NW vs E Germanic

[Rick Mc Callister]

[ moderator snip ]

>Gothic is opposed to an innovating group of North and West Germanic in the
>following respects:
>1. Final /-o:/ yields NWG -u, but Goth. -a.
>2. Final /-am(z)/ yields NWG -um, but Goth. -am.
>3. Voiced /z/ is not developed in the direction of /r/ in Goth., but is in
>NWG.
>4. The pronoun *ju:z preserves its original vowel in Goth., but is changed
>to *ji:z in North and West.
>5. Reduplicated ablauting verbs are preserved in Goth., but replace their
>interior part by the odd "/e:/2" in North and West.

	So the major changes in High German occurred after East Germanic split

>That spells unity for Norse and West Germanic. However, then there is the
>Verschaerfung problem which seemingly combines Norse and Gothic to the
>exclusion of West Germanic. On balance I believe one must see this as
>secondary disappearance of (at least some) Verschaerfung in West Germ., so
>that the events that produced Versch. operated in the common prehistory of
>ALL the Germanic we know.

	Excuse my ignorance. Can you explain Verschaerfung?

>Jens

>> 	Is there any merit to the idea that there was a separate branch of
>> Germanic including Anglian, Jutish and pre-Frisian, intermediate between N
>> & W Germanic, andf that modern English and Frisian are the result of a
>> fusion between this and W Lowland Germanic? [...]

>I would like to know what linguistic facts that idea is based on.

	Me too :>
	Seriously, the idea of an Ingwaeonic branch is something I've read
in passing in various places without any real elaboration.
	I suppose they have in mind such things as retention of initial
/s-/, /_th_/ & /_dh_/ in English

Rick Mc Callister
W-1634
Mississippi University for Women
Columbus MS 39701