From: Torsten
Message: 69032
Date: 2012-03-19
>Let me answer it this way then: A reconstruction model in which that type of metatheses occur regularly in loans from a substrate language, is more satifactory to Occam than one in which it occurs irregularly in one single language. Of course such a theory would be invalidated by words which can be demonstrated to occur outside the putative distribution area of that substrate language.
> At 5:53:35 AM on Saturday, March 17, 2012, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >> At 7:26:49 PM on Friday, March 16, 2012, Torsten wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 6:18:45 AM on Thursday, March 15, 2012, Torsten
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> However, Norwegian 'ras'. It can't be Slavic liquid
> >>>>> metathesis(?); is it Schrijver's bird lnguage?
>
> >>>> It's ON <rass>, metathesized from earlier (attested)
> >>>> <ars>.
>
> >>> Obviously it is ('ars' still in jysk), but why? That's
> >>> not a regular rule.
>
> >> Why should it be?
>
> > I have a hunch those metatheses occur in loanwords in
> > Germanic.
>
> Which of course doesn't answer the question.
> >> Neither is <bridd> ~ <bird>,You misunderstand. It doesn't occur outside English (and Frisian?) AFAIK, unless it's connected with 'brood', as Skeat proposes.
>
> > AFAIK that word is isolated in English.
>
> <bærstlian> ~ <brastlian> 'crackle', <cerse> ~ <cresse>
> 'cress', <cyrps> ~ <crisp> 'curly', <dærstan> ~ <dræstan>
> 'dregs', <forsc> ~ <frosc> 'frog', <forst> ~ <frost>
> 'frost', <gærs> ~ <græs> 'grass', <first> ~ <frist>
> 'period', <burna> ~ <brunna> (in place-names) 'stream',
> <þirda> ~ <þridda> 'third', <froht> ~ <forht> 'afraid',
> <þrop> ~ <þorp> 'farm; village', etc.
> >> not to mention a number of other /rV/ ~ /Vr/ metatheses.Yes. History, you know.
>
> And while I'm thinking about it, Cont. Scand. <kors>.
>
> > PIE *bhren-, *bhron-, *bhr.n- would regularly give P-Germ.
> > *brin-, *bran-, *burn-, which is bound to get regularised
> > one way or the other.
>
> For a while, perhaps.
> From the OED:If it had ever gone *bren-, *bran-, *burn-, as I think it once did, lexicographers would not have registered it.
> The modern verb represents two earlier verbs, viz. (1) the
> intransitive strong verb, Gothic brinnan, (brann, brunnum;
> brunnans), Old Norse brinnan (later brennan), Old Saxon,
> Old High German, Middle High German brinnan, Old English
> brinnan, by metathesis *birnan, bernan, beornan, (bran,
> barn, born, bearn; burnon, bornen) âardereâ; and (2) the
> derived factitive weak verb, Gothic brannjan (brannida,
> branniþs), Old Norse brenna, Old Saxon, Old High German
> brenn(i)an, (Middle High German and German brennen), Old
> English bærnan (by metathesis for brÄnnan), bærnde,
> âurereâ. Beornan and bærnan were still distinct in Old
> English, but ran together early in the Middle English
> period. Middle English had four types of the present stem,
> bern-, brin(n-, barn-, bren(n-, the two former of which
> appear to represent the intransitive, and the third the
> transitive Old English verb; bren(n- appears to be mainly
> the Old Norse brenna, but may partly have originated by
> metathesis < bern-. Of the original strong verb, the
> strong past tense does not appear later than Layamon, and
> the distinction of transitive and intransitive was soon
> lost, the different types being used indiscriminately as
> to sense, though with dialectal preferences. Brenne, brent
> was the most common type in late Middle English, and even
> down to the 16th cent., when it was somewhat abruptly
> dispossessed by burn, burnt, apparently the descendant of
> the earlier bern-, birn-, though the continuity is not
> very clearly made out, as, between the 13th and 16th
> cents., this type is scarcely recorded in Scottish
> writers.
>
> In other words, in English it's gone /Vr/ > /rV/ > /Vr/.
> > *bhrest-, *bhrost-, *bhr.st- similarly.No, they took their sweet time. But it happened eventually.
>
> From the OED:
>
> (1) A Common Germanic strong verb: Old English berstan
> (past tense bærst , burston , participle borsten ) = Old
> Frisian bersta , Old Saxon brestan (brast , bruston ;
> brostan ), (Middle Dutch, Dutch berstan , barsten , Low
> German barsten , basten ), Old High German brestan (Middle
> High German brestan , German bersten from Low German), Old
> Norse bresta , (brast , brustum ; brostinn ), (Swedish
> brista , Danish briste ) < Germanic *brestan , possibly <
> *brek-st-an , a derivative (intensive) of brek-an to break
> v.
>
> (2) The earlier brest- of West Germanic became by
> metathesis berst- in Old English, Frisian, Dutch, and Low
> German (whence also it has passed into modern German in
> place of Middle High German brest-). In English this
> berst- mostly again became brest- in Middle English,
> partly perhaps under Norse influence, whence the past
> participle brosten still, in northern dialect; but this
> has since the 16th cent. gone back to berst, changed by
> the disturbing influence of r to burst. So that we have
> the alternate series Germanic and West Germanic brest-,
> Old English berst-, Middle English brest, modern English
> berst, burst. But the 15â"16th cent. had often brust and
> brast, barst in the present; and the northern dialect had
> brist, bryst, as in Danish.
>
> (3) The original strong conjugation survived during the
> Middle English period, with the typical forms, after
> metathesis, bresten, brast, brosten, but with much
> disturbance and mixture of forms in 14â"15th cent. In the
> 16th cent. a very common form was brast for all the
> principal parts; but about the end of that century, burst
> (for all the parts) began to gain the ascendancy which it
> has since maintained, though the past tense was frequently
> brast in 17th and the past participle bursten till 18th
> cent. Various old forms survive dialectally, and in U.S.
> the past tense and participle are frequently bursted,
> vulgarly busted.
>
> In short, this verb has also shown considerable vacillation.
> Neither verb is a very good advertisement for stable
> regularization.
> >> De Vries s.v. <ars> suggests taboo deformation, whichWell, I think the substrate solution is more satisfactory wrt. Occam. If you think Kuhn's NWB didn't exist, I think you can do better than resorting to ad hominems.
> >> could certainly be a(nother) contributing factor.
>
> > Faute de mieux, yes.
>
> Actually, the combination of factors looks like a pretty
> good explanation to anyone who isn't (to paraphrase Roger
> Lass) a substrate romantic.