Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:39:39.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PGmc. *-- revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Charles M. Barrack
Charles M. Barrack
Affiliation:
University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Murray and Vennemann, (1983) have argued in favor of (A) *- - over (B) *- - for Proto-Germanic on the basis of word division in Gothic manuscripts and meter in older verse. They note that (A) is consistent with the Stressed Syllable Law (SSL), which favors bimoric rhymes, but that (A) violates Hooper's Law (HL), which favors codas weaker than onsets. They cite three phenomena as remedies: gemination, vowel lengthening and glide strengthening. This paper disputes their analysis and cites the role of the Simple (metrical) Foot as evidence in favor of (B), which satisfies HL but violates the SSL. The three phenomena are interpreted as remedies to this violation.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , July 1991 , pp. 119 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1991

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

WORKS CITED

Allen, Sidney W. 1978. Voxlatina:Aguide to the pronunciation of Classical Latin. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1989. “Some ways to count morae: Prokosch's Law, Streitberg's Law, Pfalz's Law, and other rhythmic regularities.” Linguistics 27:1071–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrack, Charles M. 1989. “Keyser, Kiparsky, O'Neil and Postal versus Sievers.” Lingua 77: 223–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. 1964. Old English grammar. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter H. 1972. “Suffixal j in Germanic.” Language 48: 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, James. 1873. A Greek grammar. New York: D. Appleton & Co.Google Scholar
Hechtenberg-Collitz, Klara. 1906. “Syllabication in Gothic.” Journal of English and Germanic philology 6: 72–91.Google Scholar
Hermann, Eduard. 1978. Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den anderen indogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Van-denhoek & Ruprecht. Rpt. of 1st ed., Göttingen, 1923 = Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf den Gebieten der indogermanischen Sprachen: Erädnzungsheft 2.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1972. “The syllable in phonological theory.” Language 48: 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and O'Neil, Wayne. 1976. “The phonology of Old English inflections.” Linguistic inquiry 7: 527–557.Google Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1986. “The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts.” English studies 67: 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Robert W. and Vennemann, Theo. 1983. “Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology.” Language 59: 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wilhelm. 1908. “Wortbrechung in den gotischen Handschriften.” Sitzungsberichte der Preuβischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 31: 610–624. Berlin.Google Scholar
Seebold, Elmar. 1972. Das System derindogermanischen Halbvokale: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Sieversschen Gesetz’ undzu den halbvokalhaltigen Suffixen in den indogermanischen Sprachen, besonders im Vedischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1878. “Zur accent- und lautlehre der germanischen sprachen.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 5:63–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1893.Altgermanische Metrik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1971. “The phonology of Gothic vowels.” Language 47: 90–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1987. “Muta cum liquida: Worttrennung und Syllabierung im Gotischen.” Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 98: 165–204.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Ludvig. 1887. Die Runenschrift. Tr. Holthausen, F.. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1954. Grammar of the Gothic language. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar