The Full Wiki

Proto-Germanic: Wikis

Advertisements
  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proto-Germanic
Spoken in Northern Europe
Language extinction evolved into Proto-Norse, Gothic, Frankish and Ingvaeonic by the 4th century
Language family Indo-European
Writing system Elder Futhark
Language codes
ISO 639-1 None
ISO 639-2 gem
ISO 639-3

Proto-Germanic (often abbreviated PGmc.), or Common Germanic, as it is sometimes known, is the unattested, reconstructed common ancestor (proto-language) of all the Germanic languages such as modern English, Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans, German, Luxembourgish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, and Swedish.[1] The Proto-Germanic language is not directly attested by any surviving texts but has been reconstructed using the comparative method. However, a few surviving inscriptions in a runic script from Scandinavia dated to c. 200 are thought to represent a stage of Proto-Norse or, according to Bernard Comrie, Late Common Germanic immediately following the "Proto-Germanic" stage.[2]

Map of the Nordic Bronze Age culture, ca. 1200 BC

Proto-Germanic is itself descended from Proto-Indo-European (PIE).

Contents

Evolution of Proto-Germanic

The evolution of Proto-Germanic began with the separation of a common way of speech among some geographically proximate speakers of a prior language and ended with the dispersion of the proto-language speakers into distinct populations practicing their own speech habits. Between those two points many sound changes occurred.

Advertisements

Archaeological contributions

Map of the Pre-Roman Iron Age culture(s) associated with Proto-Germanic, c. 500 BC-50 BC. The magenta-colored area south of Scandinavia represents the Jastorf culture

In one major[citation needed] theory of Andrev V Bell-Fialkov, Christopher Kaplonski, Wiliam B Mayer, Dean S Rugg, Rebeca W, Wendelken about Germanic origins, Indo-European speakers arrived on the plains of southern Sweden and Jutland, the center of the Urheimat or "original home" of the Germanic peoples, prior to the Nordic Bronze Age, which began about 4500 years ago. This is the only area where no pre-Germanic place names have been found.[3] The region was certainly populated before then; the lack of names must indicate an Indo-European settlement so ancient and dense that the previously assigned names were completely replaced. If archaeological horizons are at all indicative of shared language (not a straightforward assumption), the Indo-European speakers are to be identified with the much more widely ranged Cord-impressed ware or Battle-axe culture and possibly also with the preceding Funnel-necked beaker culture developing towards the end of the Neolithic culture of Western Europe.[4][5]

The expansion of the Germanic tribes
750 BC – AD 1 (after the Penguin Atlas of World History 1988):       Settlements before 750BC       New settlements until 500BC       New settlements until 250BC       New settlements until AD 1

Proto-Germanic then evolved from the Indo-European spoken in the Urheimat region. The succession of archaeological horizons suggests that before their language differentiated into the individual Germanic branches the Proto-Germanic speakers lived in southern Scandinavia and along the coast from the Netherlands in the west to the Vistula in the east around 750 BC).[6]

Evidence in other languages

In some non-Germanic languages spoken in areas adjacent to Germanic speaking areas, there are loanwords believed to have been borrowed from Proto-Germanic. Some of these words are (with the reconstructed form in P-N): rõngas (Estonian) / rengas (Finnish) < *hrengaz (ring), kuningas (Finnish) < *kuningaz (king),[2] ruhtinas (Finnish) < *druhtinaz (lord), silt (Estonian) < *skild (tag, token), märk/ama (Estonian) < *mērke (to spot, to catch sight of), riik (Estonian) < *rik (state, land, commonwealth), väärt (Estonian) < *vaērd (worth), kapp (Estonian) / "kaappi" (Finnish) < *skap (chest of drawers; shelf)

Linguistic definitions

By definition, Proto-Germanic is the stage of the language constituting the most recent common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages, dated to the latter half of the first millennium BC. The post-PIE dialects spoken throughout the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly 2500–500 BC, even though they may have no attested descendants other than the Germanic languages, are referred to as "Germanic Parent Language", "pre-Proto-Germanic" or more commonly "pre-Germanic."[7] By 250 BC, Proto-Germanic had branched into five groups of Germanic (two each in West and North, and one in East).[6]

In historical linguistics, Proto-Germanic is a node in the tree model; that is, if the descent of languages can be compared to a biological family tree, Proto-Germanic appears as a point, or node, from which all the daughter languages branch, and is itself at the end of a branch leading from another node, Proto-Indo-European.[8] One of the problems with the node[6] is that it implies the existence of a fixed language in which all the laws defining it apply simultaneously. Proto-Germanic, however, must be regarded as a diachronic sequence of sound changes, each law or group of laws only becoming operant after previous changes.[9]

To the evolutionary history of a language family, a genetic "tree model" is considered appropriate only if communities do not remain in effective contact as their languages diverge. Early IE was computed to have featured limited contact between distinct lineages, while only the Germanic subfamily exhibited a less treelike behaviour as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its evolution rather than from its direct ancestors. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic is cited to have been radically non-treelike.[10]

W. P. Lehmann considered that Jacob Grimm's "First Germanic Sound Shift", or Grimm's Law and Verner's Law,[11] which pertained mainly to consonants and were considered for a good many decades to have generated Proto-Germanic, were pre-Proto-Germanic, and that the "upper boundary" was the fixing of the accent, or stress, on the root syllable of a word, typically the first.[12] Proto-Indo-European had featured a moveable pitch accent comprising "an alternation of high and low tones"[13] as well as stress of position determined by a set of rules based on the lengths of the word's syllables.

The fixation of the stress led to sound changes in unstressed syllables. For Lehmann, the "lower boundary" was the dropping of final -a or -e in unstressed syllables; for example, post-PIE *woyd-á > Gothic wait, "knows" (the > and < signs in linguistics indicate a genetic descent). Antonsen agreed with Lehmann about the upper boundary[14] but later found runic evidence that the -a was not dropped: ékwakraz ... wraita, "I wakraz ... wrote (this)." He says: "We must therefore search for a new lower boundary for Proto-Germanic."[15]

His own scheme divides Proto-Germanic into an early and a late. The early includes the stress fixation and resulting "spontaneous vowel-shifts" while to define the late he lists ten complex rules governing changes of both vowels and consonants.[16]

Other Indo-European loans

Loans into Proto-Germanic from other Indo-European languages can be relatively dated by their conformance to Germanic sound changes. As the dates of neither the borrowings nor the sound changes are known with any precision, the utility of the loans for absolute, or calendar, chronology has been nil.

Most loans from Celtic appear to have been made before the First Grimm Shift.[17] An example of a Celtic loan is *rīk "wealthy" from Celtic *rīgos "king", with g > k.[18] It was not borrowed from Latin (rex) because Celtic alone has -ī-. Another is *walhaz "foreigner; Celt" from the Celtic tribal name Volcae, with c > h. Other likely Celtic loans include *ambahtaz 'servant', *brunjōn 'mailshirt', *gīslaz 'hostage', *īsarna 'iron', *lēkijaz 'doctor', *lauðan 'lead', *Rīnaz 'Rhine', and *tūnaz, tūnan 'fortified enclosure'.[19][20] These loans would likely have been borrowed during the Celtic hegemony of the Hallstatt Culture, although the period spanned several centuries.

From East Iranian have come *hanapiz 'hemp' (cf. Persian kanab), *humalaz, humalōn 'hops' (cf. Osset xumællæg), *keppōn, skēpan 'sheep' (cf. Pers čapiš 'yearling kid'), *kurtilaz 'tunic' (cf. Osset kwəræt 'shirt'), *kutan 'cottage' (cf. Pers kad 'house'), *paidō 'cloak'[21], *pathaz 'path' (cf. Avestan pantā, g. pathō), and *wurstwa 'work' (cf. Av vərəštuua).[22][23] These words were surely transmitted by either the Scythians or later groups such as the Sarmatians from the Ukraine plain where Germanic peoples and Iranians had protracted interaction. Unsure is *marhaz 'horse', which was either borrowed directly from Scytho-Sarmatian or through Celtic mediation.

Non-Indo-European elements

The term substrate with reference to Proto-Germanic refers to lexical and phonological items that do not appear to be explained by Indo-European etymological principles. The substrate theory postulates that these elements came from a prior population that remained among the Indo-Europeans and was sufficiently influential to transmit some elements of its own language. The theory of a non-Indo-European substrate was first proposed by Sigmund Feist, who estimated that about 1/3 of the Proto-Germanic lexical items came from the substrate.[24]

Phonology

Consonants

The table below[6] lists the consonantal phonemes of Proto-Germanic classified by reconstructed pronunciation. The slashes around the phonemes are omitted for clarity. Two phonemes in the same box connected by "or" represent allophones, which are explained below. For descriptions of the sounds and definitions of the terms follow the links on the headings.[25]

Proto-Germanic consonants
CONSONANTS Labials Coronals Dorsals Labiovelars
Voiceless stops p or pp t or tt k or kk
Voiceless fricatives[26] f or ff θ or θθ x or h or
Voiced fricatives or stops[27] ƀ, b or bb đ, d or dd ǥ, g or gg ǥʷ or gʷ
Nasals m or mm n or nn
sibilants z, s or ss
Liquids, Glides r, l or rr, ll j or jj w or ww

Grimm's law

Grimm's law as applied to pre-proto-Germanic is a chain shift of the original Indo-European stop consonants:

unvoiced
to
fricative
voiced
to
unvoiced
aspirated
to
unaspirated
labials p > f b > p > b
dentals t > θ d > t > d
velars k > x ɡ > k ɡʱ > ɡ
labiovelars > ɡʷ > ɡʷʰ > ɡʷ, w, ɡ

p, t, and k did not change after a fricative (such as s) or other stops; for example, where Latin (with the original t) has stella "star" and octo "eight", Middle Dutch has ster and acht (with unshifted t).[28] This original t merged with the shifted t from the voiced consonant; that is, most of the instances of /t/ came from either the original /t/ or the shifted /t/.

A similar shift on the consonant inventory of Proto-Germanic later generated High German. McMahon says: "Grimm's and Verner's Laws ... together form the First Germanic Consonant Shift. A second, and chronologically later Second Germanic Consonant Shift ... affected only Proto-Germanic voiceless stops ... and split Germanic into two sets of dialects, Low German in the north ... and High German further south ...."[29]

Verner's law

Verner's Law addresses a category of exceptions to Grimm's Law, in which a voiced fricative appears where Grimm's Law predicts a voiceless fricative. For example, PIE *bhrátēr > PGmc. *brōþēr "brother" but PIE *mātér > PGmc. *mōðēr "mother." The law states that unvoiced fricatives: /s/, /f/, /θ/, /x/ are voiced when preceded by an unaccented syllable, but the accent system is the PIE one in Pre-Proto-Germanic. Verner's Law therefore follows Grimm's Law in time and precedes the Proto-Germanic stress accent. The voicing of some /s/ according to Verner's Law produced /z/, a new phoneme.[6]

The allophones

Sometimes the shift produced consonants that were pronounced differently (allophones) depending on the context of the original. With regard to original /k/ or /kʷ/ Trask says: "The resulting */x/ or */xʷ/ were reduced to /h/ and /hʷ/ in word-initial position."[30]

The double letters in the phonemes of the table represent consonants that have been lengthened or prolonged under some circumstances, appearing in some daughter languages as geminated graphemes. The phenomenon is therefore termed gemination. Kraehenmann says:[31] "Then, Proto-Germanic already had long consonants ... but they contrasted with short ones only word-medially. Moreover, they were not very frequent and occurred only intervocally almost exclusively after short vowels."

The phonemes /b/, /d/, /g/ and /gʷ/ says Ringe "were stops in some environments and fricatives in others. The pattern of allophony is not clear in every detail."[32] The fricatives merged with the fricatives of Verner's Law (see above). Whether they were all fricatives at first or both stops and fricatives remains unknown. Some known rules:

  • Stops appeared after homorganic nasal consonants (had the same place of articulation); for example, n produced a following [d].
  • Gemination produced [b], [d], [g].
  • Word-initial /b/ and /d/ were or became [b] and [d].
  • /d/ was [d] after l or z.

Vowels

Proto-Germanic vowels
Front Central Back
Close [i(ː)] [u(ː)]
Mid [e(ː)] ([eː] = ē²) [oː]
Near-open [æː] (ǣ = ē¹)
Open [a]
  • Proto-Germanic had four short vowels (i, u, e, a), and four or five long vowels (ī, ū, ē, ō and perhaps ǣ). The exact phonetic quality of the vowels is uncertain.
  • PIE a and o merge into Proto-Germanic a, PIE ā and ō merge into Proto-Germanic ō. At the time of the merge, the vowels probably were [ɒ] and [ɒː] before their timbres differentiated into maybe [ɑ] and [ɔː][citation needed].
  • ǣ and ē are also transcribed as ē¹ and ē²; ē² is uncertain as a phoneme, and only reconstructed from a small number of words; it is posited by the comparative method because whereas all provable instances of inherited (PIE) *ē (PGmc. *ē¹) are distributed in Gothic as ē and the other Germanic languages as *ā, all the Germanic languages agree on some occasions of ē (e.g., Got./OE/ON hēr "here" < PGmc. *hē²r). Krahe treats ē² (secondary ē) as identical with ī. It probably continues PIE ei or ēi, and it may have been in the process of transition from a diphthong to a long simple vowel in the Proto-Germanic period. Gothic makes no orthographic and therefore presumably no phonetic distinction between ē¹ and ē². The existence of two Proto-Germanic [eː]-like phonemes is supported by the existence of two e-like Elder Futhark runes, Ehwaz and Eihwaz.
  • Vowels in unstressed syllables were gradually reduced over time, beginning at the very end of the Proto-Germanic period and continuing into the history of the various dialects. This is reflected to the least extent in Proto-Norse, with steadily greater reduction in Gothic, Old High German, Old English, Modern German and Modern English.

Morphology

Historical linguistics can tell us much about Proto-Germanic. However, it should be kept in mind that these postulations are tentative and multiple reconstructions (with varying degrees of difference) exist. All reconstructed forms are marked with an asterisk (*).

Simplification of the inflectional system

It is often asserted that Germanic languages have a highly reduced system of inflections as compared with Greek, Latin, or Sanskrit. Although this is true to some extent, it is probably due more to the late time of attestation of Germanic than to any inherent "simplicity" of the Germanic languages. It is in fact debatable whether Germanic inflections are reduced at all. Other Indo-European languages attested much earlier than the Germanic languages, such as Hittite, also have a reduced inventory of noun cases. Germanic and Hittite might have lost them, or maybe they never shared in their acquisition.

General morphological features

Proto-Germanic had six cases, three genders, three numbers, three moods (indicative, subjunctive < PIE optative, imperative), two voices (active, passive < PIE middle). This is quite similar to the state of Latin, Greek, and Middle Indo-Aryan of c. 200 AD.

Nouns and adjectives were declined in (at least) six cases: vocative, nominative, accusative, dative, instrumental, genitive. Sparse remnants of the earlier locative and ablative cases are visible in a few pronominal and adverbial forms. Pronouns were declined similarly, although without a separate vocative form. The instrumental and vocative can be reconstructed only in the singular; the instrumental survives only in the West Germanic languages, and the vocative only in Gothic.

Verbs and pronouns had three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. Although the pronominal dual survived into all the oldest languages, the verbal dual survived only into Gothic, and the (presumed) nominal and adjectival dual forms were lost before the oldest records. As in the Italic languages, it may have been lost before Proto-Germanic became a different branch at all.

Nouns

The system of nominal declensions was largely inherited from PIE. Primary nominal declensions were the stems in /a/, /ō/, /n/, /i/, and /u/. The first three were particularly important and served as the basis of adjectival declension; there was a tendency for nouns of all other classes to be drawn into them. The first two had variants in /ja/ and /wa/, and /jō/ and /wō/, respectively; originally, these were declined exactly like other nouns of the respective class, but later sound changes tended to distinguish these variants as their own subclasses. The /n/ nouns had various subclasses, including /ōn/ (masculine and feminine), /an/ (neuter), and /īn/ (feminine, mostly abstract nouns). There was also a smaller class of root nouns (ending in various consonants), or nouns of relationship (ending in /er/), and neuter nouns in /z/ (this class was greatly expanded in German). Present participles, and a few nouns, ended in /nd/. The neuter nouns of all classes differed from the masculines and feminines in their nominative and accusative endings, which were alike.

Nouns in -a- Nouns in -i-
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Vocative *wulfa *gasti
Nominative *wulfaz *wulfōs, -ōz *gastiz *gastijiz
Accusative *wulfan *wulfanz *gastin *gastinz
Dative *wulfai, -ē *wulfamiz *gastai *gastī
Instrumental *wulfō *gastī
Genitive *wulfisa, -asa *wulfōn *gastisa *gastijōn

Adjectives

Adjectives agree with the noun they qualify in case, number, and gender. Adjectives evolved into strong and weak declensions, originally with indefinite and definite meaning, respectively. As a result of its definite meaning, the weak form came to be used in the daughter languages in conjunction with demonstratives and definite articles. The terms "strong" and "weak" are based on the later development of these declensions in languages such as German and Old English, where the strong declensions have more distinct endings. In the proto-language, as in Gothic, such terms have no relevance. The strong declension was based on a combination of the nominal /a/ and /ō/ stems with the PIE pronominal endings; the weak declension was based on the nominal /n/ declension.

Strong Declension Weak Declension
Masculine Feminine Neuter Singular Plural
Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *blindaz *blindai *blindō *blindōz *blinda, -atō *blindō *blindanō *blindaniz
Accusative *blindanō *blindanz *blindō *blindōz *blindana *blindaniz, -anuniz
Dative *blinde/asmē/ā *blindaimiz *blindai *blindaimiz *blinde/asmē/ā *blindaimiz *blindeni *blindanmiz
Instrumental *blindō
Genitive *blindez(a) *blindaizō *blindezōz *blindaizō *blindez(a) *blindaizō *blindeniz *blindanō

Determiners

Proto-Germanic had a demonstrative which could serve as both a demonstrative adjective and a demonstrative pronoun. In daughter languages it evolved into the definite article and various other demonstratives.

Masculine Feminine Neuter
Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural
Locative *þī
Nominative *sa *þai *sō *þōz *þat *þō, *þiō
Accusative *þen(ō), *þan(ō) *þans *þō
Dative *þesmō, *þasmō *þemiz, *þaimiz *þezai *þaimiz
Instrumental *þiō
Genitive *þes(a) *þezō *þezōz *þaizō

Verbs

Proto-Germanic had only two tenses (preterite and present), compared to the six or seven in Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit. Some of this difference is due to deflexion, featured by a loss of tenses present in Proto-Indo-European, for example the perfect tense. However, many of the tenses of the other languages (future, future perfect, probably pluperfect, perhaps imperfect) appear to be separate innovations in each of these languages, and were not present in Proto-Indo-European.[citation needed]

The main area where the Germanic inflectional system is noticeably reduced is the tense system of the verbs, with only two tenses, present and past. However:

  • Later Germanic languages (for instance Modern English) have a more elaborated tense system, derived through periphrastic constructions.
  • PIE may have had as few as three "tenses" (present, aorist, perfect), which had primarily aspectual value, with secondary tensal values. The future tense was probably rendered using the optative and/or desiderative verbs. Other tenses were derived in the history of the individual languages through various means (originally periphrastic constructions, such as the augment /e-/ of Greek and Sanskrit and the /-b-/ forms of Latin, derived from the PIE verb /bʱuː/ one form of verb "be"; reinterpretation of subjunctive and desiderative formations as the future; analogical formations).
  • The Germanic past tense is derived from the PIE perfect in the strong verbs, as is the present tense of preterite-present verbs; the dental suffix of weak verbs is now generally held to be a reflex of the reduplicated imperfect of PIE *dheH1- "put" (in Germanic, "do"); some contend for an aorist in various places in the verbal system.

The causative forms of strong verbs were made by adding the affix *-j to the verbal stem (generally raised to the o-grade in classes I-IV). The resultant causative stem was always weak.

  • *ƀeitanan (I) "to bite" → *ƀaitjanan "to bridle, yoke, restrain", i.e. "to cause to bite"
  • *ƀeuǥanan (II) "to bend" → *ƀauǥjanan "to bend", i.e. "to cause to bend"
  • *ƀrennanan (IV) "to burn" → *ƀrannjanan "to burn", i.e. "to cause to burn"
  • *fallanan (V) "to fall" → *falljanan "to fell", i.e. "to cause to fall"

Schleicher's PIE fable rendered into Proto-Germanic

August Schleicher wrote a fable in the PIE language he had just reconstructed, which though it has been updated a few times by others still bears his name. Below is a rendering of this fable into Proto-Germanic:[33]

Awiz ehwaz-uh: awiz, hwesja wulno ne ist, spehet ehwanz, ainan krun wagan wegantun, ainan-uh mekon boran, ainan-uh gumonun ahu berontun. Awiz nu ehwamaz weuhet: hert agnutai meke witantei, ehwans akantun weran. Ehwaz weuhant: hludi, awi! kert aknutai uns wituntmaz: mannaz, foþiz, wulnon awjan hwurneuti sebi warman wistran. Awjan-uh wulno ne isti. þat hehluwaz awiz akran bukeþ.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Another, less common name used in English-language literature by a few noteworthy scholars is (Primitive) Germanic Parent Language. For example, see Bloomfield, Leonard (1984). Language. The University of Chicago Press. pp. 298–299. 
  2. ^ a b Comrie, Bernard (editor) (1987). The World's Major Languages. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 69–70. ISBN 0-19-506511-5. 
  3. ^ Bell-Fialkoll (Editor), Andrew (2000). The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe: Sedentary Civilization v. "Barbarian" and Nomad. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 117. ISBN 0312212070.  Note that the term "pre-Germanic" is equivocal, meaning, as here, either prior to the Indo-European ancestors or Indo-European but prior to Proto-Germanic.
  4. ^ Kinder, Hermann; Werner Hilgemann; Ernest A. Menze (Translator); Harald and Ruth Bukor (Maps) (1988). The Penguin atlas of world history. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Volume 1 page 109. ISBN 0-14-051054-0. 
  5. ^ Kinder book
  6. ^ a b c d e "Languages of the World: Germanic languages". The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago, IL, United States: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1993. ISBN 0-85229-571-5.  This long-standing, well-known article on the languages can be found in almost any edition of Britannica.
  7. ^ Pre-Proto-Germanic is relatively recent, but it still does not solve the problem of distinguishing pre-PIE from PIE but pre-Germanic populations.
  8. ^ The links in this sentence suffice to explain the basic concept but more information can be found in numerous books including Lass, Roger (1997). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3.6 "Sound Laws". ISBN 0521459249. 
  9. ^ This article covers some of the major changes but for more of a presentation see Kleinman, Scott. "Germanic Sound Changes" (pdf). English 400: History of the English Language: Grammar Tutorial and Resources. California State University, Northridge. http://www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW2/engl400/gmcsoundchanges.pdf. Retrieved 2007-11-05. 
  10. ^ [1] Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages - Luay Nakhleh,Don Ringe & Tandy Warnow, 2005, Language- Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, Volume 81, Number 2, June 2005
  11. ^ Described in this and the linked articles but see Kleinman.
  12. ^ Lehmann, W. P. (January - March, 1961). "A Definition of Proto-Germanic: A Study in the Chronological Delimitation of Languages". Language 37 (1): 67–74. doi:10.2307/411250. 
  13. ^ Bennett, William H. (May 1970). "The Stress Patterns of Gothic". PMLA 85 (3): 463–472. doi:10.2307/1261448. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8129%28197005%2985%3A3%3C463%3ATSPOG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage. Retrieved 2007-11-06.  First page and abstract no charge.
  14. ^ Antonsen, Elmer H. (January - March, 1965). "On Defining Stages in Prehistoric German". Language 41 (1): 19–36. doi:10.2307/411849. 
  15. ^ Antonsen, Elmer H. (2002). Runes and Germanic Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 26–30. ISBN 3110174626. http://books.google.com/books?id=gvSi3JVNRFQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false.  This presentation also summarizes Lehmann's view.
  16. ^ Antonsen (2000) page 28 table 9.
  17. ^ Ringe, Donald (2006). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press. pp. 296. ISBN 019928413X. ; Lane, George S. The Germano-Celtic Vocabulary, Language (1933), 244-264.
  18. ^ Watkins, Calvert (2000). "Appendix I: Indo-European Roots: reg-". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE427.html. 
  19. ^ D.H. Green, Language and History in the Early Germanic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 149-164.
  20. ^ Donald A. Ringe, From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (Oxford: Oxford, 2006), 296.
  21. ^ This word gave: Old English pād, Old Saxon pēda, Old High German pfeit, Bavarian Pfoad, Gothic páida 'coat'.
  22. ^ Ibid, 297.
  23. ^ Vladimir Orel, A Handbook of Germanic Etymology (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2003).
  24. ^ Feist was proposing the idea as early as 1913 but his classical paper on the subject is Feist, Sigmund (1932). "The Origin of the Germanic Languages and the Europeanization of North Europe". Language 8: 245–254. doi:10.2307/408831.  A brief biography and presentation of his ideas can be found in Mees, Bernard (2003), "Stratum and Shadow: The Indo-European West: Sigmund Feist", in Andersen, Henning, Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy, John Benjamin Publishing Company, pp. 19–21, ISBN 1588113795 
  25. ^ While the classification varies somewhat the consonants do not; for example, coronals are sometimes listed as dentals and alveolars while velars and labiovelars are sometimes combined under dorsals.
  26. ^ The grapheme þ is often used instead of the IPA symbol θ.
  27. ^ The phonemes /b/, /d/ and /ɡ/ can be the stop consonants [b], [d] and [ɡ] or the fricatives [β], [ð] and [ɣ], all of which characters are symbols in the IPA. The fricatives may also be written as graphemes with the bar used to produce ƀ, đ and ǥ. The characters in this and other similar tables typically do not use one system consistently throughout.
  28. ^ Van Kerckvoorde, Colette M. (1993). An Introduction to Middle Dutch. Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 123. ISBN 3110135353. 
  29. ^ McMahon, April M.S. (1994). Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227. ISBN 0521446651. 
  30. ^ Trask, Robert Lawrence (2000). The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Fitzroy Dearborn. pp. 122. ISBN 1579582184. 
  31. ^ Kraehenmann, Astrid (2003). Quantity and Prosodic Asymmetries is Alemannic: Synchronic and Diachronic. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 58. ISBN 3110176807. 
  32. ^ Ringe, page 100.
  33. ^ Casas, Carlos Quiles; Fernando López-Menchero Díez (July 2007). "A Grammar of Modern Indo-European". Asociación Cultural Dnghu. http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/indo-european.htm#_edn1.  The ASCII text used on the web site has been replaced by the Proto-Germanic characters presented in this article.

References

  • Bennett, William Holmes (1980). An Introduction to the Gothic Language. New York: Modern Language Association of America. 
  • Campbell, A. (1959). Old English Grammar. London: Oxford University Press. 
  • Krahe, Hans and Meid, Wolfgang. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, 2 vols., de Gruyter, Berlin (1969).
  • Plotkin, Vulf (2008). The Evolution of Germanic Phonological Systems: Proto-Germanic, Gothic, West Germanic, and Scandinavian. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. 
  • Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Paolo Ramat (Eds.) (1998). The Indo-European Languages. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06449-X.
  • Ringe, Don (2008). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: OUP. ISBN 0199552290. 
  • Voyles, Joseph B. (1992). Early Germanic Grammar. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-728270-X. 

External links


Wiktionary

Up to date as of January 15, 2010

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Contents

English

Wikipedia-logo.png

Wikipedia

Proper noun

Singular
Proto-Germanic

Plural
-

Proto-Germanic

  1. Hypothetical prehistoric ancestor of all Germanic languages, including English.

Synonyms

See also

Translations


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message