Re: Germanic without the Schleifton

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> A few remarks concerning the development of long-vowelled final
> syllables in Germanic.
>
> (1) Inherited long vowels
>
> *-o: < pre-Gmc. *-a:, *-o:
> Goth. -a, NWGmc. *-u
>
> *-o:n < pre-Gmc. *-a:m (as in acc.sg. of strong f.), or as in weak

f.

> Goth. -o:, ON -a, OHG/OS -a, OE -e (< *-æ < *-a).
>
> The effect of the nasal consists in the preservation of length in

Gothic

> and the lowering of the vowel (raised to *-u when non-nasalised) in
> NWGmc. We can posit
>
> PGmc. *-o:n > *-o:~ > Goth. -o: (denasalised), NWGmc. *-a~ (> -a)
>
>
> (2) Contractions
>
> (2.1) The gen.pl. of a-stems (PIE o-stems)
>
> Leaving aside the special case of Goth. -e:, we have *-o-om >

NWGmc.

> *-o: > ON/OE -a, OHG/OS -o
>
> This is different from the development of both *-o: and *-o:~. The

vowel

> was originally long in Proto-NWGmc., which suggests a late

contraction

> (later than the raising and shortening of inherited *-o:). If

instead of

> reconstructing an accentual contrast we suppose that PGmc. had
> uncontracted (disyllabic) *-a.a < *-a.an (the final nasal simply

lost

> after a short vowel) < *-o-om, we get the following changes:
>
> (a) merger of *-o: and *-a.a in Gothic (both shortened in auslaut,
> yielding /-a/);
> (b) contraction of *-a.a > *-o: in NWGmc.
>
> (2.2) The gen.sg. & nom.pl. of o:-stems (PIE *-ah2-Vs)
>
> The PGmc. form was probably *-o:.az (or less likely *-a.az),

contracted

> into /-o:s/ in Gothic (with length preserved because of the final
> consonant) and into NWGmc. *-o:z > ON -ar, OHG -a:, OE/OS -a
>
> (2.3) The nom.sg. of weak masculines (PIE *-o:n)
>
> Goth. -a, ON -e (> -i), OHG/OS -o, OE -a
>
> Here the ending merges with the reflex of PGmc. *-o: in Gothic.

However,

> the NWGmc forms can't be derived from *-o:. Leaving aside ON -e

(which

> may reflect the rarer variant *-e:n), the WGmc. reflexes are

identical

> with those of pre-Gmc. *-o-om (see 2.1).
>
> It's hard to see why the ending should have become disyllabic in

PGmc.;

> that of the weak feminines and neuters was simply *-o:~ < *-o:n.

The

> weak feminines in *-o:n- show *-o:- across the board, presumably on

the

> analogy of the strong feminine *-o:- < *-ah2-. Perhaps PIE nom.sg.

*-o:n

> was reanalysed as *-o-on (acc. *-o-n-m., gen. *-é-n-os, dat./loc.
> *-é-n-i, etc.) already in pre-Gmc., establishing the pattern "short
> vowel + nasal extension + inflectional ending" (cf. new feminines

in

> *-a:-n- and *-i:-n-, with a stable _long_ vowel). If this scenario

is

> roughly correct, then
>
> PIE *-o:n > pre-Gmc. *-o.on > PGmc. *-a.an > *-a.a
>
> with further development as in (2.1).
>

I was wondering:

If the (masc.) weak inflection was used to denote definiteness (cf.
Busbecq's 'Rinck sive Ringo', and perhaps, with restructuring, the
Scandinavian definite m./f. inflection -n), what is seen in the nom.
sg. may be the result of a re-morphemisation(?) where the last -an
was seen as a 'detachable' suffix, cf Danish definite "pizza'en"
[pitsa?&n], pl. "pizza'er" vs Swedish "pizzan", pl. "pizzor"?

Torsten