Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic"

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:34:56 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>I'll have to take that back, Gothic doesn't geminate, and the 4th weak
>conjugation is Gothic alone. Instead I'll settle for quoting
>KARL BRUNNER ALTENGLISCHE GRAMMATIK, §228,
>"
>Anm. 2. Die Voraussetzung für eine ebensolche Gemination vor n war bei
>den Subst. der n-Dekl. in denjenigen Kasus gegeben, in denen nach der
>urspr. Flexion n unmittelbar auf einen Geräuschlaut folgte (s. § 276,
>Anm. 1). Es ist zwar möglich, daß die Geminata in cnotta Knoten,
>scucca sceocca Verführer, Teufel, lappa Lappen, budda Käfer, ebba
>Ebbe, fro33a Frosch, hierher gehören, wobei die verschiedenen
>westgerm. Sprachen zwischen den zu erwartenden Doppelformen
>verschiedentlich ausgeglichen haben (z. B. ae. dropa aber hd. Tropfen,
>s. Kluge, Urgerm., in Pauls Grdr.3, S. 150, § 158). Da aber in anderen
>Wörtern mit Geräuschlaut vor n keine Geminata vorkommt (z. B. wæcnan
>erwachen, hræfn Rabe, ðe3n Diener, we3n Wagen), sind diese Geminaten
>am besten expressiv (dynamisch) zu erklären. Vgl. Luick, Hist. Gram. §
>631, 4 und Anm. 2; F. A. Wood, Post-consonantal w, S. 214 und bes. A.
>Martinet (s. Lit. Verz.).
>
>
>In other words, with some words, you'll have to resort to
>'expressiveness' to explain the gemination, which is no explanation at
>all.

Why not? In many languages, "expressive" formnations do
have their own peculiar phonology and phonotactics, and
follow different historical developments.

In the case of Kluge's law, however, I disagree that "diese
Geminaten am besten expressiv (dynamisch) zu erklären
[sind]". There is a minority of words which can be explained
as expressive formations, there's another minority (words
like wæcnan, hræfn, ðe3n, we3n, etc.) which appear to be
exceptions to Kluge's law, and there's a majority which
simply follow Kluge's law. The exceptions need to be
explained, of course. We have already discussed <þegn>
(*tekW-n- or Celtic loan?), in the message I sent a few
minutes ago I think I explained wæcnan (-nan as a productive
suffix), and in <wegn> I think there was no contact between
stop and nasal (Skt. vahana-). I don't have a ready
explanation for "raven" (there is a MHG <rappe>, mentioned
by Pokorny).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...