[tied] Re: the glottalic theory

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:31:36 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> The two intonational patterns of Old Norse (retained in Swedish) do
> not reflect the original PIE accentual patterns, which had already
> been lost in Proto-Germanic. What I believe happened in
> Proto-Germanic was that the PIE free accent was replaced by a fixed
> tonal/stress contour with stress and low tone on the first syllable,
> no stress and high tone on the last syllable (if any). For
> Proto-Germanic/Proto-Norse monosyllables, this was simplified to

tone

> II (rising), for polysyllables this resulted in tone I (1st syllable
> falling, 2nd syllable rising).
>
> Simplified schema:
>
> PIE PGmc Swed. Dan
> 1 syll. _/ \_/ tone II no stød
>
> 2 syll. PD _/ _ \_ _/ tone I potential stød
> HD _ _/ [Verner]
>
> 3 syll. PD _ _/ _ [apocope]
> HD _ _ _/ [apocope]
>
> The different PIE patterns were carried over into Germanic as
> Verner-alternations (but only if *p, *t, *k(W) were involved), with

an

> old low tone on the second syllable reflected as aspiration

*má:tè:r >

> *'mò:thér > *'mo:þ&r, and lack of aspiration if the tone had already
> been high, as in *pàté:r > *'phàdér > *'fad&r.

Please elaborate.

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

Now the reorganisation of tone in PGerm. would coincide nicely with
the arrival of PGerm. in Scandinavia. But how would you account for
the low-tone stress of Scandinavia and the Danish islands vs. high-
tone stress in Germany and Jutland? It seems to me such an inversion
can't have come about as an evolution; it must be due to some
substrate (that tone pattern is the last thing Jutlanders unlearn in
Copenhagen). What are the stress/tone relations of Celtic?

And how does Franconian tone fit in?

Torsten