Re[2]: [tied] Re: Lexeme-lumping in REW 878, baf(f)a

At 10:43:02 PM on Sunday, June 22, 2008, John Cowan wrote:

> dgkilday57 scripsit:

[...]

>> and [S-S] uses the reflex of L. <habeo:> as a _preposed_
>> future auxiliary. In CWR, of course, the auxiliary was
>> _postposed_, leading to cliticism and fusion. This
>> indicates that Sardo-Sicilian Latin had already adopted
>> SVO as the neutral word-order when it normalized <habeo:>
>> as the future auxiliary, while the Latin which became CWR
>> was still SOV.

> I don't know that that argument is necessarily sound. In
> North Germanic the articles wound up postposed as opposed
> to preposed in West Germanic, but there was no
> corresponding shift from AN to NA order.

I'm not convinced that this is really analogous, but in any
case I wonder whether it's reasonable to describe NGmc. as
having had AN order in the first place: collocations like
<gamall maðr> probably outnumber those like <maðr gamall>,
but the latter are still pretty common -- even more so if
you include the type <maðr hinn fríði>. And with genitives
the normal order is definitely NG.

Brian