Proto-Germanic language

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from Old Teutonic)

Image:Pre-roman iron age (map).PNG Proto-Germanic, the common ancestor (proto-language) of Proto-Norse, Anglo-Frisian, Old High German, Old Frankish and Gothic, and the contemporary Germanic languages. There are no known documents in Proto-Germanic, which was unwritten, and virtually all our knowledge of this extinct language has been obtained by application of the comparative method. There are a few surviving inscriptions in a runic script from Scandinavia dated to c. 200 which many feel represent a stage of Proto-Norse immediately after the "Proto-Germanic" stage, if not exactly identical. As well, some loanwords exist in neighbouring non-Germanic languages which are believed to have been borrowed from Germanic during the Proto-Germanic phase; an example is Finnish and Estonian kuningas "king", which closely resembles the reconstructed Proto-Germanic *kuningaz.

Proto-Germanic is itself descended from Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which is also the distant ancestor of a great many other languages in Europe and Asia.

Proto-Germanic had only two tenses (past and present), compared to the six or seven in Greek, Latin and Sanskrit. Some of this difference is due to a loss of tenses present in Proto-Indo-European, for example the perfect tense. However, many of the tenses of the other languages (future, future perfect, probably pluperfect, perhaps imperfect) appear to be separate innovations in each of these languages, and were not present in Proto-Indo-European.

Contents

[edit]

Evolution of Proto-Germanic

Image:Nordic Bronze Age.PNG Indo-European speakers are thought by some scholars to have arrived at the plains of southern Sweden and Denmark, regarded to be the original dwelling-place of the Germanic peoples, during the early Bronze Age (about 4000 years ago). This is the only area where no pre-Germanic place names have been found. The Battle-axe people is the best candidate for this immigration.

Another characteristic is various sound shifts called Grimm's law, which, due to the fact that it also affected Celtic loan words, probably began around 500 BC and must have been completed by the 2nd century BC at the latest (see Negau helmet), see Pre-Roman Iron Age.

Some have suggested that Proto-Germanic evolved for some time in relative isolation. Their evidence is chiefly based on the vocabulary, where it is claimed that up to one-third of the basic vocabulary of Proto-Germanic, especially in the areas of seafaring, war and animals, is of non-Indo-European origin. Other scholars, however, dispute this figure and have suggested PIE etymologies for most of the words in question.

By definition, Proto-Germanic is the stage of the language constituting the most recent common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages, dated to the latter half of the first millennium BC. The post-PIE dialects spoken throughout the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly 2500–500 BC, even though they have no attested descendants other than the Germanic languages, are referred to as pre-Proto-Germanic. That about a third of the vocabulary of Proto-Germanic has no unambiguous Indo-European etymology is not out of the ordinary for a language of ca. 500 BC, other branches showing a similar picture.

[edit]

Hybridization as conjectured cause

Some also suggest that Proto-Germanic may have arisen somewhat as a Creole language due to cultural diffusion among geographically static indigenous population groups. However, considering the inflected character and the homogeneous forms of the Germanic languages, the creation of such a creole would have been a resounding and unique feat indeed.

It has been suggested that proto-Germanic arose as a hybrid of two Indo-European dialects, one each of Centum and Satem types though they would have been mutually intelligible at the time of hybridization. This hypothesis may help to explain the difficulty of finding the right place for Germanic within the Indo-European family. However, the Germanic languages are commonly classified as Centum languages, because of the words *hund, not **sund ("hundred", ~ centum with guttural fricative according to Grimm's law) and *hwis, not **his ("who", ~ Latin quis).

[edit]

Non-Indo-European elements

The reconstructed Proto-Germanic vocabulary includes a number of fundamental words (referring to, among other things, parts of the body, animals and nature) which are clearly non-Indo-European in origin, suggesting a vocabulary influence from the earlier inhabitants of northern Europe. The mechanism of this influence is unknown; it may have been simple borrowing, or perhaps retention of old words by people who adopted Proto-Germanic as their new language. For examples, see Germanic substrate hypothesis.

[edit]

Phonology

[edit]

Consonants

Proto-Germanic consonants
CONSONANTS Labials Coronals Velars Labiovelars
Voiceless stops p t k kʷ
Voiceless fricatives f þ x xʷ
Voiced fricatives ƀ đ ǥ ǥʷ
Nasals m n ŋ
sibilants z, s
Liquids, Glides Template:PIE Template:PIE Template:PIE

Since the fricatives ƀ, đ, ǥ are not in phonological contrast with voiced stops, they are also written as simple b, d, g.

[edit]

Grimm's law

  • The most notable change in the Germanic languages, Grimm's law, is a chain shift of the stop consonants:
  • The Proto-Germanic consonants /b/, /d/, /g/ are often said to have "originally" been fricatives and later to have hardened in some places into stops. This is disputed by some, however, who assert the opposite.
    • The main theoretical argument in favor of the "originally soft" theory is that Verner's law works out slightly neater – voicing applied to unvoiced fricatives produces voiceless fricatives, which merge immediately with existing voiced fricatives. With the "originally hard" theory, the newly voiced fricatives would not be the same as the original voiced stops, and therefore a subsequent step is required to merge them.
    • The main theoretical argument in favor of the "originally hard" theory is that intervocalic hardening of voiced fricatives to stops is rather less common typologically than softening/weakening of voiced stops to fricatives; the most common change to intervocalic voiced fricatives is not hardening but further weakening, to approximates or to outright deletion. (Cf. common pronunciation [en to lao] of Spanish en todo lado [en toðo laðo].) Indeed, the later history of voiced fricatives in the Germanic languages often does show intervocalic weakening (OE Template:IPA > /w/ or /j/; OE /v/ lost in hēafod > NE head, hlaford > NE lord). On the other hand, intervocalic hardening is the rule in High German (NHG habicht < OHG habuh : NE hawk < OE heafoc), and has also played a role in the later history of some of the Scandinavian languages (Sw. fjäder < OSw. fjædher : NE feather).
    • In either case, /b/, /d/, /g/ are acceptable ways of indicating the sounds (as are Template:IPA, Template:IPA, Template:IPA, but are somewhat more cumbersome).
  • The likely allophones of /b/, /d/, /g/ at the end of the Proto-Germanic period (c. 200 AD) were as follows:
    • /b/, /d/, /g/ are generally agreed to be stops Template:IPA, Template:IPA, Template:IPA after /n/ and when doubled.
    • Evidence from all branches of Germanic shows that /g/ was Template:IPA elsewhere, including initially. Initially it was hardened to [g] independently and at various times in the various languages:
    • Evidence from all branches of Germanic shows that /b/ was [b] when initial, or when doubled, or after a nasal, and Template:IPA or [v] elsewhere.
    • Evidence differs with regard to /d/. In the oldest representatives of all branches of Germanic it appears that /d/ was a stop [d] initially, or when doubled, or after a nasal. In Gothic and Old Norse /d/ was a fricative elsewhere, Template:IPA (except where it came into contact with a voiceless consonant in Old Norse, and finally in Gothic, in which case it was devoiced to Template:IPA). But in West Germanic /d/ became a stop [d] in all positions. Note, then, that Gothic and Old Norse show a symmetrical system where /b/, /d/, /g/ are stops when initial, doubled or post-nasal, and fricatives elsewhere. The reconstructed system of the other (West Germanic) dialects, however, is highly asymmetric (/g/ is mostly fricative, /b/ is part stop, part fricative, and /d/ is entirely stop). Analogy works towards symmetry, and hence the reconstructed West Germanic system is likely to be correct and the symmetric systems of Gothic and Old Norse secondary developments. (An additional argument for this is that early borrowings into Gothic corroborate the initial Template:IPA in Pre-Gothic as in West Germanic.)
[edit]

Verner's law

  • Unvoiced fricatives (/s/, /f/, Template:IPA, /x/) were voiced when preceded by an unaccented syllable.
    • In other words, they remain the same when initial or when directly following a stressed syllable.
    • The stress here is the assumed Pre-Proto-Germanic accent, inherited directly from PIE (with some modifications in between). Hence, Germanic becomes a source to derive the original PIE accent.
    • Directly after Verner's law applied, the existing accent system was scrapped and a stress accent was universally applied on the first syllable.
    • The voicing of /s/ produced /z/, a new phoneme as soon as the old accent system broke down.
    • The voiced /f/, Template:IPA, /x/ merged into existing /b/, /d/, /g/.
[edit]

Vowels

Proto-Germanic vowels
i,ī      u, ū
 e,ē
  æ    ō
   a
  • Proto-Germanic had four short vowel qualities, and four or five long vowel qualities. The exact phonetic quality of the vowels is uncertain.
  • PIE a and o merge into Proto-Germanic a, PIE ā and ō merge into Proto-Germanic ō (similar mergers happened in the Slavic languages). At the time of the merge, the vowels probably were Template:IPA and Template:IPA before their timbres differentiated into maybe Template:IPA and Template:IPA.
  • æ and ē are also transcribed as ē1, ē2; ē2 is uncertain as a phoneme, and only reconstructed from a small number of words. Krahe treats ē as identical with ī. It probably continues PIE ei or ēi, and it may have been in the process of transition from a diphthong to a long simple vowel in the Proto-Germanic period. The existence of two Proto-Germanic [e:]-like phonemes is supported by the existence of two e-like Elder Futhark runes, Ehwaz and Eihwaz.
  • Extensive reduction of vowels in unstressed syllables happened, beginning at the very end of the Proto-Germanic period and continuing into the history of the various dialects. This is reflected to the least extent in Proto-Norse, with steadily greater reduction in Gothic, Old High German, Old English, Modern German and Modern English.
[edit]

Morphology

Historical linguistics can tell us much about Proto-Germanic. However, it should be kept in mind that these postulations are tentative and multiple reconstructions (with varying degrees of difference) exist. All reconstructed forms are marked with an asterisk (*).

Nouns and adjectives were declined in (at least) six cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, and vocative. Sparse remnants of the earlier locative and ablative cases are visible in a few pronominal and adverbial forms. Pronouns were declined similarly, although without a separate vocative form. The instrumental and vocative can be reconstructed only in the singular; the instrumental survives only in the West Germanic languages, and the vocative only in Gothic.

Verbs and pronouns had three numbers: singular, dual and plural. Although the pronominal dual survived into all the oldest languages, the verbal dual survived only into Gothic, and the (presumed) nominal and adjectival dual forms were lost before the oldest records. As in the Italic languages, it may have been lost before Proto-Germanic became a different branch at all.

[edit]

Simplification of the inflectional system

It is often asserted out that Germanic languages have a highly reduced system of inflections as compared with Greek, Latin or Sanskrit. Although this is true to some extent, it is probably due more to the late time of attestation of Germanic than to any inherent "simplicity" of the Germanic languages. It is in fact debatable whether Germanic inflections are reduced at all. Other Indo-European languages attested much earlier than the Germanic languages, such as Hittite, also have a reduced inventory of noun cases. Germanic and Hittite might have lost them, or maybe they never shared in their acquisition.

Proto-Germanic had six (6) cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, vocative), three genders, three numbers (singular, dual, plural), three moods (indicative, subjunctive < PIE optative, imperative), two voices (active, passive < PIE middle). This is quite similar to the state of Latin, Greek, and Middle Indo-Aryan of c. 200 AD.

The main area where the Germanic inflectional system is noticeably reduced is the tense system of the verbs, with only two tenses, present and past, as compared with 6 or 7 tenses in Greek and Latin. It should be noted, however:

  • Later Germanic languages (especially Modern English) have a more elaborated tense system, derived through periphrastic constructions.
  • PIE may have had as few as three "tenses" (present, aorist, perfect), which had primarily aspectual value, with secondary tensal values. The future tense was probably rendered using the subjunctive and/or desiderative verbs. Other tenses were derived in the history of the individual languages through various means (originally periphrastic constructions, such as the augment /e-/ of Greek and Sanksrit and the /-b-/ forms of Latin, derived from the PIE verb Template:IPA "be"; reinterpretation of subjunctive and desiderative formations as the future; analogical formations).
  • The Germanic past tense contains forms deriving from both the PIE aorist and perfect; this is similar to the Latin perfect tense.
  • Old Church Slavonic had only two tenses as well, namely present and aorist. This gap was later filled up with the use of the verbal aspect, and with the use of the l-participle as a verb form.
[edit]

Nouns

The system of nominal declensions was largely inherited from PIE. Primary nominal declensions were the stems in /a/, /ō/, /n/, /i/, and /u/. The first three were particularly important and served as the basis of adjectival declension; there was a tendency for nouns of all other classes to be drawn into them. The first two had variants in /ja/ and /wa/, and /jō/ and /wō/, respectively; originally, these were conjugated exactly like other nouns of the respective class, but later sound changes tended to distinguish these variants as their own subclasses. The /n/ nouns had various subclasses, including /an/ (masculine), /ōn/ (feminine and neuter), and /īn/ (feminine, mostly abstract nouns). There was also a smaller class of root nouns (ending in various consonants), or nouns of relationship (ending in /er/), and neuter nouns in /z/ (this class was greatly expanded in German). Present participles, and a few nouns, ended in /nd/. The neuter nouns of all classes differed from the masculines and feminines in their nominative and accusative endings, which were alike.

Nouns in -a- Nouns in -i-
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *wulfaz *wulfōs, -ōz *gastiz *gastijiz
Accusative *wulfan *wulfanz *gastin *gastinz
Genitive *wulfisa, -asa *wulfōn *gastisa *gastijōn
Dative *wulfai, -ē *wulfamiz *gastai *gastī
Vocative *wulfa — *gasti —
Instrumental *wulfō — *gastī —
[edit]

Adjectives

Adjectives agree with the noun they qualify in case, number, and gender. Adjectives evolved into strong and weak declensions, originally with indefinite and definite meaning, respectively. As a result of its definite meaning, the weak form came to be used in the daughter languages in conjunction with demonstratives and definite articles. The terms "strong" and "weak" are based on the later development of these declensions in languages such as German and Old English, where the strong declensions have more distinct endings. In the proto-language, as in Gothic, such terms have no relevance. The strong declension was based on a combination of the nominal /a/ and /ō/ stems with the PIE pronominal endings; the weak declension was based on the nominal /n/ declension.

Strong Declension Weak Declension
Masculine Feminine Neuter Singular Plural
Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *blindaz *blindai *blindō *blindōz *blinda, -atō *blindō *blindanō *blindaniz
Accusative *blindanō *blindanz *blindō *blindōz *blindana *blindaniz, -anuniz
Genitive *blindez(a) *blindaizō *blindezōz *blindaizō *blindez(a) *blindaizō *blindeniz *blindanō
Dative *blinde/asmē/ā *blindaimiz *blindai *blindaimiz *blinde/asmē/ā *blindaimiz *blindeni *blindanmiz
Instrumental *blindō — — — — — — —
[edit]

Determiners

Proto-Germanic had a demonstrative which could serve as both a demonstrative adjective and a demonstrative pronoun. In daughter languages it evolved into the definite article and various other demonstratives.

Masculine Feminine Neuter
Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *sa *þai *sō *þōz *þat *þō, *þiō
Accusative *þen(ō), *þan(ō) *þans *þō
Genitive *þes(a) *þezō *þezōz *þaizō — —
Dative *þesmō, *þasmō *þemiz, *þaimiz *þezai *þaimiz — —
Instrumental *þiō — — — — —
Locative *þī — — — — —
[edit]

References

  • Antonsen, E. H., On Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic, Language 41 (1965), 19ff.
  • Bennett, William H. (1980). "An Introduction to the Gothic Language". New York: Modern Language Association of America.
  • Campbell, A. (1959). "Old English Grammar". London: Oxford University Press.
  • Krahe, Hans and Meid, Wolfgang. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, 2 vols., de Gruyter, Berlin (1969).
  • Lehmann, W. P., A Definition of Proto-Germanic, Language 37 (1961), 67ff.
  • Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Paolo Ramat (Eds.) (1998). The Indo-European Languages. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06449-X.
  • Joseph B. Voyles, Early Germanic Grammar (Academic Press, 1992) ISBN 0-12-728270-Xda:Urgermansk

it:Lingua proto-germanica nl:Oergermaans ja:ゲルマン祖語 no:Urgermansk nn:Urgermansk språk sv:Urgermanska

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Proto-Germanic_language"