No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Germanic Weak Preterite Endings
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
[The endings of the Gmc. weak preterite are from the IE second aorist. The WGmc. and NGmc. endings are original; -ed- is a specific Gothic development; the Alemannic ō and ī endings are Alemannic innovations; likewise the OHG 2d sg. in ō. ‘Irregular’ forms of the dental preterite formant are analogical forms from the preterite participle.]
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1943 Linguistic Society of America
References
1 Cf. Lang. 18.125–32 (1942), esp. fn. 7; 19.19–26 (1943).
2 Cf. esp. Collitz, D. sch. P. 127–8; Sverdrup, D. germ. D. 68, 75–6. (For these and other abbreviations see the articles mentioned in fn. 1.)
3 These paradigms are taken from W. Braune, Gotische Grammatik11 104–5 (Halle, 1939), Althochdeutsche Grammatik5 250 (Halle, 1936).
4 Cf. Hirt, HU 2.152–3 and bibliography there; Prokosch, CGG 164, 217–9.
5 Cf. Sverdrup, D. germ. D. 77–8.
6 Cf. Collitz, D. sch. P. 137–42.
7 Cf. Prokosch, CGG 198; Sverdrup, D. germ. D. 77.
8 Sverdrup, D. germ. D. 78, asserts that WGmc, 2d sg. -s and 3d sg. NGmc. and WGmc. -e were preserved contrary to the ‘laws of finals’ because of their functional importance. Prokosch in the last treatment of the ‘laws of finals’ that I know considers the development of the 3d sg. in NGmc. and WGmc. regular, CGG 136–7. Thus the forms in WGmc. and NGmc. can be explained without taking recourse to their ‘functional importance’.—The 1st and 3d sg. endings fell together early, even in NGmc., cf. A. Noreen, Altisländische Grammatik4 361 (Halle, 1923), very probably on the analogy of the strong preterite.
9 Cf. A. Walde, Die germanischen Auslautsgesetze 130 (Halle, 1900).
10 Cf. W. D. Whitney, A Sanskrit Grammar3 210, 307 (Boston, 1896).
11 Hirt, IGr. 4.294. He calls it a ‘recht junge Bildung, die sich nicht einmal in alien idg. Sprachen findet.‘
12 J. Avery, Contributions to the History of Verb-Inflection in Sanskrit, JAOS 10.219–324 (1876). I substitute V for Avery's A as the abbreviation for Vedic Sanskrit.
13 Cf. Avery, JAOS 10.319.
14 Cf. A. Macdonell, A Vedic Grammar for Students 167 (Oxford, 1916).
15 The 2d. du. and 3d du. and the 2d pl. have primary forms; cf. Whitney, Skt. Gr. 210.
16 Cf. Hirt, HU 3.144–6.
17 Whitney, Skt. Gr. 306–7, gives the following Vedic a-aorist paradigms:
Cf. also Macdonell, A Vedic Grammar 371–2 (Strassburg, 1910).
18 See the paradigms in fn. 17, esp. the subj. 2d du. and 2d pl.
19 Cf. Prokosch, CGG 198; also Möller, Eng. Stud. 3.162 (1880).
20 Cf. W. Braune, Ahd. Gr. 251, 253; cf. also the long pres. opt. forms of the second and third weak classes, e.g. salbôe, 256.
21 Cf. Hirt, HU 2.155.
22 Cf. Collitz, D. sch. P. 151–3.
23 Cf. D. germ. D. 78–81 for a longer sketch of various explanations of these forms and for bibliography. It may be added here that Sverdrup fails to give Collitz full credit for his explanation of the Alemannic plural forms. Sverdrup says, D. germ. D. 80: 'Collitz selbst (IF 34, S. 215 ff.) scheint sich für die Annahme entschlossen zu haben, dass diese Pluralformen ihr ō von der 2. Sing, erhalten haben. ... aber ich glaube nicht, dass die 2. Sing. genügt, um das ō in den alem. Pluralformen zu erklären .... Zuerst ist bei den zahlreichen Verben der 2. schwachen Konjugation das ō aus dem Präsens in das Präteritum eingedrungen, ... und von dort aus ist das ō auch auf die Pluralformen der andern Dentalpräterita übertragen worden.' But this is the explanation Collitz offered, D. sch. P. 153: 'Im letzteren Falle (Alem. und Is.) würde ich annehmen, dass auch die Pluralendungen auf -tōrn, -tōt, -tōn von den Präterita der ō-Verba ausgegangen und erst nachträglich auf alle t-Präterita ausgedehnt sind.'
24 Cf. P1 26–99; Paul, PBB 7.136–52 (1880) attempted to list all forms; Collitz, D. sch. P. 29–97; Sverdrup, D. germ. D. 81–96.
25 Cf. esp. D. germ. D. for forms of these verbs in the other Gmc. dialects. F. Krüer lists all German preterite forms without medial vowel in Der Bindevokal und seine Fuge im schwachen deutschen Praeteritum bis 1150, Palaestra 125 (Berlin, 1914).
26 In the last paragraph but one.
27 D. germ. D. 81.
28 A. Schleicher, Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 323–4 (Weimar, 1871). Cf. also Braune, Gotische Grammatik11 51: ‘Vor den dentalen d, þ, t gehen alle labialen verschlusslaute und spiranten in f über, alle gutturale in h, alle dentalen in s; die an zweiter stelle stehende dentalis geht aus dieser verbindung stets als t hervor.‘
29 Cf. E. Sievers, Angelsächsische Grammatik3 230 (Halle, 1898).
30 Cf. Sievers, Ags. Gr. 236.
31 Cf. Sverdrup, D. germ. D. 88.
32 Cf. Hirt, IGr. 5.276:‘Immerhin gibt es einige Abweichungen, z.B. got kunþs “bekannt”, got. waírþaba “würdig”, die aber nicht von Bedeutung sind.‘ Prokosch, CGG 190.
33 Kögel, PBB 7.200 (1880); Collitz, D. sch. P. 60–1.
34 Cf. Feist, Got. Wb.3 288–9 for bibliography. Kluge's explanation must be rejected if Smith's statement of Verschärfung in Gmc. is valid, Lang. 17.93–8 (1941). But statement of an unambiguous origin of iddja has not yet been made, even with the data of the laryngeal theory, cf. E. H. Sturtevant, CP 36.364 (1941).
35 Cf. Kluge, Urgermanisch3 167 (Strassburg, 1913).
36 Cf. Prokosch, CGG 224.
37 K. Bülbring, Altenglisches Elementarbuch 46 (Heidelberg, 1902).
38 Cf. Collitz, D. sch. P. 145.
39 Cf. Streitberg, UG 329.
40 Cf. W. Wilmanns, Deutsche Grammatik2 3.1.61–2 (Strassburg, 1906).
41 Cf. Prokosch, CGG 222–3.
42 Cf. E. Sehrt, The Etymology of Gothic kaupatjan, Lang. 8.138–42 (1932); Feist, Got. Wb.3 309.
43 Cf. D. germ. D. 89.
44 Cf. Collitz, D. sch. P. 48–56, and Sverdrup's acceptance of this explanation, D. germ. D. 88.