The old high German diphthongization: A description of a phonemic change [Reprint 2017 ed.] 3111000680, 9783111000688

Citation preview

THE OLD HIGH GERMAN DIPHTHONGIZATION

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE N I C O L A I VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curai

C. H. VAN S C H O O N E V E L D INDIANA UNIVERSITY

SERIES P R A C T I C A XXXVI

1967

MOUTON & CO THE H A G U E • PARIS

THE OLD HIGH GERMAN DIPHTHONGIZATION A DESCRIPTION OF A PHONEMIC CHANGE

by

IRMENGARD RAUCH UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

1967

M O U T O N & CO. THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1967 by Mouton & Co., Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.

FOREWORD

This book is a dissertation completed in August 1962 at the University of Michigan. Except for a few minor modifications it is being published in the original. Its purpose is to demonstrate by means of a given historical sound change, the OHG Diphthongization, how a definitive description, formed by the application of a definite linguistic methodology, can lead to a thorough explication and to the theoretical solidification of a phonemic change as a historic event. The methodology used is proposed in outline form and then actualized. The value of the specific approach in contrast to other approaches is not argued, although the question of adequacy in linguistic description is perhaps the one of most interest and common concern for today's linguists. The range in criteria of adequacy can probably be measured by the formulations set up by Chomsky (e.g. in "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory", The Structure of Language, eds. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz [Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964], pp. 62ff.) and R. M. W. Dixon (Linguistic Science and Logic, [The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1963], pp. 11 if.) who represent polar views. More moderate and also quite workable seem the descriptive requirements of Hjelmslev which, rather than placing the linguist in a methodological straitjacket, liberate him for choosing and adopting an approach relative to his data, thereby granting as validly possible any number of types of descriptive treatments (Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, trans. F. J. Whitfield [Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1963], pp. 11, 22; cf. further Approaches in Linguistic Methodology, eds. I. Rauch and C. T. Scott [Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967] with thirteen papers representing a variety of methodologies). It is the aim of every linguistic methodology to accomplish, beyond dispute, the task for which it has been developed, and thus to contribute to the understanding of language. (J. J. Katz and P. M. Postal write in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions [Cambridge, Mass., The M.I.T. Press, 1964], p. ix: "First... to construct descriptions of particular natural languages. ... Second,... to construct a theory of the nature of language") Language, as dumbfounding a scientific reality as any system having to do with discrete elements, is somewhat kaleidoscopic in nature. Its parameters, then, of infinite variegation and constant change determine a structure which, as is inherent in such phenomena, tends to defy exhaustive description. But the changes once completed become a fixed part of the historical record, and as such

6

FOREWORD

the main object of the diachronic linguist. The attempt to realistically fit phonemic changes into the actual picture of the past structure is much too powerful, even unreasonable, without first subjecting each change, individually, to a detailed and systematic descriptive treatment which is methodologically acceptable. Such a treatment of the OHG Diphthongization was suggested by my teacher, Pjtofessor Herbert Penzl (Berkeley), who stimulated and directed the work. To him, to Professor Ilse Lehiste (Ohio State University), and to all who helped in the course of the doctorate study I give my sincerest gratitude. I dedicate this volume to the memory of my inspiring and beloved father, Konrad Rauch, electronic research engineer, March 30, 1900-January 30, 1960. Madison, August 1965

I. R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS I . INTRODUCTION

1.0 The "Old High German Diphthongization" 1.1 The Interpretation of the Data 1.2 The Description of a Phonemic Change a. Phonemic Change b. The Descriptive Approach I I . ORIGIN AND PREHISTORY OF THE P R E - O H G *ë2 AND *Ô

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

The PGmc. Long Vowel Pattern The Origin of PGmc. *ë2 PGmc. *o The Qualities of PGmc. *ê2 and *ô

5 11 13

13 13 14 14 15 17

17 18 20 21

I I I . THE GRAPHEMIC EVIDENCE FOR THE DIPHTHONGIZATION

24

3.0 The Graphemic Data 3.1 Early , , in the OHG Dialects a. and in Franconian b. Early Alemannic Spellings c. Early Bavarian Spellings 3.2 The Spelling a. in Franconian b. in Bavarian c. in Alemannic 3.3 and for Gmc. *ô 3.4 Spurious Spellings 3.5 Spellings for Gmc. *ê2 a. Franconian Spellings b. Alemannic Spellings c. Bavarian Spellings

24 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 30 33 35 37 37 38 38

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.6 , and for Gmc. *e2 a. Spellings b. and Spellings 3.7 Gmc. *