2013/11/9, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>
> Germanic *th yielded d in German. So, we would expect *dausent "1000"
> (cf. Eng. thousand, Old Saxon thu^sundig etc. (+ attestation of t- in
> Balto-Slavic). Dutch duizend is regular, as well as OHG du^sunt is.
>
> If the MHD and modern German forms with t- are borrowings, from what
> dialect/language? (...)
> [DGK:]
>
> Another example is _Traube_, MHG _tru:be_ against OHG _dru:bo_, OS
> _thru:bo_, Du. _druif_ 'grape' (with the same semantic development 'bunch of
> grapes' > 'grape' as in Fr. _raisin_ and Eng. _grape_ itself).
>
> Both _Tausend_ and _Traube_ are explicitly stated to be of Upper German
> origin by K.G. Goblirsch, "Notker's Law and Consonant Strength", North-West
> European Language Evolution 31/32:135-43, 1997:
>Yes, it may be the correct explanation. It has interesting consequences: technically, there were THREE consonantal shifts here. 1. IE t > Gmc. þ (th), 2. Gmc. þ > German d, 3. German d > Upper German t
*Bhr.: I fail to understand the treatment of German /d/ < PIE */t/
together with German /b/ /g/ < PIE */bh/ */gh/: aren't they different
isoglosses? Upper German /p/ /k/ for German /b/ /g/ are the regular
outcome of 2nd Sound Shift (in those areas where it included most
developments) and are therefore a more complete version of German /t/
< PIE */dh/ (or Verner Proto-Germanic */d/ < PIE */t/, of course).Consonantal shifts do not seem to be uniform processes. They are time and space limited, and there are some lexemes which seem to be exceptions in such or another way. Let me term voiced, voiceless etc. as rows, while velar, dental, labial as series. The shift in each series must have occured in a little different time and with a little different intensivity. And the same can be said on rows.
Let me start from the 1st Shift / Grimm's "Law" (rule in fact). It is often treated as exceptionless but in real we should have doubts. For example, the English "touch" and "take" look like cognate of the Latin tangere with *t- preserved. Similarly, "up" and "open" seem to have the original IE *p preserved (cf. Greek hypo etc.). Borrowings from an unknown para-Germanic dialect? Even if yes, "take" seems to have -k- shifted while t- not shifted...IE *bh, *dh, *gh were shifted to Gmc. *b, *d, *g - but these symbols cover voiced fricatives rather than stops originally. However, at least the initial *d seems to have become a stop very early, so the process encompassed all Germanic dialects. The internal *d became a stop as well, at least in West Germanic. The labial sound *b was not so much sensitive to the change, hence we have now -v- in English on the place of the internal *-b-, while b- in the initial position. The velar sound *g was the most refractory, and it has still stayed fricative in Dutch in all positions. It is also fricative in Old English (now spelt gh and mute or pronounced /f/) and Icelandic (despite of actual spelling). So, the changes of IE *dh were the most stronger, next was the IE *bh, and finally *gh, the less changed.The 1st Shift took place long ago and we do not have too much materials for comparison. But the same mechanisms can be observed with the 2nd Shift. There are exceptions ("In many West Central German dialects, the words dat, wat, et ("that, what, it") did not shift to das, was, es, even though t was shifted in other words. It is not quite clear why these exceptions occurred.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift), and practically each single process had different area and different time. As long ago as in 643 AD ("Edictus Rothari") the change b- > p- was already done in Langobardian/Lombardian; even if the change is enough old, it has never spread over Central German and some Upper German, not even speaking of Low German. On the other hand, the change d > t is common on all High (= Central + Upper) German area but it is enough late (8th or even 9th century). However, it was early enough to The article in Wikipedia may give enough information, even if some details can be further discussed. See there also for further info on particular isoglosses, like the Uerdingen line (final -k > -ch), the Benrath line (internal k > ch), the Speyer line (pp > pf) and others.There are interesting forms, especially among Latin borrowings, with results of the Shift different than expected (and thus they can be compared with the "take" and "up" problems with the 1st Shift mentioned above).