Re[2]: [tied] Verner's Law (Germanic)

At 7:02:31 PM on Sunday, April 30, 2006, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:

> Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>> The result of devoicing in the case of *D is *T, not *t,
>> which indicates a fricative pronunciation at least for
>> this particular point of articulation, e.g. *bHéronti >
>> *beranDi (cf. Goth. bairand) > *beranD > *beranT >
>> *bera~:T > OE beraT (likewise, *-z > *-s before
>> rhotacism).

> Is this the explanation for why OE has -as as the
> nom./acc. plural of masculine a-stem (IE o-stem) nouns? I
> have never understood why OE (and OS) preserves final *-s
> in these forms. Or are you referring only to *-z < IE
> *-esi in thematic verbs, which > -s (Anglian)?

Here's a bit from a post that I saved almost three years
ago; it's Piotr responding to Miguel.

> pl.

> The nominative in *-oi is unattested in Germanic. PIE
> *-o:s would have given PGmc. *-o:z, which explains Goth
> -o:s and ON -ar, but not OE -as, OS -os. The
> reconstruction is thus:

> PIE *-ó:ses *-o:siz
> *'-o:ses *-o:ziz

> which explains all the forms (Goth. -o:ss > -o:s, ON
> *-o:ziz > -arr > -ar, OE/OS *-o:siz > *-as). OHG -a is the
> acc. form.

The OE and OSax. forms are certainly strange and seem to
require some kind of "extension" to prevent the *s from
word-final voicing (already in PGmc.!). *-iz would do the
trick, but I suspect the whole affair is internal to
Germanic and there's no need to drag in anything as risky as
"PIE" *-o:ses. I'd sooner consider a more conservative
solution: *-o-es > *-o:s ~ *-o:s-es > *-o:z ~ *-o:siz with a
doubly marked variant of the plural that arose within
Germanic.

Brian