--- In cybalist@..., "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
> Continental North Germanic (and Friesian) has T > t, West Germanic
> (including Low German) has T > d; *tiut- seems a better starting
> point than *diut- for <c^ud->.
>
> Torsten
>
> [Sergejus Tarasovas] Just one question. To what period (within the
> accuracy of a century or two) would you refer these >'s? I mean
what if
> the borrowing took place at proto-Germanic times (hence yet
unchanged *T
> as a source)?
>
> Sergei
My miserable little NuDansk Ordbog, which is all I have home, says
something like "the following changes took place in Middle Danish
(1100-1400) roughly in chronological order", and then T > t comes
last. But it's difficult to tell, since "thorn" was replaced early on
by -th- and that digraph lasted long, perhaps also after it ceased
standing for -T- and became a fancy written representation of -t-.
The first Swedish Lutheran bible writes <thet> "that, it",
<thu> "thou", the Danish one <det>, <du> (both 1500's). By a Verner-
like process, pronouns etc had T > d (or T > D > d ?), cf English
unvoiced/voiced written -th- (because of frequent subject-verb
inversion, pronouns end up in a syllable just after the one having
stress.
If German T > d in anlaut is also really T > D > d (cf s > z, f > v
in the same position; this really divides Germanic dialects: on one
hand, unchanged, North Germanic, Friesian, most of English, on the
other German, Dutch, some southern English dialects (Kent, Somerset);
perhaps Celt substratum, therefore no "knacklaut" etc to divide
words, and you must employ other means to divide words; how would one
divide ie. German Aus-sage without the initial voicing in z-?) then
we can compare with Brooklynese: T > t, D > d, ie. possibly East and
South European rendition of T, D is t, d? Was it the same then?
Torsten