Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:57:35.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laryngeals in Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Joseph B. Voyles
Joseph B. Voyles
Affiliation:
University of WashingtonSeattle, Washington 98195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of IE laryngeal segments and their physical presence in early Germanic have frequently been adduced to explain some five classes of problematic phenomena of the early Gmc. languages. These problems are: first, that of the past forms of the seventh-class strong verbs; second, the so-called Verschärfung; third, the Gmc. ē2-vowel; fourth, the e-to-i change; and finally, various Gmc. etymologies. The laryngeal explanations of these five phenomena are deficient and alternative explanations are preferable. Therefore, there exists no hard evidence for the presence of laryngeal segments in later pre-Gmc. Indo-European nor in early Germanic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 17 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

WORKS CITED

Anderson, H. 1973. “Abductive and deductive change.” Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, William M. 1939. “The etymology of English big.” Language 15: 249–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, William M. 1946. “A corollary to the Germanic Verschärfung.” Language 22: 109–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, William M. 1958. “Gmc. reflexes of Indo-European -Hw- and -Hy-.” Language 34: 203–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R.S.P. 1972. “Germanic Verschärfung and no laryngeals.” Orbis 21: 327–36.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1975. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 13. ed. Ed. Eggers, Hans. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Burrow, T. 1959. The Sanskrit language. 2nd imp. of the 1st ed., 1955. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Cathey, James E. 1970. “A reappraisal of Holtzmann's Law.” Studia linguistica 24: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cercignani, Fausto. 1980. “Early umlaut phenomena in the Germanic languages.” Language 56: 126–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetsem, Frans van. 1956. Das System der starken Verba und die Periodisierung im älteren Germanischen. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Coetsem, Frans van. and Kufner, Herbert L. eds. 1972. Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1977. “Indo-European i > Germanic e: An explanation by the laryngeal theory.” Beiträge zur Geschichte derdeutschen Sprache und Literatur 99: 173–206 and 333–59.Google Scholar
Connolly, Leo A. 1979. ‘ē2 and the laryngeal theory.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 101: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1961. “Common sense and laryngeal theory: A reply to Mr. Rosén's rejoinder.” Lingua 10: 326–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, Warren and Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik. Band 1.1. Halbband: Einleitung by Warren Cowgill; 2. Halbband.: Lautlehre by Manfred Mayrhofer. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Feist, Sigmund. 1939. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden: E.G. Brill.Google Scholar
Fulk, R.D. 1987. “Reduplicating verbs and their development in Northwest Germanic.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 109: 159–79.Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1931, 1932, 1934. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1973. “The Germanic third weak class.” Language 49: 850–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978. “Observations on the Germanic Verschärfung.” Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 37: 77–91.Google Scholar
Jonsson, Hans. 1978. The laryngeal theory. A critical survey. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Knapp, Fritz Peter. 1970. “Got. mizdo - and. miata.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 92: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, Fritz Peter. 1974. “Wiederum germanisches ē2” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 96: 207–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1967. “The Germanic Verschärfung.” Language 43: 445–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W.P. 1954. “Old English and Old Norse secondary preterites in -r-” Language 30: 202–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W.P. 1955. Proto-Indo-European phonology. Austin: The Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1962. “La ‘Verschärfung’ germanique.” Studia Linguistica 16: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1964. Les origines indo-européennes de la ‘Verschärfung’ germanique. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1970. Einführung in die Laryngaltheorie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1976. “Germanische Resonantengemination durch Laryngal.” Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 35: 73–93.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1987. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, James W. 1973. The sounds and phonemes of Wulfila's Gothic. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, Satya Swarup. 1977. The laryngeal theory: A critical evaluation. Delhi: Chaukhamba Orientalia.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1970. Altnordische Grammatik. University, Alabama: The Univ. of Alabama Press. Rpt. of the 4th ed., 1923.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern and München: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Polomé, Edgar G. 1949. “A West Germanic reflex of the Verschärfung.” Language 25: 182–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sehrt, Edward H. and Legner, Wolfram K. 1944. Notker-Wortschatz. Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. “The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology.” Language 49: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Henry Lee Jr. 1941. “The Verschärfung in Germanic.” Language 17: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933. A comparative grammar of the Hittite language. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1942. The Indo-Hittite laryngeals. Baltimore: The Linguistic society of America at the Waverly Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1970. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Yoshio. 1970. “A proposed hypothesis for Holtzmann's Law.” La linguistique 6, 1: 65–80.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1984. “Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch. Die Verzweigungstheorie der germanischdeutschen Lautverschiebung.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 106: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1980. “Reduplicating verbs in North-West Germanic.” Lingua 52: 89–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. 1981. Review of Frans van Coetsem and Herbert L. Kufner, eds., Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic. (Tübingen. Max Niemeyer Verlag). Lingua 55: 249–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B. (To appear.) “Bifurcational Germanic and glottonic Indo-European: A critique.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner, ed. 1960. Evidence for laryngeals. Department of Germanic Languages. Austin: The Univ. of Texas.Google Scholar
Wyatt, William F. Jr. 1964. “Structural linguistics and the laryngeal theory.” Language 40: 138–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar