LL-L "Etymology" 2012.04.27 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L]

=====================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L - 27 April 2012 - Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================


From: Mike Morgan mwmbombay at gmail.com
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2012.04.26 (05) [EN]

Steven Hanson ammurit at gmail.com asked:

> So, the retention of the –en might be considered
>something of a relic?

Ron/R replied:
> I[t] may be, Steven. But I'm not ready to bet all my

> money on it.
> What do others think?

My money is also staying in my pocket. I am (was?) an Indo-Europeanist
rather than a Germanist, and as such anythign claimed to be a Germanic *
relic/retention* must be retained from an earlier state (e.g.
Indo-European.. or at least Proto-Germanic). However,

(1) infinitive suffixes are one of the the buggabears of IE... there is no
one reconstructable form, but rather a (largish!) number of them, with the
majority(?) containing a dental stop of some sort, but NOT a nasal

(2) (present) participles DO have a dental nasal (plus a stop), and it is
possible (but not necessary) that the Germanic infinitive in *-en* come
from such a participle (remembering that one of the OE infinitives -- the *to
[Verb]nne* infinitive -- would be such a case)

(3) there are quite a number of OTHER non-finite forms reconstructable for
IE, and the nasal-less -*e* forms may be from another course)

*-e* infinitive MAY be a "reduction" from *-en* (with nasal loss) --
HOWEVER, it may ALSO be the case that *-e* is the older, and that *-n* is a
(newer?) Germanic innovative suffix. We really cannot say unless we can
reconstruct/trace where the two forms (could potentially) come from.
*
*mwm || *U* C > || mike || мика  || माईक || マイク || மாய்க் (aka Dr Michael W
Morgan)
sign language linguist / linguistic typologist
academic adviser to "Nepal Sign Language Training and Research Centre"
project
NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
 Subject: Etymology

Thanks, Mike.

But ... supposed *-en > -e* is not limited to the infinitive suffixes, if
you consider constructions such as *wir machen* ~ *mir mache*, and *Fraue(n)
*.

I wonder if > *-e* is a largely Frankish feature, since it is present in
practically all Frankish dialects, from Low to High. Because of historical
Frankish power it could have spread from there. It is definitely very
un-Saxon. The only Low Saxon dialects that have this feature are some in
the far east where they rubbed shoulders with transplanted Frankish ones
among Medieval migrants.

Note also that Eastern Yiddish is of the *-en* type. Generally speaking,
its Medieval roots are in an area around the Middle Rhine, which is
predominantly Ripuarian speaking, and today's Ripuarian dialects are of the
*-e* type.*

*Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA*
*
=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html .
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
==========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20120427/8e098f91/attachment.htm>