Re: [tied] Re: Thuringen

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 9:10 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Thuringen

> And you still haven't explained how the Medieval Latin <Thuringia> came about.

 

Haven't I? There's little to explain. It reflects in a very straightforward way the early form <þuring-> (cf. OE þyringas), existing until /þ/ became voiced and ended up as /d/, so that <thuring-> changed into <dhuring-> and finally <düring->. The voicing took place about the tenth century, long after the form Thuringia became entrenched in the Latin literary tradition. The doublet Düringen/Thuringia produced the blended form Thüringen in Modern German.

 

> Torsten:
> *broðer > *bruder > **bruter ??
> That can't be right.

 

 

And it isn't. The "brother" word had initial accent (unlike "father" and "mother") and did not undergo Verner's Law. It became *bro:þo:r in Proto-Germanic, with a voiceless fricative; cf. OE <fæder> and <mo:dor> but <bro:þor>, Gothic <fadar> but <bro:þar>. The voicing and occlusion of *þ is regular in OHG, giving German <d> in <bruder>, exactly as expected.

 

>> Some dialects preserve /d/ (dag, dochter, etc.),

> Torsten:
> Correct. Low German and Dutch.

 

... and the rest of Germanic, for that matter. But what I mean is that some High German dialects have it as well.

 

Piotr