List of tables
Table 2.1
Classification of Proto-Germanic nominal stems
Table 2.2
Inflection of the major productive nominal stem classes in Proto-Germanic
Table 2.3
Reconstructed PGmc. i-stem paradigm of *gastiz ‘guest’
Table 2.4
Reconstructed PGmc. u-stem paradigm of *sunuz ‘son’
Table 2.5
Reconstructed PGmc. root noun paradigm of *fōt- ‘foot’
Table 2.6
Reconstructed PGmc. r-stem paradigm of *brōðēr ‘brother’
Table 2.7
Reconstructed PGmc. s-stem paradigm of *lambaz ‘lamb’
Table 2.8
Reconstructed PGmc. nd-stem paradigm of *frijōnd- ‘friend’
Table 2.9
The development of PGmc. nom. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.10
The development of PGmc. acc. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.11
The development of PGmc. gen. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.12
The development of PGmc. dat. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.13
The development of PGmc. nom. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.14
The development of PGmc. acc. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.15
The development of PGmc. gen. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 2.16
The development of PGmc. dat. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages
Table 3.1
The competing inflections in the OE light-syllable masculine and heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 3.2
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems
Table 3.3
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 3.4
The percentage of innovation in the dat. sg. and acc. sg. in the OE heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 3.5
The percentage of innovation in the acc. sg. in the OE heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 3.6
Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE i-stems
Table 3.7
The competing inflections in the OE light-syllable masculine and feminine u-stems
Table 3.8
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in OE the masculine u-stems
Table 3.9
Distribution of competing inflections in the paradigm of OE magu
Table 3.10
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE light- and heavy-syllable feminine u-stems
Table 3.11
Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE u-stems
Table 3.12
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE u-stems
Table 3.13
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE u-stems
Table 3.14
Distribution of innovative forms in the OE u-stems with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.15
The competing inflections in the OE masculine and feminine root nouns
Table 3.16
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE masculine root nouns
Table 3.17
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE light-syllable feminine root nouns
Table 3.18
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE heavy-syllable feminine root nouns
Table 3.19
Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns
Table 3.20
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns
Table 3.21
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns
Table 3.22
Distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.23
The competing inflections in the OE masculine and feminine r-stems
Table 3.24
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE masculine r-stems
Table 3.25
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE feminine r-stems
Table 3.26
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in OE gebrōþru and gesweostru
Table 3.27
Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE r-stems
Table 3.28
Distribution of innovative inflections in the plural and the proportion of plural inflection in the individual OE r-stems
Table 3.29
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE r-stems
Table 3.30
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE r-stems
Table 3.31
Distribution of innovative forms in the OE r-stems with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.32
The competing inflections in the OE s-stems
Table 3.33
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE s-stems
Table 3.34
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE s-stems
Table 3.35
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE s-stems
Table 3.36
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE s-stems
Table 3.37
Distribution of innovative forms in the OE s-stems with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.38
Stages of the development of the OE s-stems
Table 3.39
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the paradigm of OE child
Table 3.40
Distribution of the a-stem forms in the plural of cild with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.41
The competing inflections in the OE monosyllabic nd-stems
Table 3.42
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE monosyllabic nd-stems (frēond and fēond)
Table 3.43
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE disyllabic nd-stems
Table 3.44
Distribution of innovative inflections in the two types of the OE nd-stems
Table 3.45
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE nd-stems
Table 3.46
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE nd-stems
Table 3.47
Distribution of innovative forms in the OE nd-stems with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.48
The competing inflections in the OE þ-stems
Table 3.49
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE þ-stems
Table 3.50
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE þ-stems
Table 3.51
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE þ-stems
Table 3.52
Distribution of innovative forms in the OE þ-stem paradigm with respect to dialect and period
Table 3.53
Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old English
Table 3.54
Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE minor stems per class
Table 3.55
Distribution of innovative inflections in the OE minor stems with respect to number
Table 3.56
The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OE minor stems
Table 3.57
The correlation between the innovation level in the plural paradigms and the plural proportion
Table 3.58
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE minors
Table 3.59
Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE minor stems
Table 3.60
Distribution of innovative features in the OE minor stems with respect to period
Table 3.61
Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE minor stems
Table 3.62
Distribution of innovative features in the OE minor stems with respect to dialect
Table 4.1
The competing inflections in the OFris. light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems
Table 4.2
The competing inflections in the OFris. light-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 4.3
The competing inflections in the OFris. heavy-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems
Table 4.4
The competing inflections in the OFris. heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 4.5
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems
Table 4.6
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 4.7
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. i-stems
Table 4.8
The attested singular forms in the paradigm of OFris. wrald ‘world’
Table 4.9
The attested singular forms in the paradigm of OFris. dēde ‘deed’
Table 4.10
The attested singular forms in the paradigm of OFris. plicht ‘duty’
Table 4.11
The effect of different interpretations on the level of archaism of the paradigms
Table 4.12
The competing inflections in the OFris. light- and heavy-syllable masculine u-stems
Table 4.13
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. light- and heavy-syllable masculine u-stems
Table 4.14
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. feminine u-stems
Table 4.15
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. neuter u-stems
Table 4.16
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. masculine, feminine and neuter u-stems
Table 4.17
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. u-stems
Table 4.18
The competing inflections in the OFris. masculine and feminine root nouns
Table 4.19
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. masculine root nouns
Table 4.20
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. feminine root nouns
Table 4.21
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative forms in the OFris. root nouns
Table 4.22
The competing inflections in the OFris. masculine r-stems
Table 4.23
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. masculine r-stems
Table 4.24
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. feminine r-stems
Table 4.25
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. r-stems
Table 4.26
The competing inflections in the OFris. s-stems
Table 4.27
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. s-stems
Table 4.28
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. s-stems
Table 4.29
The competing inflections in the OFris. nd-stems
Table 4.30
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. nd-stems
Table 4.31
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. nd-stems
Table 4.32
Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old Frisian
Table 4.33
Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. minor stems per class
Table 4.34
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. vocalic and consonantal stems
Table 4.35
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. minor stems
Table 4.36
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. minor stems with respect to number
Table 4.37
The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OFris. minor stems
Table 4.38
The correlation between the percentage of innovative inflection in the plural and the proportion of the plural inflection
Table 5.1
The productive paradigms serving as templates for the restructuring of the OS minor stems
Table 5.2
Grapho-phonemic correspondences and their morphological consequences
Table 5.3
The competing inflections in the OS light-syllable masculine i-stems
Table 5.4
The competing inflections in the OS heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 5.5
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems
Table 5.6
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 5.7
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS heavy-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems
Table 5.8
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS heavy-syllable feminine i-stems
Table 5.9
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS i-stems
Table 5.10
The overlapping inflections in the OS i-stem, ja-stem and a-stems
Table 5.11
The interpretation of inflections in the OS dat. sg.
Table 5.12
The competing inflections in the OS light-syllable masculine u-stems
Table 5.13
The competing inflections in the OS feminine heavy-syllable u-stems
Table 5.14
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light- and heavy- syllable masculine u-stems
Table 5.15
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light- and heavy-syllable feminine u-stems
Table 5.16
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS u-stems
Table 5.17
Interpretations of the dat. sg. and nom. pl. inflections in the OS u-stem paradigm
Table 5.18
The competing inflections in the OS masculine root nouns
Table 5.19
The competing inflections in the OS feminine root nouns
Table 5.20
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS masculine root nouns, including the paradigm of OS man(n)
Table 5.21
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS feminine root nouns
Table 5.22
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS root nouns
Table 5.23
The competing inflections in the OS masculine r-stems
Table 5.24
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS r-stems
Table 5.25
The competing inflections in the OS s-stems
Table 5.26
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS s-stems
Table 5.27
The competing inflections in the OS nd-stems (mon.)
Table 5.28
The competing inflections in the OS nd-stems (dis.)
Table 5.29
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS monosyllabic nd-stems
Table 5.30
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS disyllabic nd-stems
Table 5.31
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS nd-stems
Table 5.32
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS nd-stems
Table 5.33
Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old Saxon
Table 5.34
Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS minor stems per class
Table 5.35
Distribution of innovative inflections in the OS singular and plural paradigms
Table 5.36
The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OS minor stems
Table 5.37
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS minor stems
Table 5.38
The percentage of archaic and innovative inflections in minor stems in individual OS sources
Table 5.39
Common inflectional pattern based on the OS u-stems and i-stems
Table 6.1
Productive paradigms serving as templates for the restructuring of inflection in OLF
Table 6.2
The OLF heavy-syllable masculine and feminine i-stems
Table 6.3
The competing inflections in the OLF light-syllable masculine u-stems
Table 6.4
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF masculine, neuter and feminine u-stems
Table 6.5
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF u-stems
Table 6.6
The interpretation of the OLF u-stems in two different perspectives
Table 6.7
The competing inflections in the OLF masculine root nouns
Table 6.8
The competing inflections in the OLF feminine root nouns
Table 6.9
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF masculine and feminine root noun paradigms
Table 6.10
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF root nouns
Table 6.11
The competing inflections in the OLF feminine r-stems
Table 6.12
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF masculine and feminine r-stems
Table 6.13
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF r-stems
Table 6.14
The competing inflections in the OLF s-stems
Table 6.15
The competing inflections in the OLF nd-stems
Table 6.16
Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF nd-stems
Table 6.17
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF nd-stems
Table 6.18
Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old Low Franconian
Table 6.19
Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF minor stems per class
Table 6.20
Distribution of innovative inflections in the OLF minor stems with respect to number
Table 6.21
The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OLF minor stems
Table 6.22
Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF minor stems
Table 6.23
The percentage of innovative inflections in the minor stems in individual OLF sources
Table 7.1
Directions of analogical transfers in the early Northern West Germanic languages: An overview
Table 7.2
The total amount of innovative inflection in minor paradigms in the investigated languages
Table 7.3
Overall percentage of innovation in the minor paradigms in the investigated languages
Table 7.4
Distribution of innovative forms in the minor paradigms with respect to number
Table 7.5
Distribution of innovative forms across individual classes with respect to number
Table 7.6
Distribution of innovative forms with respect to number in vocalic and consonantal stems
Table 7.7
Distribution of innovative features in the singular paradigm across individual classes
Table 7.8
Distribution of innovative features in the plural paradigm across individual classes
Table 7.9
The correlation between the percentage of innovation in the plural paradigms and the salience of inflectional markers
Table 7.10
The correlation between the percentage of neutral forms and the level of innovation in the minor paradigms in Old English, Old Frisian and Old Saxon
Table 8.1
Distribution of innovative forms in the dat. sg. of OE fōt and meolc