Comparing languages. Examples [gothic-l]

[cstrohmier at YAHOO.COM]

Hi Francisc,
	Thanks for the words of support, and for your detailed and 
thoughtful answer.  I appreciate that.  I'm sure all of the theories 
for dividing up Germanic have their pluses and minuses.  I would 
favor modifying the traditional threefold division of Germanic 
languages into four:  North Germanic, East Germanic, South Germanic, 
and West Germanic.  My South Germanic would include only Southern 
German:  I would put Dutch and Low German in West Germanic, and 
Bavarian in East Germanic.  This would make West Germanic close to 
North Germanic; North Germanic close to East Germanic; East Germanic 
close to South Germanic; and to close the circle, South Germanic 
close to West Germanic.  I would also favor a close connection 
between "Elbe Germanic" and "Oder-Vistula Germanic", not only during 
their time of residency in East Germany, but also later when they 
took up residence beside each other in Southern Germany.  In a lot of 
ways your interpretation is close to mine.
Sincerely yours,
Cory


--- In gothic-l at y..., "Francisc Czobor" <czobor at c...> wrote:
> 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/