From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 71540
Date: 2013-11-10
>
>
> 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).
> a.. Latin pressa was borrowed as OHG fressa "winepress", not *pfressa
> (this word is probably extinct now), as if it had been subdued to the 1st
> Shift (!).
> b.. Romance (< Celtic) *pauta "paw" has yielded German Pfaute (with p > pf
> while -t- unchanged).
> c.. Also Latin porta --> OHG pforta (not *pforza), modern Pforte "gate".
> d.. Latin imputare --> OHG impfitōn "inoculate", now impfen, with -t-
> preserved but then irregularly omitted.
> e.. But Latin picem ---> OHG pech, modern Pech "tar" (also "bad luck")
> with k > ch while p unchanged (it is a really strange as Latin c before a
> front vowel yields German z in newer borrowings, on the other hand p used to
> be replaced by pf enough long, and only really new borrowings have p
> preserved)
> f.. Latin tunica "tunic" --> OHG tunihha (modern Tünche "whitewash,
> veneer, etc.") with *k > ch but t- preserved.
> g.. Aleman Seipfe "soap" differs from the literary Seife; the first comes
> from *saippō while the other from *saipō (p > ff > f after a diphthong).
> h.. Latin acētum "vinegar" was borrowed as if it was *atēcum, hence OHG
> ezzih (now written Essig with -g instead of -ch).
>
> Grzegorz J.
>
>
>