German and West Germanic

NotesDie deutschen Mundarten, hrsg. von G. K. Frommann, VII (1877), 18ff. F. Kauffmann, Gesch. d. schwäb. Mundart (Strassburg, 1890), §61, Anm. 5; § 72, Anm. 4; §77; §80, Anm. 1; §83; §86, Anm. 4; §139. H. Fischer, Geographie der schwäb. Mundart (Tübingen, 1895), 1 (Text), 22f., II (Atlas), Map 5. A. Bachmann, in: Geograph. Lexikon d. Schweiz, v (Neuenburg, 1908), 74. K. Bohnenberger, “Zur Auflösung des n vor Reibelaut im Alemannischen,” ZfdMundarten, 1914, p. 377ff., and “Über n vor Reibelaut im Alemannischen mit einem Anhang über nk,” Teuthonista, IV (1927/28), 13ff. F. Holthausen, As. Elementarbuch2 (Heidelberg, 1921), §191. R. Kögel, Idg. Forsch., III (1894), 291. W. v. Hellen, Idg. Forsch., v (1895), 190ff. A. Lasch, Mnd. Grammatik (Halle, 1914), §261: MLG vif, safte, vornuft, ūs, gās, ##smöde, süder, swīde (swinde), myd hande und myd mūde. E. Sievers, Ags. Grammatik3 (Halle, 1898), §186. W. Steller, Abriss d. altfries. Grammatik (Halle, 1928), §31f. Schwäb. Wörterbuch, I-VI (Tübingen, 1904–36), s. v. fünf, Hanf, Ranft, Gans, Wanst, Fenster, Gespenst, finster, Linse, Zins, winseln, Gewinst, Kunst (= Ofen), Dunst, Brunst, brünsteln, uns (üns), wünschen, etc., und Schweizerisches Idiotikon (Frauenfeld, 1881ff.). Cf. also the maps attached to Wrede’s article in ZfdMundarten, XIX (1924), and Deutscher Sprachatlas (Marburg, 1926 ff.), Map 45: Gäns(e)..“Ingwäonisch und Westgermanisch,” ZfdMundarten, XIX (1924), 270–83, and “Zur Abwehr,” Teuthonista, II (1925/26), 10-30.Here, as in the following, fīf simply represents the forms without the nasal, such as fünf, fünf, faif, faef, füf, föf (all with or without nasafüation), in contrast with fünf, which represents the forms with the nasal, such as fünf, finf, fün∂f, fin∂l, fen∂f..Wrede adopted this term in order to avoid any possible identification of ethnical and linguistic phenomena as might be suggested by such designations as Anglo-Frisian. Concerning the origin of the name, cf. O. Bremer, in Pauls Grundriss, III2 (Strassburg, 1900), 813, Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie d. class. Altertumswiss., IX, 2 (Stuttgart, 1916), 1543f., and the criticism by C. Karstien, Hist. deutsche Grammatik (Heidelberg, 1939), p. 13. In Webster (1938), p. 1277, the word is listed as lngævonic for the adjective.“Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte d. deutschen Mundartenforschung,” ZfdMundarten, XIV (1919), 16ff. Wrede afterwards revised some of his ideas in the articles cited in note 3.ZfdMundarten, XIX (1924), 282.H. Naumann, “Die neue Perspektive,” Dt. vj.schrift f. Lit.wiss. und Geistesgesch., III (1925), 646ff., and Ahd. Elementarbuch (Berlin-Leipzig, 1937), p. 10. A. Bretschneider, Die Heliandheimat und ihre sprachgeschichtl. Entwicklung (Marburg, 1934), p. 181. F. Stroh, Hirt-Festschrift, II (Heidelberg, 1936), esp. 376ff., 381ff., 385ff., 390, 401ff. K. Wagner, Deutsche Sprachlandschaften (Marburg, 1927), pp. 36ff. V. Michels, Mhd. Elementarbuch3,4 (Heidelberg, 1921), §91–94.H. Fischer, Geographie d. schwäb. Mundart (Tübingen, 1895), 1 (Text), 39.Various scholars still hesitate to accept this view, such as P. Lessiak, Beiträge z. Gesch. d. dt. Konsonantismus (Brünn, 1933), p. 7. F. Kauffmann, op. cit., p. 167. K. Bohnenberger, PBB, LII (1928), 279f. E. Roedder, Germanic Review, I (1926), 303, and Volkssprache und Wortschatz d. bad. Frankenlandes (New York, 1936), p. 588. On the other hand, the parallel diphthongization of long ī, ū, iu in English, Dutch, and Westphalian must be explained as an independent and spontaneous development. Cf. AfdA, XVIII (1892), 410.In the districts of Aalen, Ellwangen, Crailsheim, Donauwörth, Gaildorf, Dillingen. Cf. H. Fischer, op. cit., I (Text), 22f., II (Atlas), Map 5, and Schwäb. Wörterbuch, VI, I (Tübingen, 1924), p. 1219, s. v. Zins: “Hauptgebiet tsãẽs, südlich davon tsi≈s.... Außerdem tsi≈s nordöstlich bis Gaildorf, Ellwangen, Donauwörth, Lech.”. F. Kauffmann, op. cit., §76, Anm. 1; §82; §83, Anm. K. Bohnenberger, Die Mundart d. dt. Walliser im Heimattal und in den Aussenorten (Beitr. z. schweizerdt. Grammatik, Vol. VI, Frauenfeld, 1913), p. 4ff., 158ff., and Teuthonista, IV (1927/28), 14ff., 24ff. (“enetbirgische Walser’’). The nasal before spirants has also been preserved in parts of northwestem Switzerland, southern Baden, and Alsace, ZjdMundarten, 1914, p. 377ff.H. Bresslau, “Zur Geschichte der deutschen Gemeinden des Monte Rosa,” Zs. d. Ges. f. Erdkde., XVI (1881), 173. K. Bohnenberger, Walliser, p. 28f.E.g., Obersaxen, Valendas, Versam, Safien, Tenna, Mutten, Avers, Davos, and the five Rheinwald communities. K. Bohnenberger, Walliser, p. 15ff.H. Brinkmann’s objection (Sprachwandel und Sprachbewegungen in ahd. Zeit [Halle, 1931], p. 57) that forms with nasal as well as without may have existed in Lower Valais is too artificial to weaken the argument.According to W. Braune, Ahd. Grammatik5 (Halle, 1936), §83, the Second Consonant Shift took place from the Fifth to the Seventh Centuries, although only the shifting of the dentals (Attila > Etzel, about 450), which is usually considered the first change, may have begun as early as the Fifth Century. By the middle of the Eighth Century the Second Consonant Shift was generally completed.O. Behaghel, Gesch. d. dt. Sprache5 (Berlin-Leipzig, 1928), p. 8. L. Bloomfield, Language (New York, 1933), p. 340: χraoχ,-tal “Crank-Dale.” K. Bohnenberger, Walliser, pp. 23, 48ff. According to E. Steiner, ZfdMundarten, XIX (1924), 243f., the lass of n before Alem. χ began in the SW of the Bern region and from there spread to the NE and S. W. Braune, op. cit., §167a. O. Behaghel, PBB, LVIII (1934), 294ff. Schweiz. Idiotikon, IX (1929), 1759.While n has always been preserved in OHG sind, gasindi, sindôn (Graff VI, 231ff.), ingesinda once appears as ingesîde (Notker, ed. Sehrt-Starck, 66.13). Professor Starck explains this as a scribal error and not, like Behaghel, PBB, LVIII (1934), 296, as a case of dissimilation. The OHG names with initial Swîd- may be intruders from or imitations of northern forms. Cf. J. Schatz, ZfdA, XLVIII (1899), 38, and Ahd. Grammatik (Göttingen, 1927), §276. E. Schröder, ZfdA, LX (1923), 198, and Nachr. d. Gött. Gesellschaft d. Wiss., 1933, p. 364. A. Pfalz, “Grundsätzliches zur Mundartforschung,” in: Festschrift des Wiener Akad. Germanistenverbandes (Wien, 1925), p. 214. L. Wolff, ZfdA, LXXI (1934), 135f. W. Braune, Ahd. Grammatik’, §126, Anm. 2, 5.V. Michels, Mhd. Elementarbuch3,4 (Heidelberg, 1921), §59.In: Volkskundliche Ernte. Hepding-Festschrift (Giessener Beiträge z. deutschen Philologie, LX [Giessen, 1938]), p. 164ff.A rather recent parallel of a sporadic loss of the nasal before s in parts of Pomerania has been pointed out by A. Lasch, Mnd. Grammatik (Halle, 1914), §261, Anm. 4: fëster “Fenster,” Hōs “Hannes.”. G. Baesecke, Der deutsche Abrogans und die Herkunft des deutschen Schrifttums (Halle, 1930), p. 154; Der Vocabularius St. Galli in der ags. Mission (Halle, 1933); and especially “Das heutige Bild des Ahd.,” ZfdBüdung, x1 (1935), 78ff.-amês, -et, -ant Alem. Interlinear Version of the Hymns; -en, -ent, -ent Notker; even in Ulrich v. Zazikhoven’s (1200) and Boner’s (1300) writings the first person plural still differs from the second and third. Cf. K. Weinhold, Alem. Grammatik (Berlin, 1863), p. 336ff.; ZfdA, xxx (1886), 295ff., and ZfdPh, XVIII (1886), 342ff.; W. Braune, Ahd. Grammatik5, §307–309. J. Bosshart, Die Flexionsendungen des schweizerdeutschen Verbums und damit zusammenhängende Erscheinungen (Frauenfeld, 1888), pp. 6ff. P. Schild, Lit. blatt f. germ. und rom. Philol., x (1889), 87. Cf. A. Bachmann’s excellent summary in Geograph. Lexikon d. Schweiz, v (Neuenburg, 1908), 74, and O. Behaghel, Gesch. d. dt. Sprache5, pp. 168f., 464f. According to E. Steiner, ZjdMundarten, XLX (1924), 241, the leveling out of the three persons of the plural spread from the East to the West, but did not extend as far as the above-mentioned parts of western Switzerland.Cf. also K. Bohnenberger, Walliser, p. 226f.: “Die drei Personen des Plurals sind im allgemeinen noch auseinandergehalten.”. L. Schmidt, Die germ. Reiche d. Völkerwanderung (Leipzig, 1913), p. 52ff.; H. Zeiss, “Die Nordgrenze des Ostgotenreichs,” Germania, xii (1928), 25ff.; and Th. Frings, Germania Romana (Halle, 1932), pp. 33f.Pauly-Wissowa, Real- Encyclopädie d. class. Altertumswiss., I A I (Stuttgart, 1914), 48, 60. Cf. also H. Kiepert, Atlas Antiquus, Tab. II.E. Sievers, Ags. Grammatik3 (Halle, 1898), §336, Anm.These shortened forms of the possessive pronouns in OHG are therefore analogous in origin to andero (for *anderero) Williram, lûttero (for *lûtterero) Weiss. Kat. As Wrede admits, the shortened forms occur only sporadically in the South. Cf. Schweiz. Idiotikon, I, 95,347,618; K. Bohnenberger, Walliser, pp. 215, 220; and Deutscher Sprachatlas (Marburg, 1926 ff.), Map 40. W. Braune, Ahd. Grammatik5 (Halle, 1936), §286. G. Baesecke, Einführung ins Ahd. (München, 1918), p. 180. Cf. also W. Braune, PBB, II (1877), 141; H. Paul, PBB, XII (1887), 552; and P. Pietsch, ZfdPh, VII (1876), 443. Besides, one of the three shortened forms in Old Upper German texts occurs in Bavarian (Exhort.), which therefore in this instance would side with Ingrevonic!.F. Holthausen, As. Elementarbuch2 (Heidelberg, 1921), §329.E. Küppersbusch, Teuthonista, VIII (1932), 55f. K. Wagner, op. cit., p. 39. H. Brinkmann, op. cit., p. 55f. F. Wrede, ZfdMundarten, XIV (1919), 15f.; XIX (1924), 274ff. K. Wagner, Teuthonista, II (1925/26), 30ff.; IX (1933), 33ff.W. Viëtor, Elemente der Phonetik5 (Leipzig, 1904), pp. 181f. and 225ff.; E. Prokosch, A Comp. Germanic Grammar (Philadelphia, 1939), p. 91.O. Behaghel, Gesch. d. dt. Sprache5, p. 360.“Gotische Lehnworte im Ahd.,” PBB, xxxv (1909), 124–160.O. Behaghel, Gesch. d. dt. Sprache5, p. II; W. Streitberg, Die Erforschung d. idg. Sprachen (Berlin-Leipzig, 1936), pp. 97ff.Th. Frings, Germania Romana (Halle, 1932), pp. 34ff.If Wrede, as seems to be the case, in general, is thinking of the Visigoths, who in the Fourth Century A.D. bad settled near the Lower Danube, these loan words must have wandered up the Danube River, in connection with the Gothic mission, since we have no positive proof of actual ethnical contact between the Goths and any West Germanic peoples on an extended front, at that time.Cf. A. Pfalz, “Grundsätzliches zur Mundartforschung,” in Festschrift des Wiener Akad. Germanistenverbandes (Wien, 1925), p. 211. For the implied shift of i>e in unaccented syllables and of s > z > r we would have to assume that phonetic changes which we infer for the PGic. and common West Gic. period were repeated several centuries later. There is no historical evidence of a Gothic form iz, since it is doubtful whether the relative form iz-ei is of pronominal origin. Cf. Teuthonista, II (1925/26), 19ff. J. Grimm, Dt. Grammatik, III, 14. W. Streitberg, Got. Elementarbuch5,6 (Heidelberg, 1920), §346, 1. M. H. Jellinek, Gesch. d. got. Sprache (Berlin-Leipzig, 1926), §144.Cf. ONorse it, ykr: A. Heusler, Altisl. Elementarbuch2 (Heidelberg, 1921), §246; OE it, incer, inc, incit: E. Sievers, Ags. Grammatik3 (Halle, 1898), §332; OFris. jat, at: W. Steller, Abriss d. altfries. Grammatik (Halle, 1928), §82, Anm. I; OSax. git, ink: F. Holthausen, As. Elementarbuch2 (Heidelberg, 1921), §326. See also Deutscher Sprachatlas, Maps 21, 43.Cf. also the development of intervocalic spirant [g] to the stop [g], the many verbs of the type -jan, -ôn in the North as compared with the few in the South, the opposite system of intonation in the North and in the South, according to E. Sievers, etc.A. Bach, Deutsche Mundartforschung (Heidelberg, 1934), pp. 8Iff. Th. Frings, Germania Romana, pp. 9ff., 32, note. Cf. also E. Roedder’s review of Frings, JEGP, XXXVI (1937), 418.(Halle, 1931), esp. pp. 190ff. G. Baesecke, Der deutsche Abrogans und die Herkunft des deutschen Schrifttums (Halle, 1930), pp. 102, 117, 136, 143ff., and “Die deutschen Worte der germ. Gesetze,” PBB, LIX (1935), 24f., 90 ff. Cf. also ZfdBildung, XI (1935), 84.In spite of Th. Frings, op. cit., p. 32ff., there seems to b little hope for a satisfactory classification of the language of the Langobards as long as some scholars are guided largely by ethnical, others by linguistic points of view. The West Gic. character of the language as pointed out by W. Bruckner, Die Sprache d. Langobarden, QF, LXXXV (Strassburg, 1895), 25ff., and E. Prokosch, op. cit., p. 32 (but questioned by R. Much, Hoops’ Reallex. III, 129ff.), has recently been confirmed by G. Baesecke, PBB, LIX (1935), 91ff. : “Das Westgermanische der langob. Sprache ist also nicht erst durch die Berührung mit dem Obdt., insbesondre dem Bair. entstanden ..., und die Hauptunterschiede vom Hochdeutschen sind Reste der as.-ags. Gemeinsamkeit.” (p. 97). Cf. also Th. Steche, ZfdP., LXII (1937), 38f., who now assumes four West Germanic and five East Germanic dialects in northern ltaly at that time!. G. Baesecke, Lit.blatt f. germ.und rom. Philol., LIII (1932), 83ff.: “Jedenfalls ist mir das Langobardische als Ausgangspunkt des Südoststoßes weit annehmbarer als das von Wrede angezogene Gotische.” As a matter of fact, what we have of reliable source material of the Ianguage of the Langobards shows no loss of the n before spirants, e.g., Lang. gasindium = OHG gasindi (Bruckner, p. 68), Ansprand, Ganso, Gundualdus, Nandulfus, etc. (Bruckner, p. 141), with the exception of -funs, which frequently appears as -fus, but only in unaccented syllables (Bruckner, p. 142).Cf. Th. Frings, “Das Alter der Benrather Linie,” PBB, XXXIX (1914), esp. 374; Germania Romana, p. 225; and “Grundlegung einer Geschichte d. dt. Sprache,” ZfdGeisteswiss., 1 (1938/39), 200. O. Behaghel, Gesch. d. dt. Sprache, Vorwort z. 4. Aufl. (1916). F. Wrede, ZfdMundarten, XIV (1919), 16f.; XIX (1924), 270ff. K. Wagner, op. cit., p. 32. E. Schröder, Niedersächs. Jb., x (1933), 20. C. Karstien, Hist. dt. Grammatik (Heidelberg, 1939), pp. 22f. H. Brinkmann, op. cit., pp. 54ff.Further differences, although less certain, are quoted by C. Karstien, op. cit., p. 20.I find this view confirmed in a recent article by E. Rooth, “Tyskans och engelskans inbördes skäktskapsförhällanden,” Vetenskaps-societeten i Lund, Årsbok, 1931/32 (Lund, 1932), pp. 33–47: “Sä kan man gentemot termen anglofrisiska väl med fog invända, att den ej utsäger vad den borde utsäga, nämligen att till denna spräkenhet även hörde de s. k. ptolemeiska Saxarna.” (p. 37). The opposite view is represented, among others, by H. Paul, Deutsche Grammatik, I (Halle, 1916), 78. Cf. also G. Neckel, PBB, LI (1927), 15. L. Wolff, “Die Stellung des Altsächsischen,” ZfdA, LXXI (1934), esp. 131.Halberstadt/Merseburg, according to Wrede, ZfdA, XLIII (1899), 339, and Th. Frings, Germania Romana, p. 226. Merseburg according to G. Baesecke, ZfdBildung, XI (1935), 88. Magdeburg according to A. Bretschneider, op. cit., passim. Cf. F. Wrede, ZfdMundarten, XIV (1919), 14ff.; and L. Morsbach, Anglia-Beiblatt, vii (1896/97), 321ff. F. Holthausen, As. Elementarbuch2 (Heidelberg, 1921), p. 18f. L. Morsbach, in a review of O. F. Emerson’s History of the English Language, in Anglia Beiblatt, VII (1896/97), 321ff.: “Eine solche Gemeinsprache [die von Siebs am eindringlichsten verfochtene anglofriesische] aber hat es nie gegeben. Sie würde zur Voraussetzung haben, daß die Angelsachsen und Friesen auf dem Kontinent eine in sich abgeschlossene und sprachlich in allen Einzelheiten übereinstimmende Völkergruppe gebildet haben ... . Besonders aber ist hervorzuheben, was vielfach übersehen oder falsch gedeutet worden ist, daß auch das Altsächsische an den allermeisten sog. anglofriesischen Lautwandlungen einen Anteil hat.” (p. 323) And Chr. Walther, in Hansische Geschichtsblätter, iii (Leipzig, 1874), 161–168: “Daß aber die Volkssprache–abstehend von der Literatursprache des Heliand—selbst bis in die höchsten Kreise ... . der alten Weise zu reden treuer blieb und besonders in den Vokalverhältnissen dem Friesischen viel näher stand, das zeigen uns manche kleinere Schriftdenkmäler, Geschichtsschreiber wie Widukind und Thiedmar, die älteren Necrologien und viele Urkunden ziemlich übereinstimmend für alle Teile des alten Herzogtums Sachsen.” (p. 164).“Die Sprachform der Merseburger Quellen,” in Niederdeutsche Studien. Festschrift f. C. Borchling (Neumünster, 1932), pp. 24–54.The explanation of the West Gic. lengthening of consonants as a late development borrowed from Vulgar Latin (H. Koppelmann, JEGP, XXII [1923], 558; Th. Frings, Germania Romana, p. 207, note; C. Karstien, op. cit., p. 19; refuted by O. Behaghel, Gesch. d. dt. Sprache5, p. 9) has so little foundation that it leaves the impression of being favored ad hoc. Besides, there are many more Iinguistic features common to all West Gic. dialects (H. Paul, Dt. Grammatik, p. 72ff.), and these cannot be so easily disposed of as H. Arntz and C. Karstien would have us believe (Germ. Philologie, Festschrift f. O. Behaghel [Heidelberg, 1934], pp. 86ff.). Cf. also H. Spamaay, “Germanisch und Südgermanisch,” Neophilologus, XXIII (1937), esp. 28f., and G. G. Kloeke, “Zum Ingwäonismenproblem,” Niederdeutsche Studien. Festschrift f. C. Borchling (Neumünster, 1932), pp. 338–366.Sachwörterbuch d. Deutschkunde, 11 (Leipzig-Berlin, 1932), 1128, and Hist. dt. Grammatik, I (Heidelberg, 1939), 16ff. R. Löwe, Germ. Sprachwissenschaft2 (Leipzig, 1911), p. 19, asks why Gothic and West Germanic should have so few linguistic features in common in spite of the fact that the boundaries between these two languages were much less marked than between North and West Germanic. But Löwe has evidently overlooked the fact that there are quite a number of features which Gothic has in common, not with West Gic. as a whole, to be sure, but with certain parts of West Gic. in the South and Southeast. Since most of these common elements are not limited to Bavarian, however, the old controversy concerning a racial kinship of Goths and Bavarians can be dismissed here (K. Müllenhoff, Dt. Altertumskunde, 1v, 120, and R. Much, Hoops’ Reallexikon, 1, 156).Th. Frings, Germania Romana, p. ii, note 1; p. 32, note 1. After the completion of this paper I find the following statement in Frings’ article “Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache,” ZfdGeisteswiss., i (1938/39), 200: “Den Ostflügel der Südgermanen oder Westgermanen an der Oder und die Goten an der Weichsel verbindet eine siedlungsgeschichtliche und damit die Möglichkeit sprachlicher Gemeinschaft.” C. Karstien, op. cit., pp. 16f.: the IE dental -t- of the endings of the 3rd sing. and 2nd plur. in PGic. was shifted to the voiceless spirant P, or, according to Verner’s Law, depending on the accent, to voiced đ. As we know, this variation has been leveled out in the various Gic. dialects, but with the characteristic difference that in Anglo-Frisian and (generally) also in OSax. the voiceless spirant was carried through, in Gothic and OHG the voiced.For further illustrations cf. K. Brugmann, Grdriss d. idg. Sprachen2, 1 (Strassburg, 1897), 350f.: OInd. dásas- “kluge Tat” <*dansas- (“die Annahme, daß Indisch und Iranisch völlig unabhängig voneinander die Nasalreduktion vorgenommen haben, ist an sich unbedenklich. Sehen wir doch so viele idg. Sprachen, ältere und jüngere, selbständig die gleiche Reduktion vollziehen!”); p. 353: Avest. nąsa-t “er soll erlangen,” p. p. Gothic p. OHG p. and cf. C. A Grammar of and Latin 1933), p. W. M. The Latin Language p. the is and R. G. The of 2nd ed. For Vulgar cf. d. rom. Philol., 1 1888), and the PBB, Cf. the recent article by S. or in JEGP, in which a development in is pointed with to by and by S. in his article im f. 11 (1938), As in the of n such seems to be place the the of up the in before has once would be more than an of the that would to long would be quite that to a long in etc., I still E. Roedder, Volkssprache und Wortschatz des bad. Frankenlandes (New York, 1936), p. in der mit der und der einer nicht so auch besonders die auf

German · German Literature · Germanic languages · Linguistics · German Literature and Culture Studies · History · Philosophy