Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T14:40:28.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Stress Patterns of Gothic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Abstract

In Gothic, as in Proto-Germanic, primary word stress was fixed on word-initial syllables, including roots, reduplicating syllables, and prefixes; the Gothic negative-pejorative prefix un- appears to have been no exception to the rule. Secondary word stress occurred initially on second immediate constituents of compounds and quasi-compounds; the stress of gudhŨs ‘temple’ and faurhāh ‘curtain’ was not exceptional. Weak word stress fell medially on vowels between syllables bearing other degrees of stress and on syllable-forming suffixes directly following primary or secondary stress; finally, weak word stress occurred on syllable-forming endings. Evidence for primary phrase stress is very limited. Excepting ga-, proclitics of verb phrases–as distinguished from compound verbs and adverbs plus verbs–bore secondary phrase stress. There appears to be no evidence to show that this stress remained in Gothic feminine compound verbal abstract nouns. The phonologic development of forms like sg. dat. pamma ‘this, that,’ sg. dat. hiamma ‘whom, what,’ and pi. 3 sind ‘they are’ reflects a stress alternation that was dependent upon their syntactic context. Go. ga-, -u -u-, and -uh -uh- bore weak phrase stress. The Gothic stress of most Biblical proper names is obscure. Alliterative passages in Gothic shed no light on the problem; rather, it is the evidence for primary word stress that serves to identify the alliteration.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennett, W. H., 1968a. “The Accentuation of Gothic ga-,Germanic Studies in Honor of Edward Henry Sehrt (Miami, Fla.), pp. 5360.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. H., 1968b. “The Operation and Relative Chronology of Verner's Law,” Language, xliv, 219223.Google Scholar
Fourquet, J., 1948. Les mutations consonantiques du germanique (Paris).Google Scholar
Friedrichsen, G. W. S., 1926. The Gothic Version of the Gospels (London).Google Scholar
Guxman, M. M., 1958. Gotskij Jazyk (Moscow).Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1931. Handbuch des Urgermanischen, Teil I: Laut- und Akzentlehre (Heidelberg).Google Scholar
Kieckers, Ernst. 1928. Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik (Munich).Google Scholar
Kluge, F., 1883. “Zur altgermanischen Sprachgeschichte,” ZVS, xxvi, 68103.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans. 1963. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, I: Einleitung und Lautlehre, 5th ed. (Berlin).Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen, 3rd ed. (Munich).Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P., 1954. “Old English and Old Norse Secondary Preterits in -r-,” Language, xxx, 202210.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P., 1961. “A Definition of Proto-Germanic,” Language, xxxvn, 6774.Google Scholar
Michels, Victor. 1925. “Zur deutschen Akzentgeschichte,” Germania: Edward Sievers zum 75. Geburtstage (Halle), pp. 3989.Google Scholar
Mosse, Fernand. 1956. Manuel de la langue gotique, 2nd ed. (Paris).Google Scholar
Moulton, William, G. 1948. “The Phonemes of Gothic,” Language, xxiv, 7686.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worlerbuch, I (Bern).Google Scholar
Prokosch, E., 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar (Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1924. Deutsche Sagversdichtungen des IX.-XI. Jahrhunderts nebst einern Anhang: Die gotische Bergpredigt (Heidelberg).Google Scholar
Streitberg, W., 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik (Heidelberg).Google Scholar
Streitberg, W., 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5th-6th ed. (Heidelberg).Google Scholar