Re: [tied] Re: *-s > *-z > Norse -r

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 11362
Date: 2001-11-21

Note that I don't use <R> in reconstructions and only say that Runic "R" = /z/. "R" is not really needed and we can safely use "z" instead, but traditions die hard, so my explanation was just meant to help people see what those capital R's are doing in transcribed Runic.
 
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: *-s > *-z > Norse -r

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote:
> In a nutshell:
>
> PIE inflectional *-s became voiced in PGmc., giving *-z (= early
> Runic <-R>). Its further development in Scandinavian was -r.
> Rhotacism, or the lenition *z > r, is a fairly common process, cf.
> Latin intervocalic *-s- > *-z- > -r- (tempus : temporis, flo:s :
> flo:ris).
> 
> PIE *gHostis > PGmc. *gastiz (Runic gastiR) > ON gestr 'guest'
> PIE *gHostejes > PGmc. *gastijiz > *gasti:z > ON gestir 'guests'
> 
> PGmc. *gaizaz > ON geirr 'spear'
> 
> (Note the shortening or loss of unstressed vowels.)
> 
> The further fates of the final -z (-R) were pretty complicated and
> differed from one Old Norse dialect to another. It was often
> assimilated to the preceding consonant after the intervening
> unstressed vowel had been lost:
> 
> *stainaz > *stainR > steinn 'stone'
> *sto:laz > *sto:lR > stóll 'chair'
> *i:saz > *i:sR > íss 'ice'
> 
> There were some characteristic dialectal developments:
> 
> Proto-Norse *mannR > OIc. maðr (acc. mann) 'man'
> 
> In Old Swedish an epenthetic reduced vowel (written <e>) appeared
> before a stem-final consonant and unassimilated -r. A similar
> epenthesis has taken place in Modern Icelandic and Faroese (where
the
> spelling is <u>):
> 
> *xringaz > OSw. ringer; OIc. hringr > ModIc. hringur 'ring'
> *fiskaz > OSw. fisker; OIc. fiskr > ModIc. fiskur 'fish'
> 
> In the later history of the Scandinavian languages (except
Icelandic
> and Faroese) the declensional system was radically simplified. In
> particular, the nom. and acc.sg. of masculine nouns were levelled
out
> and the nom.sg. -r ending (OSw. -er) was dropped. This was a
> morphological, not a phonetic proces, so -(e)r of other origin was
> unaffected.
> 
> Piotr

I thought *z > *R > *r had been dropped in favor of *z > *r (which
means the rune for <R> should be reinterpreted to mean <z>)? Is <R>
needed?

Torsten





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.