Re: Germanic nominal declensions

From: elmeras2000
Message: 24774
Date: 2003-07-24

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
Loewe suggests PIE *-ois (perhaps on the model of u-stem
> -eus or -ous), which I don't find convincing. The WGmc forms are
> indistinguishable from the dative/locative, so perhaps Gothic -ais
is
> simple dative *-ai + -s (with some help from u-stem G. -aus, D. -
au).

I think you're absolutely right on that. Apart from o-stems, the
general relation between genitive and dative in Gothic is +/- -s
(also gumins gumin, brothrs brothr, nahts naht).



> Gen. *-eiom *-eiaN
> ON and OE have adopted the o-stem ending *-o:N (ON -a, OE -a).
> OS -io, OHG -eo may come from *-jaN, but Gothic -e: may perhaps
> be explained as *-e:2(aN), following van Coetsem's explanation of
> PGmc *e:2 from PIE *ei with a-Umlaut.
>
> It's a reasonably well-established fact that PIE *i/*e and *u gave
> PGmc. *i and *u when a high vowel (*i or *u) followed in the next
> syllable, whereas when *a followed they gave *e and *o. Applying
> the same rules to the PGmc. "diphthongs" (as if they were still
> biphonemic), we get:
>
> *i/*u *a
> *ai *ai *ae
> *au *au *ao
> *ei *ii *ee
> *eu *iu *eo
>
> If there ever was an Umlaut *au ~ *ao, *ai ~ *ae, no trace of it
remains.
> However, the a-Umlaut of *iu to *eo (OS, OHG eo, io) is well-
established.
> Van Coetsem's claim is that *ei likewise occurred in two variants
*ii (>
> *i:) before high vowel, *ee (> *e:2) before *a.
>
> In the G.pl., PIE *-eiom would have developed to *-eeaN with
*e:2. In
> stressed position, we know that *e:2 gives -e: in Gothic, ON, OE
and OS,
> /ia/ in OHG (and <ie> in modern Dutch). Can the Gpl. endings OS -
io and
> OHG -eo go back to *-e:2a(N)? Gothic -e: surely can.

I find this much harder to believe. It is Kortlandt's idea and so
presumably a given for Beekes. It seems van Coetsem's theory of an a-
umlauted variant of original /ei/ being PGmc, /e:2/ is based on the
lone example of OHG stiega (Gm. Stiege) which is derived from
*steigha:. Now, the proper counterparts of this are OHG steiga and
Goth. staiga from *stoigha:, the expected collective of Gk.
stoi~khos. I would therefore interpret stiega as a dialect loan: At
a time when the High German reflex of /e:2/ was [e:], the Low German
form of PGmc. *staigo:, i.e. *ste:ga (Dutch steeg 'alley') was taken
over and integrated with the new /e:/. That vitiates the umlauting
of /ei/ beyond repair.

Of course it is hard to know what *-eyo:m or *-i(y)o:m would yield
in Gothic, but -e looks a bit surprising. I would therefore much
rather favour the interpretation of the form as analogical: When the
gen.sg. *-as(a) had been replaced by the pronominal ending *-es(a),
the same replacement was extended to the same case of the plural.
The vowel /o:/ was the long counterpart of /a/, and their front
counterparts were /e:/ and /e/ respectively. So, parallel to *-as
(a) -> *-es(a), the gen.pl. *-o:m was replacde by *-e:m, whence
Gothic -e.

Jens