Comparing languages. Examples [gothic-l]

[Francisc Czobor]

Hi Cory,

it seems that you was right to doubt the fact that the ressemblances 
between Gothic and OHG, especially Old Bavarian, are due only to some 
influence of Gothic on OHG/O.Bav. (through a presumed Gothic-Arian 
mission or through Gothic refugees from Italy that were assimilated by 
the Bavarians, or both). Indeed, the day names and some ecclesiastic 
terms are explainable through a Gothic-Arian mission among the 
Bavarians (hypothesis that is considered however few probable by some 
authors, see my message to the Gothic-L no. 2225). But there are also 
some systemic parallelisms (phonetic features, pronominal forms, word 
usage) that would be hardly explainable even through a presumed Gothic 
substratum or adstratum in Old Bavarian, due to Ostrogothic refugees 
from North Italy that were assimilated by the Bavarians.
As I stated in previous messages, apparently the three main branches 
of Germanic, i.e. East-, West- and North Germanic are clearly 
individualized.
Considering only some major criteria, West- and North- Germanic have 
in common the evolutions z>r and e:>a:, opposing them to East Germanic 
in general (not only Gothic), but East Germanic (Gothic) and North 
Germnic have in common the shift -jj->-ggj- (Goth. -ddj-) and 
-ww->-ggw-, that are not to be found in West Germanic. Moreover, the 
North Germanic languages, beginning with the Old Norse time, have all 
(including Gutnish) other definitory characteristics: the loss of 
initial j-, the loss of initial w- before o/u, the loss of final -n 
after unstressed vowel, the "breaking" of e before a and u.
Thus: North Germanic languages are clearly delimited;
East Germanic languages: Gothic is clearly delimited, and it seems 
that its definitory characteristics are shared also by the other East 
Germanic languages (Gepidic, Vandalic, etc.)
But West Germanic is not so clearly defined.
There are indeed some characteristic West Germanic features:
- the "West Germanic consonant legthening": all consonants (excepting 
r) are lengthened before j (in Gothic there is no such lengthening, 
whereas in North Germanic only the velars are lengthened), e.g. Goth. 
bidjan, ON biðia, but. OE biddan, OHG pittan (Germ. bitten); Goth. 
sibja, but O.Sax. sibbia, OHG sippe;
- the change z>r before d (in Gothic the z is preserved, and in North 
Gmc. occured the assimilation zd>dd), e.g. Goth. huzd, ON hodd, OE 
hord, OHG hort;
- the loss of final -z (that appears in Gothic as -s, in Proto-Nordic 
as "soft" -R and in the later Old North Germaic languages as -r): 
Goth. gasts, Proto-Nordic -gastiR, ON gestr, but OHG gast. But in the 
later Gothic appears also the tendency of loss of final -s, and the 
absence of final -z (-r) in West Germanic is explainable also by its 
later attestation;
- the short i and u disappear in unstressed position after long 
syllable, but are kept after short syllable, e.g.: Goth. sunus, OHG 
sunu "son", but Goth. handus, OHG hant "hand";
- the change ð>d, according to Verner's law, in all positions (in 
North Germanic only initially and after e):
Goth. fadar (pronounced faðar), ON faðir, but OE fæder, O.Sax. fader, 
OHG fater;
- the 2nd person singular of the preterite shows the Ablaut degree of 
the plural: Goth. gaft, but OHG gábi "you gave".
But beside these changes that are common for West Germanic and not 
found in East- and North Germanic, there are ressemblances of certain 
subgroups of West Germanic either with Gothic or with North Germanic.
Gothic-High German (especially Old Bavarian) ressemblances:
- the preservation of nasals before fricatives: Goth. fimf, OHG finf, 
but O.Sax., O.Fris., OE fîf "five";
- the pronoun "he": Goth. is, OHG (O.Bav.) er, but OE he, O.Fris. hi, 
he, O.Sax. hê, hie, OHG (Franc.) he(r)
- the preservation of the "iu" diphthong<Common Gmc. *eu:
Goth., OHG (O.Bav.) liugan, but OHG (Franc.) leogan, liogan, O.Sax. 
liogan, O.Fris. liaga, OE léogan "to lie";
Goth. diups, OHG (O.Bav.) tiuf, but OHG (Franc.) tiof, diof, O.Sax. 
diop, diap, O.Fris. diap, OE déop "deep".
These features may be considered common archaisms, thus not so 
relevant as common innovations would be, but the non-High German 
West-Germanic languages, especially the Anglo-Frisian languages, have 
common innovations with the North Germanic languages:
- the loss of nasals before fricatives, especially before s: 
Goth. ansts, OHG anst, but OE ést, ON ist "favour, grace"
Goth. uns(-is), OHG uns(-ih), but O.Sax. ús, OE ús(-ic), ON ós, øss 
"us"
- the early loss of h between vowels: Goth. saihvan, OHG sehen, but OE 
séon, sian, ON sjá "to see"
- the Umlaut caused by a following i or u, in North Germanic and Old 
English; in High German there is only i-Umlaut and it occured much 
later than in English and North Germanic.
Because of these and other facts, not everybody agrees with the 
classical tripartition East/West/North Germanic. In some books the 
Germanic languages are classified in East Germanic (Gothic), North 
Germanic (Scandinavic and Anglo-Frisian) and South Germanic (High&Low 
German and Dutch). Other authors are considering five primary branches 
of Germanic:
1. North-Germanic (Scandinavic)
2. Oder-Vistula Germanic or East-Germanic or "Illevionic" (Gothic, 
Vandalic, Burgundian)
3. Elbe-Germanic or "Hermionic", later Danubian-Alpine Germanic 
(Semnoni, Hermunduri, Thuringians, Langobards, Marcomanni and Quadi, 
Bavarians and Alemanni). Here originated the OHG
4. Weser-Rhine Germanic or "Istvaeonic" (Francs and Hessians)
5. North-Sea Germanic or Anglo-Frisian or "Ingvaeonic" (Angles, 
Saxons, and Frisians)
Thus, a primary West-Germanic unity is contested. The concordances 
between the primary branches 3, 4, and 5 are regarded rather as a 
secondary convergent evolution of these three primitive dialects of 
Germanic, also as a result of the political and cultural unity in the 
frame of the Frankish state. The concordances between Gothic and High 
German are regarded in this interpretation as a result of the original 
neighborhood of Oder-Vistula Germanic and Elbe-Germanic and thus a 
closer relationship between the two primitive Germanic dialects.
Similarly, the concordances between North-Germanic and North-Sea 
Germanic could be regarded as a result of the original proximity of 
these two Germanic dialects. Finally, Weser-Rhine-Germanic is 
somewhere between North-Sea-Germanic and Elbe-Germanic.
All the above considerations are a result of a synthesis of the data 
found in my usual sources:
- Stefan Sonderegger: Althochdeutsche Sprache und Literatur, de
  Gruyter, Berlin - New York, 1987
- Werner König: DTV-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache, Deutscher Taschenbuch
  Verlag, München, 1996
- Virgil Stefanescu-Draganesti: Introduction to the Comparative
  Grammar of the Germanic Languages, University of Bucharest, 1971
And now my conclusion: twe five branches of Germanic are the result of 
five primitive dialects of Common Germanic, that formed a continuum, 
i.e. each dialect had common characteristic with the neighboring 
dialects. Taking into account also the common characteristics of 
Gothic and North-Germanic, we could imagine a circular continuum (a 
"dialect-ring"):

                         North-Germanic
                        /              \
            North-Sea-Germanic         East-Germanic
                        |               |
             Weser-Rhine-Germanic - Elbe-Germanic

Regarding the relationship of Gothic with OHG (especially Old 
Bavarian), I think that their special concordances could be 
explainable by all the three arguments:
- a primitive dialectal proximity of Elbe-Germanic (the ancestor of 
OHG) and Oder-Vistula-Germanic (the ancestor of Gothic): responsible 
for the general (systemic) ressemblances (phonetic features, 
pronouns);
- the assimilation of Goths refugees by the Old Bavarians: responsible 
for the occurence of Gothic words regarding every-day life in 
OHG/O.Bav. (e.g. Goth. paida > OHG pfeit, Mod.Bav Pfait "shirt")
- the influence of a Gothic-Arian mission on the Old Bavarians (names 
of the days and some religious terms, see my message to the Gothic-L 
no. 2225, and word usage parallelism between OHG and Gothic).
What do you think, is this interpretation more reasonable?

With best regards,

Francisc


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/