Sturtevant - Some Critical Notes on Old Norse Phonology

7/28/2019 Sturtevant - Some Critical Notes on Old Norse Phonology

1/12

Linguistic Society of America

Some Critical Notes on Old Norse PhonologyAuthor(s): Albert Morey SturtevantReviewed work(s):Source: Language, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 1930), pp. 253-263Published by: Linguistic Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/409220 .

Accessed: 28/01/2012 01:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLanguage.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/409220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/409220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa


2/12

SOME CRITICAL NOTES ON OLD NORSE PHONOLOGYALBERT MOREY STURTEVANT

UNIVERSITYF KANSAS[The article deals with ten mooted questions, for which cf. the sub-headings, and also attempts to advance linguistic methodology by acriticism of some views of leading writers on Old Norse grammar.]

I. The Imperative Singular Forma) Of jan-:ian-Verbs; vel:sendPN*walV (=Goth. walei)>*wali>*val, which latter form was dis-placed by vel (with analogical e=-umlaut of a) in conformity with allthe other forms of the present system with radical vowel -e-. The end-ing -i in *wal-i disappeared before causing umlaut, just as in *wal-i-d1>

valda.Noreen does not explain the type vel, and Iversen' wrongly derivesvel from Gothic walei. Only Heusler2 states that the -e- in vel is ofanalogical origin.Regarding the form send Noreen3 says: 'In urn. zeit muss aber (wieaus formen wie send, nicht *satt, 'sende' hervorgeht) eine, vielleichtdurch skabi und ligi belegte, endung -i (vgl. got. walei, dimei) vorhandengewesen sein.'The only real value to this statement is the reference to Goth. walei,

domei. These Goth. forms together with the ON forms hyggiat:kveliat:teygiattu (with negative suffix -at), etc. are sufficient evidencethat send must go back to an earlier *sandi or *sandi. This renders thereference to the runic forms skaki and ligi entirely unnecessary,especially since it is not at all certain4 that both these forms representimperatives.The reference to a form *sattin this connection serves only to confuse

1Cf. R. Iversen, Norron Grammatikk(Kristiania, 1923) ?139, Anm: '.(jfr. got. walei = vel, dimei = daem). ..

2 Cf. A. Heusler, Aisl. Elenentarb2. ?345: '. ... tel < *tali (hier der i-Umlautanalogisch eingesetzt). ..3Cf. A. Noreen, Aisl. Gramm'.?538.3.

4Cf. Alexander J6hannesson, Gramm.derurnord.Runeninschriften 110,No. 62.253


3/12

254 ALBERT MOREY STURTEVANTthe reader by mentioning the strong type statt


4/12

CRITICALNOTES ON OLD NORSEPHONOLOGY 255Lat.-drius; cf. vart-ares gen. sing. 'name of a fish', m'st-ares gen. sing.'falcon': vald-erer 'commander', etc.

In the older language both forms8, -ere and -are, occur, but -ere farmore frequently; later on -are gradually displaced and finally entirelysuperseded -ere (i.e., d6m-ari, in the older language more often ddm-ere).The current view9 is that -ere, since it is the form prevailing in theoldest texts, represents an older form than -are. This cannot be correctsince the two forms from the very beginning existed side by side andsince -ere:-are are direct descendants of -erer:-arer which also existedside by side.Therefore the form d6m-ere(r) can be no older than ddm-are(r). Thefact that the form -ere appears with greater frequency in the older textsdoes not prove its greater antiquity. Besides, even if -ere were theolder form, it would be impossible to derive -ari :-are (n-declension) from-ere.The whole question is clarified if we assume a double development(one with i-umlaut and one without) from original -drir according toconditions of stress. When the penult bore a strong secondary ac-cent"' i-umlaut occurred (cf. *d6m-dr-ir>*d6m-rr-ir > d6m-er-e(r))'",but was not operative if the penult bore a weak secondary accent (cf.*dm-dr-ir > *ddm-dr-ir12> d6m-ar-e(r)).Of these two forms d6m-er-e was evidently at first the preferred formsince it occurs most often in the older texts. The later preference ford6m-are:d6m-ari may perhaps be explained as due to the influence oforiginal n-stems where i-umlaut of a did not occur; i.e., d6m-are(i)(instead of d6m-ere) in conformity with the type bar-dage(i):f-lage(i),etc.

III. The Preterite Singular Form stg:hne from stiga:hniga, etc.The type st6 of the first ablaut series is, of course, derived from *steih.According to the current view13*steih represents a phonetically correctform from *steig< *staig


5/12

256 ALBERT MOREY STURTEVANTbeit usw., *steih eingesetzt, und dieses ergab dann ste. Nirgends hatgerm. -aih- oder -aig- lautgerecht zu aisl. ' geftihrt.'

With the exception of Pipping (see footnote 14), those who hold thecurrent view (Noreen, Holthausen, Iversen) have never attempted toexplain this discrepancy *staih> *steih (>ste) but *aih> *dh (> d)which Heusler here points out. But this discrepancy is due to the na-ture of the final h in *staih:*aih, as I shall in the following attempt toshow.Heusler assumes that *ai underwent the same development (i.e.,*ai > d) before an original PG h as before a secondary PN hd before original h (*aih>*dh>d) had already becomecompleted at the time when g became PN h and that for this reason aibefore secondary PN h (


6/12

CRITICAL NOTES ON OLD NORSE PHONOLOGY 257The fact that au was contracted to 5 before both original and second-ary h (cf. *flauh>fld:*saug>*sauh>sd) does not invalidate my hy-

pothesis, inasmuch as here no other contraction (au > ou> 5) is possible,whereas ai elsewhere did become ei (cf. *stain-aR> steinn), and hence thepossibility of the contraction e < ei< ai as well as d < ai.

IV. ON k- in kvistr 'branch': kvisl 'fork, bend (in a river)'The k- in kvistr:kvisl obviously represents a variant of t- in PG *twis'twice, double': cf. tvistr 'sad' (cf. Germ. entzweit):Germ. zwist 'quarrel';tvistr 'deuce (in cards)'; kvisl = OE twisla:OHG zwisila (zwmsila) fork,bend (in a river)', i.e., 'a doubling'. This k- in kvistr:kvisl must beeither primary or secondary.There is no convincing evidence that the k- in kvistr:kvisl is of primary(PG) origin. To postulate a PG root *kwis for these words, as do Falkand Torp"5, s merely begging the question, for we have absolutely noevidence of a root *kwis = *twis in any of the other Germanic languages.The hypothesis that ON kvista 'die Zweige abhauen' (cf. kvistr 'Zweig')is identical with Goth. [fra]-qistjan'6'dieZweige abhauen' > 'verderben'ispurely fantastical; the derivation of Goth. [fra]-qistjan s still uncertain."7On the other hand, there is positive evidence that the k- in kvistr:kvisl represents a secondary, specifically ON development, as Heusler"8points out; namely, k- < ga-t- (i.e., *ga-twis-> kvis-).Heusler says: 'In kvisl "Flussgabelung" scheint ga-t- zu k- verschmol-zen zu sein:vgl. ahd. zwisila "Gabel".' Why Heusler here says 'scheintga-t- zu k- verschmolzen zu sein' instead of 'ist. . . . verschmolzen' isnot quite clear to me, for if k- here represents an original g-, its characteras a surd can be explained on no other ground than by virtue of assimila-tion with t; i.e., *ga-t->*kt- > k.The extent to which the PG prefix ga- has been preserved in ON wasfirst brought to light in 1895 by Elis Wadstein in his article entitled'Nordische Bildungen mit dem Prlifix ga-', IF 5. 1-32. Thru Wad-stein's efforts many old etymologies have had to be discarded; cf.notably gista 9


7/12

258 ALBERTMOREYSTURTEVAN'Twith gestr(*gast-iR). The assumptionof an ablaut relationbetweenthese two words is renderedentirely unnecessary f we assume withWadstein (31) gista e (not derivedfromoriginalGerm.i)of the end syll-able:thus, e.g., *dagai> *dage> *dage> degi(e); Lat. draco> MLG drake> ON dreki(e); *fanganaR> *fanginaR >fenginn >fengenn.Thistype of combinedpalatalizationpeculiaro ONalone)tookplaceat a time whena secondary of the endsyllable(without he aid of theseintervening palatal consonants)could not cause palatalization;cf.*hanz > hani23(e)but *dage> degi23(e).If, however,the i of the end syllablerepresentsan originalGerm.i,

20The form el-liga was reduced to el-la not through any phonetic process butas the result of contamination between the suffix-a (< Goth. 5) and the suffix-liga(< Goth. -leika). See J. Sverdrup, Arkiv27. 181ff.; A. Kock, ib. 28. 178ff.21Cf. Feist 27.22Cf. A. Fick, Vgl. etym. Wtb.der indo-germ. Sprachen422, under alja.2 The chronology of the vowels -i:-e of the end syllable in han-i and deg-i isjust the reverse of that which I have given; i.e., *dag-g> *dag-e>deg-i>deg-e but*han-x> han-e> han-i. I have, however, preserved the order -i:-e for both wordsbecause the combined palatalization did not take place until e had become i.


8/12

CRITICAL NOTES ON OLD NORSE PHONOLOGY 259then regardless of the intervening palatal consonants in question we havea case of simple i-umlaut (common to both North and West Germ.): cf.Goth. ragin = ON regin:OS regin-; Goth fagin-[5n] = ON feginn: OEfegen (but *dag'> ON degi:OHG tage).From the viewpoint of ON we may designate the latter type of pala-talization as 'primary i-umlaut', the former type as 'secondary i-um-laut'.The listing of these two different processes of palatalization (a> e)under one heading (without separate categories for each) is confusingand unscientific, for it leaves the impression that primary i (= Germ. i)> e would not have caused palatalization (a > e), i.e., primary i-umlaut,unless the palatal consonants in question had intervened.

Thus, for instance, Noreen under the common head of 'Palatalum-laut' includes24 ide by side examples such as dege:dreke(secondary i-um-laut) and fegenn:regen (primary i-umlaut). But the 'Palatalumlaut'would have occurred in the type fegenn:regen regardless of the interven-ing consonant -g- (cf. OE fxgenn:OS regin-); therefore this type doesnot belong under the common heading of 'Palatalumlaut' (?73) butunder i-umlaut (?63). Under this latter heading Noreen quotes, forexample, ketell = Goth. katils, which is exactly what occurred in regen=Goth. ragin. In regen


9/12

260 ALBERTMOREYSTURTEVANTVII. The a-umlautHeusler28states that the diphthong PG eu remained exempt from the

influence of a-umlaut except before dentals, h, and m. As an exampleof this he includes the word tryggr< *triuwaRalongside such words asliziga:sizikr, etc.The example tryggr does not belong here for the reason that theoriginal combination ey >iuu had already become iggw before thetime when the a-umlaut had developed, i.e., during the Common Goth.-Scan. period; cf. ON tryggr:Goth. triggws. It was not the original PGdiphthong eu but PN i which was exempted from a-umlaut; cf. PG*treyuaz> Goth.-Scan. *triyuaz> *triggw-az> PN *triggwaR> trigguR>ON tryggr:Goth. triggws. Evidently Heusler was led into this inaccu-racy by deriving tryggr directly from *triuwaR instead of through theintermediate stage *triggwaR.A similar confusion in phonetical chronology obtains in the currentview as to the a-umlaut of u > o:i >e before original r. For instance, inall our ON grammars are listed under the head of a-umlaut such ex-amples as orta(< Goth waitrhta< PG*wurhtido):verr(< Goth. wair< PG*viraz:cf. Lat. vir):horn (e before r (which is hereattributed to a-umlaut) had already occurred ('altgerm. Brechung')previous to the time when the a-umlaut had developed, as the corre-sponding vowels in the Goth. words clearly show. There is absolutelynothing to indicate that the radical vowels o:e in these ON words arenot on a level with the corresponding Goth. vowels. The fact that a-umlaut of u:i resulted in o:e does not prove that this was the case here,for what is to prevent our assuming that ON o:e represents a directinheritance from the Common Goth.-Scan. period (ON o:e = Goth.ai :ai) just exactly as does ON ggw(= Goth. ggw) au:i >at before r occurred subsequent to the time of separation from the NorthGerm. languages. Hence it is far more likely that the a of the endsyllable in these ON words had nothing to do with the phonetic changeu> o:i>e of the radical vowel. Here o and e remained unaffected bythe vowel a of the ending, a simple case of 'Vokalharmonie'.

28 Cf. Heusler ?49: 'Der Diphthong eu verrit a-Umlaut zu eo (>i6) im allg.nur im Westnord., und zwar, ahnlich wie im Altoberdeutschen, nur vor Dentalen,h und m'.


10/12

CRITICAL NOTES ON OLD NORSE PHONOLOGY 261In view of the priority of the Goth. 'consonantal breaking' the burdenof proof in this question lies with those who profess the orthodox view.VIII. Jdr < *ehwaR:a-breaking or u-breaking?In favor of a-breaking Noreen29 *ehwaR> *iahuR> *iduR> i6r' andPipping30 '*eXwaR> *iaXwaR > *idwaR> *id-uR> idr.'In favor of u-breaking Heusler31'*ehwaR> *iohuR>i6r.'Heusler does not make it clear why *ehwaR was not subject to a-breaking (i.e., *ehwaR>*iahwaR) yet assumes that later u *ehuR> *iohuR).Breaking must have occurred, and since there is no reason why thebreaking should not have occurred before w became u, preference mustbe given to the theory of a-breaking (Noreen-Pipping).On the other hand, Noreen does not explain why a-breaking shouldhave occurred in *ehwaR> *iahwaR but not in the type *sehwan> s a >sjd.The only answer to this is that in *sehwan> *sehwd> s a (> sjd) thenasalized a of the end syllable retarded the a-breaking to such an extentthat it did not occur before the time when hw was lost, whereas in *ehwaRthe a of the end syllable was not nasalized, hence breaking took placebefore the time when hw was lost.We know that nasalized a of the end syllable entirely prevented a-breaking in a short syllable (cf. gefa *swan >sid: 'Hermed ar det icke sagt, att x f1ll, innan brytningverkats av ett stabilt a, som ingick exempelvis i andelsen -al *idwaR.'

IX. Vixl :uxiThe x is from original hs and the short radical vowels i:u show thaths became x(= ks) before the time when i>e and u>6 as, e.g., in *riht-jan > r'tta: *fluht-an-> fl6tti.Both Heusler's33statement: 'Da hier i und u bewahrt sind, fallt der29 Cf. Noreen ?106.s0 Cf. Pipping 135, 137.31Cf. Heusler ?79. Heusler writes io (with dot beneath o) = original io(u-breakingof e).32 Cf. Pipping 177, ?66k, 5.31Cf. Heusler ?168.


11/12


12/12

Sturtevant - Some Critical Notes on Old Norse Phonology

Documents

Transcript of Sturtevant - Some Critical Notes on Old Norse Phonology