Re: Old English and Old Norse

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > >
> > > Note that OE <g> had both velar varieties ([g] initial and after
> > > [N], [G] medially otherwise (which > [x] finally)) and palatal
> > > varieties ([j]; *[J](voiced palatal plosive)>[dZ] after [n]).
> > > The palatal varieties arose from PGmc *g (plosive and fricative)
> >
> > Actually PGmc *g must have been fricative everywhere (except perhaps
> > after *n) because it yields [x] or [G] everywhere but after *n in
> > Dutch.
>
> How do know that's not a generalization of something like the OE state
> of affairs?
>
> Berlinerisch has /g/ > /j/
> http://tinyurl.com/akaqcu
>
> Dutch /G/ > /x/ is an innovation which goes with /v/ > /f/ and /z/ >
> /s/, which all set it apart from Flemish.
>
> I listed a long list of Germanic words here on Cybalist with dialectal
> g-/w- and g-/j- alternation (with appr. that heading), but now the
> stupid search function can't find it. Most looked like substrate
> words, some had FU connections. Here's a g-/j- one:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60884
> if that one doesn't have Gmc. ga- ,

I don't see the alternation between g- and j-, the "ice"-words all
seem to have j-.

> and here a G-/w- one:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61971
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62983

I think I've read that in words like this some linguists posit a *gWH
which became g- in Gmc before *o but became w- elsewhere.


Andrew