> --- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>summonsed.
> >> How strong is the evidence that OE <cg> represented [gg] as well
> as [dZ]? I'd always understood that <cg> only represented [dZ].
> > Well, Frocga, Docga & Stagga can give their testimony if
> will be required, such as Frogga, Hogg (a.k.a. Hocg), Earwicga
> ('earwig') and Sceacga (>'shag', rough wool etc - not the bird
> much later, if it be the same word. The basic meaning seems to*j
> be 'projecting bit').
> > However, the absence of i-umlaut in Frocga & Co. (with OE
> expressive gemination) is proof enough that there had never been a
> there to palatalise the velar, and that the OE pronunciation was [-gg-
> Earwicga spoils the pattern (i-umlaut would have had no effect
> and a possible reading rule. (<licgan> v. <earwicgan> would be theproblem
> near-minimal pair.)
> Is the expressive gemination of voiced consonants OE, Germanic or
> Scandinavian (cf Swedish sugga 'sow')? Moreover, what is being
> geminated in Frogga & co? <-gga>/<-cga> looks like a word-
> classifying suffix, akin to '-er' in German animal words. My
> is that the England's Danes are plausibly accused of hardening alot
> of OE 'soft' consonants, so when my OE textbook (Quirk & Wrenn)says
> <cg> is as 'dg' in 'judge', I am inclined to believe it.to
> (Northumbrian late OE geeggoden 'egged on' probably does have [gg];
> Onions cites it as a loan from ON.) English 'stag' may derive from
> ON 'staggr', 'staggi' = 'male bird'; the English word has referred
> various male animals. The possible correspondence of English 'teg'tacka 'ewe'
> (a type of sheep, first attested 16th century) to Swedish
> probably creates more problems than it solves.Falk & Torp: