From: Andrew Jarrette
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> > >I don't see the alternation between g- and j-, the "ice"-words all
> > > Note that OE <g> had both velar varieties ([g] initial and after
> > > [N], [G] medially otherwise (which > [x] finally)) and palatal
> > > varieties ([j]; *[J](voiced palatal plosive)>[dZ] after [n]).
> > > The palatal varieties arose from PGmc *g (plosive and fricative)
> > Actually PGmc *g must have been fricative everywhere (except perhaps
> > after *n) because it yields [x] or [G] everywhere but after *n in
> > Dutch.
> How do know that's not a generalization of something like the OE state
> of affairs?
> Berlinerisch has /g/ > /j/
> Dutch /G/ > /x/ is an innovation which goes with /v/ > /f/ and /z/ >
> /s/, which all set it apart from Flemish.
> I listed a long list of Germanic words here on Cybalist with dialectal
> g-/w- and g-/j- alternation (with appr. that heading), but now the
> stupid search function can't find it. Most looked like substrate
> words, some had FU connections. Here's a g-/j- one:
> if that one doesn't have Gmc. ga- ,
> and here a G-/w- one:I think I've read that in words like this some linguists posit a *gWH