Re: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Some people claim that the alternation is
due to the original stress mobility of Germanic o-stems (as in Balto-Slavic), so
that e.g. a root-stressed nominative was accompanied by an end-stressed dative.
After the operation of Verner's Law just one root allomorph was generalised and
the other disappeared. The only traces that survive are sporadic dialectal
reflexes of variants like *xanxista-/*xangista-. This explanation is somewhat
circular but not implausible. Levelling of this kind must have taken place in
root nouns at any rate, otherwise we would find alternations like
*mu:s-/*mu:z- (> NWG *mu:r-) for 'mouse' or *tanT-/*tund- for 'tooth'. "Hare"
(OE hara, ON heri, OHG hasô) is a consonantal stem, and an original pattern like
*xás-on-/*xaz-en-ó- is thinkable. Every time the effects of Verner's Law were
eliminated from some Germanic paradigm, the cleaning process was carried out
very thoroughly. For example, of the numerous Old English Vernerian
alternations in the strong conjugation only was/were has survived. Gothic
speakers did the same thing much earlier. Had there been no other but
Gothic and Modern English conjugations to compare, Verner's Law wouldn't have
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar
Interesting grammatical question. By saying that one possible
solution is not accepted as the standard explanation I am not positing the
existence of a "standard explanation". But since you ask me, my impression is
that mostly people leave as it is, just noting the fact that there is a
Vernerian alternation (as you did in your first answer). Some day someone will
undoubtedly make an explanation as systematic as the one everyone uses for the
verbs, but I'm not that guy.
Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 1:25 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re:
Ingvar and Ivar
> Always glad to be of service. But can
we conclude from the
existence of such a Verner-alternating pair that they
both came from
a stress-alternating single word? This is routinely done for
but this new-fangled idea of stress-alternating PIE nouns (after my
time at uni) seems not to be quite accepted as the standard
for eg. Hase/hare?