Re: s-stems in Slavic and Germanic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > This seems to be the exact opposite of what occurred in
> > > English, so I don't think English offers support for Torsten's
> > > shibboleth hypothesis (or for that matter German).
> >
> > And that is exactly what happened in German. No Saxon in England
> > would argue with a Norman that it was eyren, not egges (except
> > out in the sticks, note that the irregular plural in English, as
> > well as in Dutch and 'Scandinavian' occurs in 1) body parts and
> > 2) farm animals), but a Southern German would, against a Hanse
> > trader (if he heard something similar).
> >
>
> But why would the Southern German insist that the correct plural of
> <Wort> is (the new and at first incorrect) <Wörter> rather than (the
> old and originally correct) <Wort>, instead of the creolized
> <Wort(e)s>? I don't see how this s-shibboleth would encourage the
> spread of <-er> beyond its original bounds.

No, but the whole plural thing would have been in a state of flux, and
one more motive wrt. to those endingless neuters would be to supply
them with a proper plural ending. To the 'correct' camp the usual -e
without umlaut from the strong masculines hasn't sounded proper enough
(Wörter, BTW, also has the plural Worte).


Torsten