Re: Verner-alternating Gmc. nouns

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "G&P" <G.and.P@...> wrote:

>
> Torsten:
>
> >What I find difficult to believe is that PGmc should have gotten
> >rid of ablaut (in nouns only) without getting rid of its effect
> >(Verner) at the same time.
>
> Doesn't modern English show that the effect of an alternation can
> survive long after the alternation has gone? We see this in words
> like house/houses, and (with different effect) foot/feet,
> mouse/mice and so on.

The getting rid of the ablaut alternation in Verner-alternating nouns
was by analogy: it was a regularization of a paradigm. The getting rid
of the unstressed vowel in your examples was by regular phonetic
development. I asked why people wouldn't have regularized away the
Verner effects at the same time, once they 'decided' to regularize
away the ablaut alternation. That question doesn't come up in a
regular phonetic process.


Torsten