From: dgkilday57
Message: 71549
Date: 2013-11-11
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote: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?
>
> And if their development was regular, are there more German words with t-
> on the place of Germanic th-?
>
> Kluge only states "Lautlich zu erwarten wäre nhd. d-" - this is just
> statement, no way explanation. If d- was expected like Kluge says, why t-?
>
> [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:
>
> "Modern [Upper German] dialects also show a great confusion in the
> development of Gmc. /b/, /d/, /g/. In many areas, secondary strengthening
> to /p/, /t/, /k/ is reported. Compare the following examples: _kukkN_
> 'gucken', _pitt@... 'bitter', _platt_ 'Blatt', _klass_ 'Glass', _pi@...
> 'Bier', _pa:n_ 'Bahn', _ko,:fn_ 'gaffen'. OHG /d/ is also reportedly
> strengthened to /t/ as in the following examples from the Zürcher Oberland:
> _ti,kx_ 'dick', _tun@_ 'Donner', but _do:rff_ 'Dorf', _diNN_ 'Ding' ([A.]
> Weber [, Die Mundart des Zürcher Oberlandes, Btr. zur schwd. Gr. 10,
> Frauenfeld] 1923). The examples are diverse, varying not only from dialect
> to dialect, but also from word to word. Some, like _Traube_ and _Tausend_,
> entered the standard in their 'strengthened' forms. Across-the-board
> strengthening of the OHG /b/, /d/, /g/ is also reported in a few isolated
> areas, that is, Burgenland in Middle Bavarian and in (former) Middle and
> North Bavarian dialects bordering on the Czech-speaking area. In view of
> such findings, it seems there would be no functional opposition of strength
> in initial position in Upper German, were it not for unaffricated [kh-] and
> aspiration in borrowings transmitted through the literary standard."
>
*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)
[DGK:]
This is indeed a thorny problem. Goblirsch's presentation implies a third consonant-shift, namely PIE *t- > Gmc. *þ- > OHG *d- > UG *t-. However, Weber's data (assuming _Dorf_ and _Ding_ were simply borrowed from standard HG), along with the assertion about _Traube_ and _Tausend_, could equally well be explained by a separate UG development, Gmc. *þ- > *t-, distinct from the shift to *d- in OHG dialects further north (which was incomplete when literacy arrived, since some of the words have th- or dh- for later d-). This would agree with _troppus_ in the Lex Alam. (and REW 8938) being cognate with LG _drubbel_ (/a/-umlaut explains Gmc. *drobba- against *drubbila-).
Unfortunately It. _tasso_ 'badger' and related Rom. words (REW 8606) cannot help us, since _taxo_ 'small four-footed animal' is already in Late Latin (prob. 4th cent.); while the LL form corresponds to Sp. _tejón_ etc., the It. word is homophonous with _tasso_ 'yew' from Lat. _taxus_, and probably came directly from Gothic *þahsus without the LL extension. At any rate all the Rom. 'badger' words appear to result from borrowing before the High German shift occurred.
On the other hand It. _tanfo_ 'stench, stink' is referred by M.-L. (REW 8696) to Langobardic _thampf_ [sic] corresponding to HG _Dampf_ 'vapor, steam', MHG _dampf_, _tampf_ (Upper?), OHG _dampf_, MLG/MD _damp_. This appears to reflect a Gmc. *þamp- with no obvious IE etymology (8th-cent. OHG _dempfen_ looks like a reflex of Gmc. *þampjanaN, not a borrowing from OLG/OD). If the correct Lgb. form is *tampf, we have *t- against LG/HG d- in the same UG word as *pf. Still I cannot prove that there was no third consonant-shift involved.
Perhaps someone else will be clever enough to find a better way of testing whether UG *t- came directly from Gmc. *þ-.