From: dgkilday57
Message: 68201
Date: 2011-11-11
>The problem here is not Lehmann's search for regular soundlaws, which is the correct methodology. Lehmann was one of the sharpest phonological bloodhounds of the last century, but like Feist and others he was thrown off the track by Ottmann's red herring, 'meed'. The peculiar phonology occurs only in West Germanic, and Old English <me:d> exists beside the expected <meord> (cf. Gothic <mizdo:>, etc.). This makes it highly plausible that 'meed' is a borrowing from Kuhn's Nordwestblock, and while this is of considerable interest for NWB studies, it has no direct bearing on the origin of native Germanic close */e:/.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is in addition to earlier opt. changes of X > X / q / G / R, etc.; which, since xw > Xw , account for alternations like qius Go; cwic(u) OE; or stack, stow, etc.
> >
> > This uvular R usually > r in historical Gmc. Also, at:
> >
> > http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep07.html
> >
> > Winfred P. Lehmann, when discussing OHG r-preterites says: "The sequence assumed here for seventh class verbs is PIE /eXw/ [eXu], for first class verbs /yX/ [iX]. I suggest that in these sequences the laryngeals were preserved, and that their reflexes fell into the OHG r-phoneme."
> >
> > (note: Lehmann uses X to symbolize any "laryngeal"; I use it for the uvular fricative)
> >
> > He's on the right track, but only xW > XW and x() > X() by w, etc., underwent it, and only optionally X>R>r (scrían is probably from onom. * sqRiX- w/in Gmc, and has nothing to do with PIE yx). He's hindered both by attempting to find a regular rather than optional expl. and his sometimes bizarre sequencing, as when saying: "the u: in these forms would be best explained from the zero grade of /-eXw-/" (though it seems fairly common for some linguists to posit eHu not ewH / uH > u: for some reason).
>
> He's also hindered by attempting to find a regular rather than optional expl. at:
>
> http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep09.html
>
> he says:
>
> "
> In chapter 7 we have seen that in some verb forms reflexes of laryngeals were preserved in PGmc. as continuants. If e:2 developed from e plus reflex of laryngeal (written Z below), at some time in early Gmc. there were found side by side forms with a pattern: leZd- and le:2d. Besides these there were words of the pattern: mizd-; the allophone of /i/ before /z/ was apparently very low, see Twaddell, Language 24.147. The allophone of the /i/ in mizd- was then very similar to that of leZd. Thus on the pattern
>
> leZd- : le:2d
> mizd- : x
>
> alternate forms with me:2d were made. As we might expect from such an analogical development, only a few such forms were made, and beside these survived the original forms. We find only those cited above, and OE ce:n, OHG kien from *keznos, cf. Russ. sosná `pine' and MLG he:de beside OE heorde, MDu. herde `tow'.
> "
>
> He's so intent on attempting to find a regular expl. he doesn't even try or mention an optional expl. Since analogy isn't a sound law, apparently he feels it can be irregular, but using analogy to expl. an obvious sound change is ridiculous.
>
> Short e and i merged in Gmc; for simplicity I'll assume they first became e . In this situation the fact that e+fric. (for so he knows the "laryngeals" to be) became e: for more than one fric. simply and obviously means that the same sound change or very similar sound changes applied to more than one fric. Invoking analogy for an environmental change makes no sense. That z > _ was optional shouldn't make any difference, at least to a linguist who is fully prepared to accept the nature and consequences of opt. changes.