Re: [tied] Grimm and Verner

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:58:34 +0100, "Giuseppe Pagliarulo"
> <g.pagliarulo@...> wrote:
>
> >This is the classical formulation of the law and the one I've been

taught myself. It implies that this voicing phenomenon took place
after the operation of Grimm's law. However, I remember reading in P.
Ramat's _Einfuehrung in das Germanische_ that there is a new theory
proposing that Verner's law is an independent lenition process
predating Grimm's law. This seems quite uneconomic to me, but then I
think of Old Norse _ylgr_ "she-wolf" where the voicing of IE *kW
seems to have taken place before the *kW > *p (> *f) shift. I'd like
to know your opinion about it.

>
> Some other considerations:
>
> - "Grimm's law" need not have been a single event. In fact, it's
> quite likely that we had a very ancient (dialectal PIE) Grimm-I (*t
>
> *th, *d > *t, *dh > *d), perhaps shared with Armenian and other, now
> lost, languages, and a much more recent Grimm-II (*th > *þ, *d > *d

~

> *ð) [followed by Grimm-III *t > *th, to fill the unvoiced aspirated
> gap].
>
> - "Verner's law" can be situated either before or after Grimm-I or
> Grimm-II. Before Grimm-I is unlikely: the lenition of *t would

result

> in *d, not *dh. After Grimm-I, *th would get lenited to *d [the

only

> lenis in the system], so that's OK. After Grimm-II, *þ would be
> lenited to *ð ~ *d [still the only lenis in the system], which is

also

> OK. But the fact that Verner occurred either before or as a result

of

> the Proto-Germanic accent retraction suggests an earlier rather

than a

> later date. On the other hand, the fact that Verner affects *s too,
> suggests a law that applies to fricatives, not stops [unless it
> applies to voiceless consonants in general].
>
> - Which brings us to "why Verner's law?". On the face of it, the

law

> makes no sense: we have <mó:þar> vs. <fadár> > <fádar>, which is
> counter-intuitive if we compare it to phenomena in English such as
> <metal> ~ <metallic> (['metl] or ['medl] or ['meRl] vs. [m&'thælIk])
> or <basil> ~ <basilic> (['bæzIl] vs. [b&'sIlIk] (or [b&'zIlIk])).
> It seems strange that a consonant immediately before the stressed
> vowel should have been lenited.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Now, *that* is interesting. Grimm I would result in a state as that
in Thracian (and Georgiev's substrate language in Greece), cf posting
11129. Grimm II would then take us from Thracian to Proto-Germanic,
or, should I say, from *Get-isk- to *Got-isk- (I'll leave it open
whether Verner belongs with the first or the second transition). Only
problem now is that Thracian is satem and Germanic kentum. But if, as
I've suspected before, the kentum-satem distinction is not the result
of some primeval first phonetic rule but rather of the
shibbolethisation (and consequent wholesale purge, respectively) of
the phonemic variation of <k> vs. <c^> (and the other velars, mutatis
mutandis) in paradigms (*ko/*c^e/*k(?)), then it might have appeared
independently in pairs of languages in several branches in IE, eg.
here.

BTW, isn't the problem with the geat-s of Beowulf that in order for
it to equate with *got-, it would have to unrounded, *before* the
much later unrounding in English. In other words, that they seem to
be Get-s?


As to the counterintuitiveness of Verner's law: It might be counter-
English (and Friesian and North Germanic) but isn't it pro-Dutch (and
German and South Countries) to voice s (and T and f) *before* the
stressed syllable?

What is the need for Grimm III?

Torsten