Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 72:1 (2019) ► pp.78–98

Reduction of unstressed vowels in Proto-Frisian and the Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’

| University of Amsterdam | Fryske Akademy
The quantitative reduction and loss of Proto-Germanic vowels during the transition from some form of Common North West Germanic to the attested ‘Old’ languages, such as Old English and Old Frisian, is a complicated process, interfering with morphological restructuring processes. Various reconstructions have been presented, the most extensive one by Boutkan (1995). Scrutiny of the Runic Frisian data, from the period ca. 500–800, shows that especially the apocope of PWGmc *-a and of *-u < PGmc *-ō should be positioned much later in the relative chronology than envisaged by Boutkan. The order that can be derived from the Runic Frisian data reflects a gradual loss of one mora, running in a cline from the least salient to the most salient vowel, which provides a phonetic rationale for the development. This gradual mora reduction can be dated to the period between ca. 500 and 700. This absolute dating can have implications for phonological processes in which root vowels interact with the quality or quantity of the vowel in the following syllable.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Runic Frisian data
    • 2.1The Runic Frisian corpus: Relevant forms and interpretations
    • 2.2The reconstructed Runic Frisian system of unstressed vowels
    • 2.3PGmc *aC and *-ō# in the Runic Frisian material
  • 3.A phonetic rationale for the order of vowel reductions in Frisian and its proto-stages
  • 4.Implications for the reconstruction of the ‘Auslautgesetze’
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00021.ver
References (56)
References
Bammesberger, A. 1998. Runic Frisian weladu and further West Germanic nominal forms in -u . NOWELE. 33(1). 121–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boutkan, D. 1995. The Germanic “Auslautgesetze.” Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1996. A concise grammar of the Old Frisian dialect of the first Riustring manuscript. [Odense]: Odense University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damsma, L. & A. P. Versloot. 2015. Vowel Epenthesis in Early Germanic Runic Inscriptions. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 61. 21–64.Google Scholar
Düwel, K. 2018. Merkwürdiges zu Goldbrakteaten und anderen Inschriftenträgern. In A. Bauer & A. Pesch (eds.), Hvanndalir – Beiträge zur europäischen Altertumskunde und mediävistischen Literaturwissenschaft: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heizmann (Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde – Ergänzungsbände 106), 523–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Düwel, K. & W.-D. Tempel. 1968. Knochenkämme mit Runeninschriften aus Friesland: mit einer Zusammenstellung aller bekannten Runenkämme und einem Beitrag zu den friesischen Runeninschriften. Palaeohistoria 141. 353–391.Google Scholar
Euler, W. 2013. Das Westgermanische: von der Herausbildung im 3. bis zur Aufgliederung im 7. Jahrhundert; Analyse und Rekonstruktion. Berlin: Verl. Inspiration Un Limited.Google Scholar
Findell, M. 2012. Phonological evidence from the Continental Runic inscriptions. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Runes. London: The British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, S., M. H. Graf, C. Fossurier, M. Châtelet & J. Soulat. 2014. An inscribed silver spoon from Ichtratzheim (Bas-Rhin). Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History (JAAH) 111. 3–25.Google Scholar
Goering, N. 2016. Early Old English foot structure. Transactions of the Philological Society 114(2). 171–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M. & R. M. DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51(1). 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graaf, T. de. 1986. Phonetic aspects of the Frisian vowel system. In N. Danielsen, E. Hansen, H. F. Nielsen & H. Bekker-Nielsen (eds.), Friserstudier IV/V: Foredrag holdt ved den 3. og 4. Friserdag i Odense 6.oktober 1983 og 5.november 1985, 3–20. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Haugen, O. E. 2004. Frå urnordisk til norrønt språk. Handbok i norrøn filologi, additional file online. [Bergen]: Fagbokforlaget. [URL]
Higham, N. J. & M. J. Ryan. 2015. The Anglo-Saxon world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. 2011. A grammar of Old English Vol. 1, Phonology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
König, E. 1911. Johannes Cadovius Müllers Memoriale linguae frisicae, nach der jeverschen Originalhandschrift,. Norden; Leipzig: Soltau.Google Scholar
Krause, W. 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2008. Level stress in North Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 20(2). 87–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Looijenga, T. 2003. Texts & contexts of the oldest Runic inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2013. Die goldenen Runensolidi aus Harlingen und Schweindorf. In J. F. Kegler, A. Nieuwhof & K. Hüser (eds.), Land der Entdeckungen: Die Archäologie des friesischen Küstenraums; Begleitband zu den Ausstellungen: Land der Entdeckungen. Die Archäologie des friesischen Küstenraums, Ostfriesisches Landesmuseum, Emden: 27.01.2013–16.06.2013; Land der Entdeckungen – auf der Suche nach der Trichterbecherkultur, Drents Museum, Assen: 12.10.2013–05.01.2014; Land der Entdeckungen – urfriesisches Design, Fries Museum, Leeuwarden: ab September 2013 in der Dauerausstellung; Land der Entdeckungen – das versunkene Land ist fruchtbar, Groninger Museum, Groningen: 21.09.2013–09.02.2014 = land van ontdekkingen : De archeologie van het Friese kustgebied; Catalogus bij de tentoonstellingen, 430–431. Ostfriesische Landschaft.Google Scholar
Nedoma, R. 2007. Die voraltfriesischen personennamen der Runeninschriften auf dem webschwert von westeremden, dem Schwertchen von Arum und anderen denkmälern. In R. H. Bremmer Jr., S. Laker & O. Vries (eds.), Advances in Old Frisian philology (= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 64), 299–324. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2014. Voraltfriesisch -u im Nominativ und Akkusativ Singular der maskulinen a-Stämme. In R. H. Bremmer Jr, S. Laker & O. Vries (eds.), Directions for Old Frisian philology (= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 73), 343–368. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2015. Wege und Probleme der areal- und sozioonomastischen Auswertung von Personennamen in älteren Runeninschriften auf Fibeln. In O. Grimm & A. Pesch (eds.), Archäologie und Runen: Fallstudien zu Inschriften im älteren Futhark, 291–332. Kiel; Hamburg: Wachholtz.Google Scholar
Nedoma, R. & B. Theune-Großkopf. 2008. Ein Holzstuhl mit Runeninschrift aus dem frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfeld von Trossingen, Lkr. Tuttlingen (Baden-Württemberg). Mit einem Exkurs: lguskaþi auf dem Schemel von Wremen. Die Sprache 461. 38–64.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F. 1984. Unaccented vowels in the Frisian runic inscriptions. Miscellanea Frisica 11–19.Google Scholar
1996. Developments in Frisian runology: A discussion of Düwel & Tempel’s Runic Corpus from 1970. In T. Looijenga & A. Quak (eds.), Frisian runes and neighbouring traditions: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Frisian Runes at the Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 26–29 January 1994, 123–130. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2010. The early runic Language of Scandinavia: Studies in Germanic dialect geography. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
2001. Frisian and the Grouping of the Older Germanic Languages. In H. H. Munske (ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen / Handbook of Frisian studies, 512–523. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The early runic language of Scandinavia: Proto-Norse or North-West Germanic? In J. O. Askedal, H. Bjorvand, J. E. Knirk & O. E. Nordgreen (eds.), Zentrale Probleme bei der Erforschung der älteren Runen: Akten einer internationalen Tagung an der Norwegischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 95–114. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Page, R. I. 1996. On the Baffling Nature of Frisian Runes. In T. Looijenga & A. Quak (eds.), Frisian runes and neighbouring traditions: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Frisian Runes at the Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 26–29 January 1994, 131–150. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Philippa, M., F. Debrabandere, A. Quak, T. Schoonheim & N. van der Sijs. 2003. Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. [URL]
Quak, A. 1990. Runica Frisica. In R. H. Bremmer Jr, G. van der Meer & O. Vries (eds.), Aspects of Old Frisian philology (= Amsterdamer Beiträge Zur Älteren Germanistik 31/32), 357–370. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2010. Zum Verhältnis der altfriesischen Runeninschriften zu den anderen Traditionen. In J. O. Askedal, H. Bjorvand, J. E. Knirk & O. E. Nordgreen (eds.), Zentrale Probleme bei der Erforschung der älteren Runen: Akten einer internationalen Tagung an der Norwegischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 151–162. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. & A. Taylor. 2014. A linguistic history of English. Vol. II: The development of Old English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C. G., R. Nedoma & K. Düwel. 2010. Die Runeninschrift auf dem Kamm von Frienstedt, Stadt Erfurt. Die Sprache. 49(2). 123.Google Scholar
Schuhmann, R. 2014. Zur Endung runisch-altfriesisches -u und zur Entwicklung der Endung nom.sg.m. a-St. urgermanisches *-az . In R. H. Bremmer Jr, S. Laker & O. Vries (eds.), Directions for Old Frisian philology (= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 73). 397–420. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Seebold, E. 1990. Die Inschrift B von Westeremden und die friesischen Runen. In R. H. Bremmer Jr, G. van der Meer & O. Vries (eds.), Aspects of Old Frisian philology (= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 31–32), 408–427. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1996. Wie friesisch ist der Brakteat von Wurt Hitsum? In T. Looijenga & A. Quak (eds.), Frisian runes and neighbouring traditions: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Frisian Runes at the Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 26–29 January 1994, 181–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sipma, P. & O. Vries. 1927. Oudfriesche Oorkonden (Oudfriese Taal- en Rechtsbronnen). Vol. 1–41. ’s Gravenhage: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Smith, L. C. 2008. Old Frisian vowel balance and its relationship to West Germanic apocope and syncope. In R. H. Bremmer Jr, S. Laker & O. Vries (eds.), Advances in Old Frisian philology (= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 64), 379–410. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Smith, N. & K. van Leyden. 2007. The unusual outcome of a level-stress situation: The case of Wursten Frisian. NOWELE 52(1). 31–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrett, M. 1994. The unaccented vowels of Proto-Norse. [Odense]: Odense University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Versloot, A. P. 1996. Konsonantengeminaten in der Sprache der Wangerooger: eine Einmaligkeit unter den westgermanischen Sprachen. In H. F. Nielsen & A. Petersen (eds.), A Frisian and Germanic miscellany: Published in honour of Nils Århammar on his sixty-fifth birthday, 7 August 1996 (= NOWELE 28/29), 241–250. Odense / Bredstedt: Odense University Press / Nordfriisk Instituut.Google Scholar
2008. Mechanisms of language change: Vowel reduction in 15th century West Frisian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2014. The Runic Frisian vowel system: The earliest history of Frisian and Proto-Insular North Frisian. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 721. 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a. Unstressed vowels in Runic Frisian. The history of Frisian in the light of the Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Us Wurk 651. 1–39.Google Scholar
2016b. The development of Old Frisian unstressed -u in the Ns of feminine ō-stems. In A. Bannink & W. Honselaar (eds.), From variation to iconicity (Festschrift for Olga Fischer), 377–392. Amsterdam: Pegasus.Google Scholar
2017a. Mith frethe to wasane “to be in peace”: Remnants of the instrumental case in 13th and 14th century Old Frisian. Filologia Germanica – Germanic Philology 91. 201–230.Google Scholar
2017b. Proto-Germanic ai in North and West Germanic. Folia Linguistica 51 (s38). 281–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Reconstructing the historical phonology of Old English.
Versloot, A. P. & E. Adamczyk. 2018. Plural inflection in North Sea Germanic languages: A multivariate analysis of morphological variation. In A. Dammel, M. Eitelmann & M. Schmuck (eds.), Reorganising grammatical variation. Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants (Studies in Language Companion Series [SLCS]), 17–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waxenberger, G. 2013. The reflection of pre-Old English sound changes in pre-Old English runic inscriptions. In H. Sauer & G. Waxenberger (eds.), Recording English, researching English, transforming English, 17–64. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
2017. How “English” is the Early Frisian Runic Corpus? In N. IJssenagger & J. Hines (eds.), Frisians and their North Sea neighbours, from the fifth century to the Viking age, 93–124. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
Wipf, E. 1910. Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Nedoma, Robert
2021. Die frühe voraltsächsische und voraltfriesische Runenüberlieferung. NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 74:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.