Northwest Germanic

[Francisc Czobor]

Hi, Ian

NWG is not something new - I've read for the first time about it many 
years ago, and looked like something quite widely accepted among 
linguists.
Don't remember exactly now what were the arguments for a NWG linguistic 
community; but among others were for sure:
- the Umlaut
- the z>R>r evolution
- the definite article (?)
Other arguments, like the distinctions s-z, e-i, o-u may be shared 
archaisms (otherways said: the loss of these distinctions is an 
innovation of Gothic).
But these arguments are not always very solid:
- the Umlaut started at different times in WG and NG and was not 
operating identically;
- the z>R>r evolution didn't work in the same conditions in WG and NG;
- the definite article in NG is different from that in WG; regarding 
Gothic, it uses many times the demonstrative sa/so/thata as a definite 
article.
On the other hand, there are arguments for a Gothic-NG community, like 
for instance -ww- > -ggw- and -jj- > -ggj- (> Gothic -ddj-).

I'm sure that there is much more to be said related to this subject.

Fr.

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Ian Ragsdale" <delvebelow at ...> wrote:
>
> I must confess that the concept of NWG is new to me.  Is this a 
contested
> theory or is it becoming accepted?  And any other suggested authors 
besides
> the already-mentioned Nielsen?
> 
> -Ian R
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080314/4e092673/attachment.htm>