Re: Old English and Old Norse

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

>
> --- 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?
>
> I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that originally the
> plosive pronunciation was initial and after *n, but Dutch extended
> the originally medial-only fricative pronunciation to all
> positions?

Yes.

> It's possible, but I wonder why the Dutch would go from an easier
> phoneme to a more difficult one (maybe it's not difficult for the
> Dutch, yes).

I imagine Dutch extended the range of the /G/ at the time when the
English with whom they were at war, abolished theirs. Shibboleth effect.


Torsten