Re: Old English and Old Norse

From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 63174
Date: 2009-02-19

--- In, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> > >
> > > 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?

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that originally the
plosive pronunciation was initial and after *n, but Dutch extended the
originally medial-only fricative pronunciation to all positions? It's
possible, but I wonder why the Dutch would go from an easier phoneme
to a more difficult one (maybe it's not difficult for the Dutch, yes).

> 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.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Plus Flemish (supposedly) has bilabial
/w/, either like English, or a variety of [B] (bilabial voiced
fricative). Although in a Belgian movie I saw it sounded like some
actors had something like the sound of French <hu> in <huit>, while
others seemed to use the Dutch /w/. (Flemish also has pure vowels
where Dutch has diphthongs, so all in all a more conservative dialect.)