--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> More corrections. I must stop quoting words from memory, which is wrong 4 out of 5 times. The Germanic derivatives of '5' containing a velar are collected in a footnote on p. 512 of Kauffmann's paper "Zur Geschichte des germanischen Consonantismus" (PBB 12:504-47, 1887). Kauffmann himself vouches for _fauchzk_ '50' in the grand duchy of Saxony, and cites Swabian _fuchze:_ '15', _fuchzk_ '50' from Birlinger (Alem. Spr. rechts des Rheins p. 178; Augsb. Wb. p. 149) and Weinhold (Bair. Gr. sec. 184); also Middle Dutch _vichtiene_ '15', _vichte_ '5th' (inflected weak) against _vijftich_ '50' and _vijfte_ '5th' from Franck (Mnl. Gr. sec. 109).
>
> Kauffmann also gives (presumably from his native Swabian dialect) _fuft_ 'fifth', _fufze:_ '15', _fufzk_ '50'. The short vowel shows that the nasal cannot have been lost in historical Swabian. The stem _fuf-_ must continue an ancient nasalless form.
>
> The soundlaw which I am assuming assimilated an occluded labiovelar in articulation to a preceding labial. This must have operated before the soundlaw which converted Proto-Gmc. *-Vnx- to *-V:x-, or there would be no nasal preserved in any form of Gmc. '5', no matter what analogical processes occurred later. I have not determined whether the labializing soundlaw occurred before or after Grimm's Law. If it occurred after, something like this would be expected:
>
> PIE *penkWe '5', *pn.kWto- '5th'
> Early PGmc *finxWe, *funxWta-
> Later ... *finx(W), *funfta-
> Later ... *fi:x, *funfta-
>
> Analogical processes probably began operating before this last stage was reached. Contamination of *finx with *funfta- very likely produced *finf, *finfta-, the most widespread protoforms. Some High German dialects (including the literary standard) retain -nf, while others have assimilated the cluster to -mf, as has Gothic, and Old Norse further to -mm. But an alternative contamination *funx would later produce *fu:x, preserved in Swab. _fuchze:_, _fuchzk_, and a further contamination of *fu:x with *funfta- could yield *fu:fta-, whence Swab. _fuft_ and the new analogical creations _fufze:_, _fufzk_. Finally, *fi:x does seem to be represented in MD _vichtiene_ and, by analogy "against the grain", in _vichte_.
>
> I am out of time for this week, and will attempt to address Sean's comments, and other matters, next week.
>
Everything takes longer than I think it will. Sean's comments on 'wolf', 'finger', and 'fist' required revising the theory, so I will address these words first. His other comments will be answered under the appropriate headwords. It was impractical to attempt to interweave this material with one of his highly abbreviated posts.
1. 'Wolf'. Inventing archaic root-noun inflection to get an occluded labiovelar in the nom. sg. is a poor way to explain the labialization. It is better to suppose that labialization occurred in the nom. sg. following syncope of the stem-vowel, and then spread to the other cases. This assumption has several ramifications for Germanic soundlaw chronology.
Indo-European *kWo- regularly becomes Gmc. *xa- unless the labiovelar is restored by analogy (as in the interrogatives). Early Gmc. loanwords to Finnic (e.g. Finnish _kuningas_ 'king') have -as for IE *-os, showing that the stem-vowel shift *-o- > *-a- preceded syncope in the ultima. Had the delabialization *xWa- > *xa- also preceded this syncope, the nom. sg. 'wolf' would have developed as *wl.´kWos > *wúlxWos > *wúlxWaz > *wúlxaz > *wúlxs. Therefore, the delabialization *xWa- > *xa- must have followed the syncope which preceded the postulated labialization of occluded *xW. The nom. sg. thus developed as *wl.´kWos > *wúlxWos > *wúlxWaz > *wúlxWs > *wúlfs.
Old Norse _ulfr_ represents Runic Norse *wulfaR (cf. _stainaR_ 'stone', _þewaR_ 'servant', etc.). This cannot directly continue *wúlxWaz, or there would be no basis for the labialization in Norse. The syncope of *-a- in the nom. sg. of masc. /a/-stems, labialization of occluded *xW to *f, and generalization of *f to the other cases must have taken place in Common Gmc. The RN nom. sg. -aR of masc. /a/-stems must be an analogical restoration after -iR of /i/-stems and -uR of /u/-stems (e.g. _-gastiR_ '-guest', _sunuR_ 'son'). Whether this took place before rhotacism, i.e. *-az restored after *-iz and *-uz, is immaterial to our topic.
The inherited Gmc. feminine was apparently formed with the ablauting _deví:_-suffix *-jáh2-/*-íh2-, like Gothic _mawi_ 'girl', acc. _mauja_, to _magus_ 'boy'. Here _mawi_ regularly continues Gmc. *maGWí:, but _mauja_ has been levelled from expected *magja (Gmc. *maGWjó:N) by the influence of _mawi_. ON _ylgr_ 'she-wolf' represents RN *wulgiR, which has been normalized to /i/-stem inflection, following paradigmatic levelling in the opposite direction. The nom. sg. would have regularly developed as *wl.kWíh2 > *wulxWí: > *wulGWí: > RN *wulwi(R), the acc. sg. as *wl.kWjáh2m > *wulxWjá:n > *wulGWjó:N > RN *wulgjo. The RN nom. sg. *wulgi(R) evidently replaced internal *-w- with *-g- from the cases which had full grade of the _deví:_-suffix.
Proto-West Germanic replaced *wulxWí: with *wulfí: after the masc. *wúlfs while Verner's Law was still operating, immediately yielding *wulBí: 'she-wolf'. This is not to say that /a/-syncope and occluded /xW/-labialization preceded the onset of Verner's Law, which might create serious chronological difficulties. It means that grammatical change was a living feature of Proto-Germanic for some period of time, perhaps several centuries, before the original accent was superseded by the familiar root-based accent. During this period, the phoneme /f/ was realized as [f] word-initially, in the cluster [ft], and when immediately preceded by the accent; otherwise [B]. When PWGmc speakers transferred /f/ from the masc. 'he-wolf' to the fem. 'she-wolf', it preceded the accent in 'she-wolf' and automatically was realized as [B]. The resulting WGmc *wulbi developed into Old English _wylf_ and Old High German _wulpa_.
Further material will follow as time permits.
DGK