Re: [tied] some CG phonology qs

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:48:19 -0000, "Lisa Jacqueline Emerson"
<eris@...> wrote:

>From IE, T changed to theta/thorn/"th" in CG. Now, did CG also have
>an eth sound? For instance, in CG, would it have originally been
>faðar and only later fadar, or would it have been both [depending on
>the dialect]? I thought I read somewhere that the IE>CG "d" in CG was
>originally an eth sound (later staying eth in, say, OI, OE, etc. and
>changing to "d" in [High?] German), but everything I've read doesn't
>state that explicitly - usually the case is that whatever I read uses
>different symbols to represent the sounds and never comes out and says
>what each sound is. Basically what I am trying to find out is what
>the phonological inventory of CG was, and therefore what was carried
>into the daughter languages. Anyone happen to have any
>tables/charts/graphs handy? I would love you.
>Right now I'm working on a little project about how Modern High German
>developed out of 'the original', but I've been meaning to know for my
>own personal reference anyway for quite awhile.

The traditional interpretation is that PIE *t became Germanic *T
(thorn), except where subject to Verner's law, where it gave the same
result as PIE *dh, i.e. (in the traditional interpretation) either *d
or *D (edh), in allophonic variation. PIE *d gave PGmc. *t. So:

PIE PGmc

___ *T
/
*t <
\___ *d ~ *D
*dh _/

*d ----- *t

But see Theo Vennemann, "Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch [etc]"
in: Beitraege zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur
106:1-45 for an alternative view (in the context of the "glottalic
theory").


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...