3 — werpap232. se


•»/-V M0

any long unstressed vowel short vowel •dagas hwrdi dcege

E x . : N P — dagäs A S — hvirdl

DS 242. aj + V -





246. i

>e «

Ex.: AS

— huirdi •




P R I ,b3 -

247. u + C

P 246

P I P 3 — sdlbudun

248. X + b


P I ,P3

"g " k








Sdlbodon •

g è

English, English, English, English, English, English,


X = any string not ending in m or b

*X + b «

N P — geste • N S - rllce N P — byrg

Campbell, Old Campbell, Old 245 Campbell, Old 246 Campbell, Old 847 Campbell, Old 248 Campbell, Old 1960), pp. 77—78. 244

C = any consonant ^

o + C

Ex.: P I P 3 — wurpun



» ena # 2 4 4

245. ana #


A r = adjective root C = any consonant V = any unstressed vowel

+ Vf Vf yr


Vf — e, i, se, é, i,


geste rice byrg p. 143. pp. 158—59. p. 153. pp. 155—56. p. 179. p. 173; Karl Brunner, Die englische Sprache2 1 (Tübingen,








E x . : N P — dagas N S — burg











P R I ,s2 PRI^ -

dagas burg

• 250

bunds -




P R I S 2 — li PRIgg -



3.65. Old



ray fad ) |ae J ao ] au J 252.


















' --- stress

i _

_ _

" 9 Campbell, Old English, p. 173; Brunner, Sprache 1, pp. 77—78. 250 Campbell, Old English, pp. 299—300. 251 See §2.6.




— bfudu

——>- bydu

— buiydis — grceip

——>- bydis ——grip


— graep — baod


— baud

——* grip ——>- bod ——böd

pri pri

9 1 9 2

Pias PIsl

P R i p s — bvodap NP — ndydi




Pips NP

— barn — lâsun — gœstl


— ndht

——> barn ——>• läsun ——>- gesti ——nœht


— svudu




——>• gibu




u # •


N r = noun root ^ CVC




= stress

C = any consonant V = any short vowel E x . : N A P — rlkiu NAP —

254. j #

*i #



->- kynnj



E x . : N A P — kynnj —

255. V

* V254

Y = any long unstressed vowel Y = short vowel

Ex. : GS

— langera




— ¿Lagos



256. u


E x . : D S — langemmu D S — gibu

257. (X)g 252


. „256

langemmo gibo

X = any string not ending in n

F. Holthausen, Atisächsisches Elementarbuch2 (Heidelberg, 1921), p. 55; Gallee, Atisächsische, p. 93. 253 Gallee, Atisächsische, p. 153; Holthausen, Elementarbuch, p. 55. 254 Holthausen, Elementarbuch, pp. 53 — 55. 255 Holthausen, Elementarbuch, p. 55. 256 Gallee, Altsächsische, pp. 262—64.



Ex.: DS — gibo N P — dagos X +

258. X + b

>- dagos h2"


= any string not ending in b or m

Ex.: N P — giba 259. m #


y- n # 2 5 8

Ex.: PRI s l — salbom 260.






C j = any consonant


> Cj/

Ex.: NS — mann DS — langemmo


= any unstressed v o w e l

man »- langemo

3.66. Old High German (East Frankish) ' t " 261.

33 ' ff



- fat PRI s l — gripu NAS — rilci

Ex.: N A S














panköm wxrpu • - tcellju — sibbjä — domiu

fa33 • griffU rihhi

• danköm • wmrfu • t^cellju • sippjä tömiu

Gallee, AUsächsische, pp. 260—62. Holthausen, Elementarbuch, p. 66. 259 Holthausen, Elementarbuch, p. 85. 260 Braune, Grammatik, p. 88. 281 Braune, Grammatik, pp. 78 — 88. 257




. k .



= any vowel





•e +

ae Ex.:

r /

N S — Iceir

' =



• ei / -^ 2 6 3



> ler

N P — laerd


' =

PI^ -


> greiff

P I , si



ui l Y














uo PIp3



- g r m f f u n -

g r i f f u n

PRIsl — w r g r f u





— läsun



• tyomiu



3 3


gcesti ndht



f ö

§2.5. §2.5. §2.5. §2.5.

barn läsun

" 0

i au [ ao

»» See See , M See ™ See




- stress

/ -i- + ö


' — stress



— baut


PI 9 l

- baot






Ex.: N P —

Ex.: N P PRIpj






hirte tyomemés


— sippjä PRI9l — t^elljamès

Ex.: PRIal — t^elliu GS



— kynnjes



any consonant ^ r


= any unstressed vowel

t^ellu kynnes

* rje 270

271. r j a

Ex.: PRI pl — wer james 272. C A #

>- wer jemes

> C,

Cj = any consonant

Ex.: NS — /W033 273.


sippe tgellem, ès

vV/C + -M9



C = any consonant


e/ C




C = any consonant =¿= r


— hirtiä — tyomiamés

I }


N r = noun root


e/C +





N P — rihhiu



— n-àytì


CA •

>- fuo$ Cj = any consonant

Olcel. /gjafar/)

* ja / C + -¿-285

286. y



= stress

C = any consonant =f= r, 1, w Ex.: NS — gvb

> gjab ( > Olcel. /gj