From: tgpedersen
Message: 60234
Date: 2008-09-23
>Obviously.
> At 4:06:15 PM on Sunday, September 21, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:57:06 PM on Saturday, September 20, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> This is how I imagined the -en- > -in- rule of Germanic
> >>> happened.
> >>> Once it inflected:
>
> >>> *sprenga *sprengm.
> >>> *sprengis *sprengiþ
> >>> *sprengiþ *sprengn.þ
>
> >>> with umlaut
> >>> *sprenga *sprengm.
> >>> *springis *springiþ
> >>> *springiþ *sprengn.þ
>
> >>> generalized
> >>> *springa *springm.
> >>> *springis *springiþ
> >>> *springiþ *springn.þ
>
> >>> vel sim., Brian!
>
> >> Pre-nasal raising (*e > *i / _NC) is distinct from
> >> i-umlaut of *e and occurs in all classes of words.
> >> (E.g., *kinnuz 'cheek' by way of *genwu- from *g^é:nu-s ~
> >> *g^énw- 'jaw'.) It must also be a relatively late change
> >> in pre-PGmc., in view of Finn. <rengas> 'ring' from a
> >> pre-stage of PGmc. *hringaz.
>
> > I know.
>
> And as long as you continue to post this sort of silliness,
> I'll continue to assume that you do not know. It's a
> typical Torstenism: an implausible and unnecessary
> explanation of something perfectly straightforward.
> > But I think the *-en- > *-in- spread as hypercorrectionThe traditional explanation claims two separate rules caused *-en- >
> > from those strong verbs being regularized, see
> > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html
>
> Why? At best your fixation on shibboleths makes you a blind
> man claiming that an elephant is very like a rope.