AGAINST THE ASSUMPTION OF IRREGULAR, FREQUENCY-INDUCED SOUND (f) rhyming formation (in number series, month names, etc.) N N CHANGE: THE MIDDLE HIGH GERMAN SHORT VERBAL FORMS (KURZVERBEN) Ex.: OIr. secht ʻ7ʼ < *septm̥ (regular), ocht (irregularly nasalizing) ʻ8ʼ < *ok’tm̥ (rhyming AND OTHER CASES formation replacing *ok’tō in Gr. ὀκτώ, Lat. octō); MHG september, october (regular) alongside octember (rhyming formation); Toch.B ṣpät < *septm̥ (regular) alongside Toch.A Michael FROTSCHER (Universität zu Köln) ṣukt < *sek’tm̥ (rhyming formation), Toch.B okt < *ok’tō, Toch.A okät < PToch. *oktu The regularity principle in sound change – Approaching the Neogrammarian controversy in (g) spelling pronunciation st th st the 21 century, Cologne, July 20 – 21 2017 Ex.: forehead [ˈfɔr ɪd] (regular development) alongside [ˈfɔːhɛd] (restoration due to spelling)
Additionally to these, other mechanisms have been reckoned with: 1. Theoretical Preliminaries on the mechanisms of sound change (and its exceptions) (i) A l l e g r o concept ad (a): phonological factors (ii) P r o s o d y The Neogrammarian model principally precludes irregular sound change. In a given language / dialect, a sound change operates without exceptions (s o u n d l a w ) for all positions of the (iii) F r e q u e n c y sound in question (spontaneous sound change ) and conditioned, if at all, only by The autonomous operation of these mechanisms in language change is doubtful. Mechanisms specific phonological and equally regular conditions (combinatory / conditioned (i) and (ii) should probably be included among “phonological factors” (a) (being particular sound change ). c o n d i t i o n s and thus phonologically regular; possibly ‘sound laws with only one In principle, exceptions can be explained by further mechanisms / factors and do not infringe e x a m p l e ʼ). the principle of the “exceptionlessness“ of sound laws: However: assuming an allegro form (especially for languages attested only in writing) outside Phonological factors: of typical allegro context does not provide much explanatory force. If no allegro context (ti- tles, terms of address) can be assumed with reasonable certainty, identifying a regular de- (a) additional phonological conditioning factors (combinatory sound change), which may or velopment (i.e. phonologically parallel developments) or analogical processes as in (b), better may not be evident or even traceable in the framework of sound laws (‘sound laws w i t h explains an aberrant form. The same goes for prosody (ii): If stress patterns on the phrase or only one example ʼ). sentence levels cannot be identified assuming (especially in written language) a prosodically e.g. gonna < going to (retained as a function verb [phonologically expected form], but induced sound change bears no explanatory power. otherwise analogically restored (*)gonna church going to church) NHG zum older zem < *zemu < *ze demu (perhaps regular deletion of d between identical The ontological status of “frequency” (iii) is uncertain. Establishing a correlation between vowels; see also 2.1.) phonological form and token frequency is questionable. Often, high frequency is merely coin- cidental (as is the case with high-frequency function words); attested forms can be explained Non-phonological factors: by a combination of combinatory sound change (a) and morphological analogy (b); c.f. the (b) morphological change (analogy) case of gonna. Ex.: Nom.sg. Schuh is not the regular outcome of MHG schuoch (Gen. schuohes) but ana- High frequency should not be considered an autonomous mechanism carrying explanatory logical: compare Stuhles ~ Stuhl : Schuhes ~ Schuh (regular development and intra- power (as done e.g. by NÜBLING 2000, or TORP 2003 regarding the case of high-frequency paradigmatic variation is retained in NHG hoch ~ hohes). modal [and non-modal] verbs [including the MHG “short” verbs]). Searching for established The NHG form 2nd sg.prt. zogst ‘pulledst’ cannot be phonologically traced back to OHG factors, as in (a) – (g), is preferable (see the case study on MHG short verbs below; 2.). zugi ʻid.ʼ Rather, analogy after the weak verbs is in operation: dachte ~ dachtest : zog ~ But: New studies suggest that there is, indeed, a correlation between frequency and duration zogst (replacing *züge). (speed). If so, mechanism (iii) would have a phonological basis comparable to the allegro (c) different proto-form / etymology concept (i) and could be accounted for within the Neo-Grammarian framework (phonological factors as in (a) above). Cf. the correlation between frequency (diachronically rising) and du- Ex.: Contracted forms OHG weih ʻwas ichʼ, weist ʻwas istʼ, theih ʻdas ichʼ, theist ʻdas istʼ do not presuppose irregular deletion of ӡ < *-t, but simply a different proto-form lacking the ration (diachronically falling) for the item alright in New Zealand English: word-final dental: Proto-Germ. *hwa (cf. Goth. ƕa) < PIE *kwód (Lat. quod), Proto-Germ. *þa < PIE *tód (Lat. is-tud, Ved. tád) alongside the extended forms Proto-Germ. *hwat+V alright is uttered faster over a period between 1875 and 1975 whilest at the same time it is (OHG waӡ), Proto-Germ. *þat+V (Goth. þata, OHG daӡ) (see STREITBERG 1896: 272). becoming more frequent, whereas terrible is (d) borrowing relatively stable regarding duration and Ex.: dumm (regular, Standard German form) alongside tumb (quasi-borrowing; Upper Ger- frequency.
man form); sanft (regular, Standard German form) alongside sacht (borrowing, Low Ger- man form); Nichte (borrowing, Low German correlate of OHG nifta; cf. niftler [Luther]).
(e) popular etymology Ex.: NHG Maulwurf (phonologically irregular; u lengthened in analogy with Maul) vs. late th OHG (11 c.) mulwerf (phonologically regular with a first member MHG mul ʻearth, dirtʼ). (Taken from SÓSKUTHY / HAY 2017: 304) 1 2 2. Middle High German contract verbs (i.e. verbs with an opposition long form – short 2.2. Contracted forms by deletion of word-internal mediae5 form) (Mhd.Gr.25 §M110, 281–282) The following verbs show differing ratios of contracted forms: 2.1. gân ʻgoʼ, stân ʻstandʼ (OHG gān, stān) (Mhd.Gr.25 § M105, 276–278, § M106, 278–279, Ahd.Gr.15 § 382, 311–312) lît instead of liget (ligen ʻlieʼ) = common pflît instead of pfliget (pflegen ʻcare forʼ) = rare Traditionally (and, from a diachronic perspective, rightly so) these are not considered contract gît instead of gibet (geben ʻgiveʼ) = common in Upper German, rarer (and verbs, but root verbs, as no contraction has taken place. later) in Central German However, as with the MHG contract verbs, long and short forms stand side by side (gienc, gie; 1 quît instead of quidet (queden ʻspeakʼ) = prevalent (quidet is exceedingly rare ganc, gâ etc.); cf. the MHG paradigms: [“hat Ausnahmecharakter”, Mhd.Gr.25, 2 281]) Present gân ʻgoʼ stân ʻstandʼ Deletion of g (between identical vowels and elsewhere; through palatalisation (?)): Sg. 1. gân (rarely gâ) stân (rarely stâ) 25 2. gâst stâst (Mhd.Gr. §L76, 137–138) 3. gât stât °igi° > °î°: OHG ligit > MHG lît (ligen ʻlieʼ) Pl. 1. gân stân OHG bigihte > MHG bîhte ʻconfession, shriftʼ (jehen ʻtestify; proclaimʼ) 2. gât stât OHG Sigifrid > MHG Sîfrit 3. gânt stânt Attested from the early 12th c. onward in Bavarian and from the 10th/11th c. onward in Ale- mannic. Preterite 3 4 Phonetics: palatalisation of g (igi > iji > î); cf. also palatalisations in different environments: Sg. 1. gienc , gie stuont (rarely stuot) 2. gienge stüende OHG segit > MHG seit (segen ʻsayʼ), OHG megidi > MHG meide ʻgirlʼ (egi > eji >ei); OHG 3 4 magad > MHG maget > mait / meit ʻgirlʼ, OHG gitragidi, getragede (Nôtker) > MHG ge- 3. gienc , gie stuont (rarely stuot) traide, getreide (besides getragide, getregede) ʻmovables, chattel, possession, victuals, yield, Pl. 1. giengen stuonden cropʼ, OHG *fir-tage-dingen > MHG vertagedingen > MHG verteidi(n)gen ʻsue, bring to 2. gienget stuondet court, defend in courtʼ (age > eje > ei), OHG reigir > MHG reiger > reier ʻ heron, egretʼ (eige 3. giengen stuonden > eije > eie).
Ipv. ganc (very rarely gâ) stant (very rarely stâ) Clearly a regular development according to sound laws. PPP ( ge-)gangen (rarely ge-gân) (ge-)standen (very rarely ge-stân) Deletion of b and d (between identical vowels): Inf. gân stân (Mhd.Gr.25 §L78, 139) The paradigm of gân arises by suppletion from two verb stems, with the present supplied by °ibi° > °î°: OHG gibist > MHG gîst (geben ʻgiveʼ) Proto-Germ. *gē- and the preterite by Proto-Germ. *gang-a-. The latter still exhibits a full °idi° > °î°: OHG quidit > MHG quît (queden ʻsayʼ) paradigm of the VIIth class in OHG: gangan – gieng – giengum – gigangan (cf. Alemannic MHG gangen – gieng – giengen – gegangen). Between identical vowels most probably equally regular. The variant gie of the 1st / 3rd prt.5 was formed after gân at a time when a full gangan para- th Deletion of b between non-identical vowels: digm persisted, whence its VII class preterite vocalism: gangan ~ gieng : gân ~ gie. (Mhd.Gr.25 §L77, 138–139) The paradigm of stân arises by suppletion from two verb stems, with the present supplied by °abe° >? °â°: OHG habēn > hân (haben ʻhaveʼ). This group only consists of one verb: Proto-Germ. *stē- (instead of expected *stō- < *steh2-, after *gē- ʻgoʼ?), and the preterite by th Proto-Germ. *stand-a-. The latter still exhibits a full paradigm of the VI class in OHG: stan- Present haben (usually full verb ʻholdʼ) hân (usually auxiliary ʻhaveʼ) tan – stuo(n)t – stuo(n)tum – gistantan (cf. Alem. MHG standen – stuont – stuonden – gistanden). Sg. 1. habe (n) hân The parallel existence of long and short forms in the MHG paradigm is due to suppletion 2. habest hâst and analogy 3. habet hât (differently on gān and stān MAŃCZAK 1984: 109: frequency-driven short forms) Pl. 1. haben hân 2. habet hât 1 Forms with ê-vocalism (gên / stên, gêst / stêst, gêt / stêt usw.), which are predominantly Bavarian and East 3. habent hânt Franconian and which have been adopted by the NHG standard as gehen, i.e. /gēn/ (besides analogical /gēhən/), stehen /stēn/ (besides /stēhən/) as well as diphthongal forms such as geit ʻgoesʼ, are not taken into account. 2 Here and in the following tables paradigmatic gaps as well as rare (dialectal) forms are shaded dark grey, forms 5 nd conceivable for systemic reasons, but not actually attested are shaded light grey . For the 2 sg. prt. as well as for the entire plural paradigm no analogical short form was created, probably 3 Typically Central German. because this would have generated phonetically problematic (?) forms: 2nd sg. †gie-e, 1st /2nd /3rd pl. †gie-en, 4 Typically Upper German. †gie-et, †gie-en. 3 4 Preterite The most prominent example of a MHG contract verb with h-deletion is vâhen / vân: 6 Sg. 1. (cf. OHG habēta nb. hebita ) hâte (nb. hête) ʻCATCHʼ 2. (cf. OHG habētōs(t) nb. hebitōst) hâtest (nb. hêtest)
3. (cf. OHG habēta nb. hebita ) hâte (nb. hête) Middle High German Old High German
Pl. 1. (cf. OHG habētum nb. hebitum) hâten (nb. hêten) Present UNCONTRACTED CONTRACTED UNCONTRACTED WITH h-DELETION 9 2. (cf. OHG habētut nb. hebitut ) hâtet (nb. hêtet) Sg. 1. vâhe(n) vân fāho [ant-fou Pk 115, 13] 3. (cf. OHG habētun nb. hebitun ) hâten (nb. hêten) 2. vâhes vâst fāhis --- Ipv. habe --- 3. vâhet vât fāhit ant-phat Gl 2, 522, 36
PPP ge -habet (selten) ge-hât (only Central German) Pl. 1. vâhen* vâ(n) fāhemes --- 2. vâhet vât* fāhet --- Inf. haben hân 3. vâhen(t) vân(t)* fāhent --- No phonological parallel. No regular law-conforming development. Perhaps prosodically Preterite based change as in 1. (ii), i.e. a development due to unstressedness of the auxiliary (???). Sg. 1. vienc vie fieng --- (N.B. The distribution hân auxiliary / haben full verb is only a strong tendency liable to ex- 2. vienge* --- fienge --- ceptions!) 3. vienc(h) vie fieng --- Pl. 1. viengen * --- fiengen --- 2.3. Contracted forms following h-deletion 2. vienget* --- fiengut --- 25 (Mhd.Gr. §L80, 139–140, §M109) 3. viengen --- fiengun --- h-deletion is an established sound law for MHG, although the details, i.e. conditioning factors Ipv. vâ (c)h vâ * fāh --- and the geographical and chronological distribution, are still somewhat unclear. In Modern Standard German the h-deletion between vowels is complete so that there is no intervocalic h PPP ge-vangen ge-vân gi-fangan --- in the modern standard anymore. Inf. vâhen vân fāhan --- Some MHG verbal examples: An early case of h-deletion is OHG ant-phâe (3rd sg. subj.) (Np 108, 8). hân < hâhen ʻhangʼ zîn < zîhen ʻaccuseʼ The preterite form vie is formed after gie: gienc ~ vienc : gie ~ vie, which presupposes the vân < vâhen ʻcatchʼ zien < ziehen ʻpullʼ existence of gie, which had already been analogically created in OHG (see 2.1.). Thus, both 10 smân < smâhen, smæn < smæhen ʻtauntʼ slân < slahen ʻstrikeʼ vie and gie should be classed as short forms (SF) standing next to long forms (LF): vlên < vlêhen ʻimploreʼ sên < sehen ʻseeʼ (ge)dien < (ge)dîhen ʻflourishʼ geschên < geschehen ʻhappenʼ Old High German late Old High German Middle High German Also in nouns: gangan ~ gieng : gān ~ gie (gangan ~ gieng : gān ~ gie) gienc ~ gie : (gangen ~ gân) zâr (only Central German) < zaher ʻtearʼ stâl < stahel ʻsteelʼ (fāhan ~ fieng : [no SF]) fā(h)an ~ fieng : fān [< fā(h)an] ~ [no SF] (vâhen : vân) vienc ~ vie zên (earlier in Central German) < zehen ʻtenʼ bîl < bîhel ʻhatchetʼ ANALOGY BETWEEN ʻGOʼ & ANALOGY BETWEEN LF & SF DELETION OF h AND CONTRACTION > SF For the position between identical vowels, the sound change can be dated to late OHG times; ʻCATCHʼ cf. hō and – without contraction – hōo (first in Nôtker) < hōho ʻhighlyʼ (adv.).7 The particularities – both of chronology and of geography11 – of h-deletion, as well as Between identical vowels, the change is also generally more common and retained (not potential restoration and reversal tendencies (shortening of long vowels before initially word- reversed). Thus, MHG vân < OHG fāhan ʻcatchʼ is much more common and widespread than, internal h; see footnote 7) require further scrutiny. But it is clear that we are dealing with f.i., MHG (ver)smân < OHG (fir)smāhen ʻtaunt’, etc.; gâhen < OHG gāhon ʻhurryʼ never phonologically regular developments as well as cases of analogy (regarding vie). exhibits contracted forms. Additionally, the change usually (in Upper German8 exclusively) operated after long vowels (in Central German also after short vowels).
8 „[…] auf noch nicht näher umgrenztem Gebiet […]“ (Mhd.Gr.25 §L80, 139). 6 On the co-existence of regular habēta and analogical hebita (patterned on the first weak class) s. Ahd.Gr.15 9 Probably Old Saxon. §3682, 302. Moreover, there are reflexes of *habda (scarce in OHG; only hapta in Isidor und Muspilli; cf. also 10 Analogical processes are indicated by bold facing, phonological processes by underlining. hafda, hadde in Leidener Williram [Old Dutch on an East Franconian basis]) > MHG (Central German, Central 11 It seems to be a general tendency that h-deletion is much more common and thorough in Central German (see Franconian) hatte and possibly NHG (standard) hatte, if the latter is not to be regarded as a shortened form of the remarks on the examples above) than in Upper German regions. Some conservative dialects of Switzerland hâte (as already attested in MHG in Alemannic and Franconian poets in the present: han, hast [according to and Southern Austria preserve intervocalic h until today, at times showing a fricativisation instead (cf. the exx. rhyme patterns; see Mhd.Gr. §M1131, 284). given above): Switzerland (Brienz): tsähän ʻtenʼ, štāhäl ʻsteelʼ, Austria (Tirol, Imst): söihə ʻseeʼ; Switzerland 7 In Nôtker (late OHG) we also find the reverse tendency: shortening of long vowel in front of internal h; e.g. (Kerenzen): tsęxä ʻtenʼ (see SCHIRMUSNKI 2010: 424). On the other hand, h-deletion is attested for Nôtker and náhôr < nâhôr ʻcloserʼ, hóhôr < hôhôr, sáhen < sâhen ʻsawʼ (see Ahd.Gr.15 §1548, 151). consequently has to be regarded as an feature of Alemannic too. 5 6 2.4. (Unexplained) contracted forms of the verb lâӡ(ӡ)en / lân ʻletʼ 2.5. A new approach to the explanation of the short forms of ʻletʼ 25 (Mhd.Gr. §M112, 282–283) The short forms were analogically created in two steps: The MHG paradigm of the verb ʻletʼ includes short and long forms. In some cases, the short (1) suppletion: vaӡӡen ʻgraspʼ ~ vân (< vâhen) ʻcatchʼ forms are even the more usual ones: (2) proportional analogy: vaӡӡen ~ vân : lâ/aӡ(ӡ)en (zur Quantität 2.6.) ~ lân
ʻLETʼ Additional evidence for these processes is the rare imperatival form lâch (sg.) and lâht, Middle High German Old High German lâchent (pl.) (see WEINHOLD 1863: 330 [regarded as mere graphical variants!]), which sug- gests influence of vân (cf. ipv. sg. vâch) on lân. The short form of the preterite lie is built on Present UNCONTRACTED CONTRACTED UNCONTRACTED CONTRACTED the pattern of vie (see 2.3.), which itself is patterned upon gie (see 2.1.). Sg. 1. lâӡe (rare) lân (rarely lâ) lāӡ(ӡ)u --- 15 2. lâӡest (rare) lâst lāӡ(ӡ)is(t) --- Influence of lassen on fassen (semantic opposites ): NHG dialectal variant fäßt (instead of 3. lâӡet lât lāӡ(ӡ)it --- standard faßt) after läßt; MLG vāten, OE fǽtan (instead of commoner văten, fæ̆tan) after lāten, lǽtan. Cf. also the innovative strong preterite viet (after liet) in the Dutch of Northern Pl. 1. lâzen lân lāӡ(ӡ)ēn, -emes --- Brabant and Gelderland (Betuwe, Bommelerwaard, Peel), where vaten (instead of vatten) has 2. lâӡet lât lāӡ(ӡ)et --- survived with the meaning ʻgrab, takeʼ (see WNT s.v. vaten). 3. lâӡent lânt lāӡ(ӡ)ent ---
Preterite ʻGRASPʼ Sg. 1. lieӡ lie lieӡ --- Middle High German Old High German 2. lieӡe --- lieӡ(ӡ)i --- Present UNCONTRACTED CONTRACTED UNCONTRACTED CONTRACTED 3. lieӡ lie lieӡ --- Sg. 1. va ӡӡe(n) --- fa ӡӡo ---
Pl. 1. lieӡen --- lieӡ(ӡ)un --- 2. vaӡӡes(t) ------2. lieӡet --- lieӡ(ӡ)ut --- 3. vaӡӡet ------3. lieӡen --- lieӡ(ӡ)un --- Pl. 1. va ӡӡen ------12 Ipv. lâӡ lâ (rarely lâch) lāӡ lā (rare; N) 2. vaӡӡet ------PPP ( ge-)lâӡen ( ge-)lân ( gi-)lāӡ(ӡ)an --- 3. vaӡӡent ------
Inf. lâ ӡen lân lā ӡ(ӡ)an --- Preterite Sg. 1. vaӡӡete ------From the 10th c. onward, further short forms are attested: 3rd sg. lāt, 1st / 3rd sg. prt. lie 15 2 2. vaӡӡetest ------(according to Ahd.Gr. § 351 without giving the attestations, see also 2.7.). 3. vaӡӡete ------ As there are no parallel cases of the loss of °ӡ(ӡ)°, the creation of the MHG short forms Pl. 1. va ӡӡeten ------cannot be a regular development. 2. vaӡӡetet ------Prior explanations: 3. vaӡӡeten ------
• Shortening due to unstressedness in the sentence (Mhd.Gr.25 §M112, 282). Ipv. vaӡ --- faӡ(ӡ)o --- This seems to denote cliticisation of lân as an auxilary. But lân is often used as a full verb and PPP gi -vaӡӡe(/o)t --- gi -faӡӡot --- lâӡen as an auxiliary! There is no clear distribution as in hân / haben (s. 2.2.).13 Inf. va ӡӡen ------25 1 14 • Point of departure: assimilated syncopated form lâst < lâӡest (Mhd.Gr. §M112 , 283). However, such syncopated forms are of late attestation when compared to the short forms of lân attested from early MHG onward. The starting point for the development of the short ʻGRASP / CATCHʼ (virtually combined paradigm): forms is also very limited (2nd sg.). The creation of the short forms is still unexplained. Middle High German Present UNCONTRACTED CONTRACTED Sg. 1. va ӡӡe(n) vân 2. vaӡӡes(t) vâst 3. vaӡӡet vât 12 Regarding these early attested short forms see 2.7. 13 Cf. lâӡ(ӡ)en next to lân within the same verse: daӡ ich muos lâӡen unde lân vater, muoter ʻthat I have to let Pl. 1. vaӡӡen vân [long form] go and let [short form] go father, motherʼ (Troj. 45226). 2. vaӡӡet vât 14 The form lâst could in theory also directly belong with the paradigm of the short verb lân. A decision is 3. vaӡӡent vânt impossible. But cf. also the conjunctive læst < læӡest, which certainly belongs with the paradigm of the long verb lâӡ(ӡ)en. 7 8 Preterite gi-faӡӡōn ge-vaӡӡen gi-fāhan ge-vâhen Sg. 1. vaӡӡete vie 1. ʻein Lager / Bett 2. vaӡӡetest --- herrichtenʼ 2. ʻaufladen (auf Wagen)ʼ 3. vaӡӡete vie 3. ʻin sich aufnehmenʼ 3. ʻin sich aufnehmenʼ
Pl. 1. vaӡӡeten --- 4. ʻannehmen, entgegenneh- 4. ʻempfangen, bekommenʼ 2. vaӡӡetet --- menʼ 3. vaӡӡeten --- 5. ʻfassen, erfassenʼ 5. ʻgreifen, fangen, einneh- 5. ʻfassen, fangen, ergreifen, men, erobernʼ fangen (Tiere)ʼ Ipv. vaӡ vâ 6. ʻangreifen, anfallenʼ PPP ge -vaӡӡet ge -vân 7.ʻbeginnenʼ 7. ʻanfangenʼ 8. ʻbegreifen, verstehenʼ Inf. vaӡӡen vân †untar-faӡӡōn under-vaӡӡen untar-fāhan under-vâhen Three requirements for the assumed development:15 1. ʻunterfassen, unter etw. 1. ʻunterfassen, unter etw. greifenʼ greifenʼ (1) sound change °āha° > °ā° in fāhan must have been complete in MHG. Requirement is 2. ʻhindernʼ 2. ʻhindern, unterbindenʼ 2. ʻhindern, aufhaltenʼ met: sound change is late OHG (see 2.3.) 3. ʻstützenʼ 16 (2) broad semantic match for the suppletion of vaӡӡen ~ vâhen (see below [table]) †bi-faӡӡōn be-vaӡӡen bi-fāhan be-vâhen (3) For the analogy of vaӡӡen ~ vân : laӡӡen ~ lân a short vowel is required: laӡӡen (not 1. ʻumgeben (Trübsal einen 1. ʻumfassen, umgebenʼ 1. ʻumfassen, umfangen, ein- Menschen)ʼ friedenʼ lâӡ(ӡ)en) (see 2.6.). 2. ʻeinschließen, bewahren, bergenʼ
Semantic correspondences of vaӡӡen with vâhen / vân (and some of their prefix forma- 3. ʻbedecken (mit Kleidung 3. ʻbekleidenʼ etc.), schmücken, überzie- tions): hen, besetzenʼ
ʻFASSENʼ ʻFANGENʼ 4. ʻergreifen, einfangenʼ
5. ʻbesetzen (ein Land)ʼ 5. ʻBesitz ergreifen, beset- 5. ʻBesitz ergreifen (Teufel ALTHOCHDEUTSCH MITTELHOCHDEUTSCH ALTHOCHDEUTSCH MITTELHOCHDEUTSCH zen (ein Land)ʼ von der Seele usw.)ʼ faӡӡōn ʻeinfassen; †fassenʼ vaӡӡen ʻeinfassen; fassenʼ fāhan ʻfangen, fassenʼ vâhen ʻfangen, fassenʼ 6. ʻerlangen, gewinnenʼ 1. ʻetw. in ein Gefäß füllen / gießenʼ 7. ʻgeistig erfassen, verste- henʼ 2. ʻjmd. mit etw. beladen / 2. ʻbepacken, beladen, zu- 8. ʻbefestigen, fest machenʼ bepackenʼ sammenpacken, aufladenʼ (Meanings according to Ahd.Wb., BMZ, Lexer s.vv.) 3. ʻjmd. mit etw. bekleidenʼ 3. ʻeinkleiden, bewaffnen, schmücken, rüsten, bedek- In OHG fazzōn is utterly rare and only shows the semantics ʻto wrap, to put in a vessel / ken, überziehen (mit Gold / Farbe)ʼ containerʼ, which is in line with its denominal origin (faӡӡen faӡ n. ʻvat, vesselʼ). Only in
4. ʻeinfassen, einschliessen, 4. ʻumfassen, einhüllenʼ post-OHG vaӡӡen acquires the modern meaning ʻgraspʼ so that suppletion with the seman-
in sich aufnehmenʼ tically similar vâhen / vân as assumed here became possible.
5. ʻfassen, erfassenʼ 5.ʻergreifenʼ 5. ʻfangen, fassen, greifen, ergreifenʼ 2.6. Quantity of the stem vowel of OHG lāӡӡan 6. ʻnach jmd. / etw. greifen, langenʼ It is unclear when and where exactly the short vowel in NHG (standard) lassen arose. In con- 7. ʻerhalten, empfangenʼ 7. ʻerlangen, bekommenʼ trast to the long vowel, the short vowel cannot be asserted with any certainty for OHG or
8. ʻsich an jmd. / etw. heran- MHG as the absence of orthagraphic markers (see (1)) and rhyme evidence (see (2)) is not apt machenʼ to prove a short vowel beyond doubt. 9. ʻbeginnenʼ 10. ʻein Lager / Bett (1) Spelling herrichtenʼ Old High German state of affairs: • single instances of doubling: 1st sg.prs. laaӡo (W), 2nd sg.ipv. laaӡ (137,10, 149,11), 3rd rd 15 pl.conj.prs. far-laaӡӡeen (SB), ptc.prs. nom.pl.m. far-laaӡӡante (SB), 3 sg.prs. for-laazit, Not only are fassen and lassen semantic opposites, but they also rhyme, which could have been an additional ptc.prt. far-laaӡӡan (SB). factor in the emergence of German lassen with short vowel (see 2.6); cf. Ja, ich weiß, woher ich stamme, / Unge- sättigt gleich der Flamme / Glühe und verzehr’ ich mich. / Licht wird alles was ich fasse, / Kohle alles, was ich • Nôtker: lâӡ° (with circumflex) with few exceptions. lasse, / Flamme bin ich sicherlich (NIETZSCHE, “Ecce homo”, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, 3. Buch, Aphorismus Middle High German state of affairs: 270). 16 See also DWB1 s.v. fangen (III, Sp. 1236): „auszerdem vergleiche man fassen, ahd. faʒʒôn, dessen sinn sehr • not yet studied (problem of manuscript standardisation) nahe liegt, das aber anders wurzelt.“ 9 10 (2) Rhyme bildung von der gekürzten Form lat sein muß. Daneben kommen die Schreibungen lat und let häufig vor, die jedenfalls auf kurzen Vokal weisen. Die Kürzung kann auf den Imperativ in der Stellung vor einem kon- Middle High German (not yet systematically studied) sonantisch anlautenden Folgewort (z.B. me. lat me ʻlaß michʼ) auf synkopierte Formen der 2. und 3. Pers. lâs (las?) : palas (Elis. 4758) Sing. Ind. Präs. oder auf die häufige Verwendung als (in der Eigenbedeutung verblaßtes und daher satz- New High German: nebentoniges) Hilfsverb zurückgehen, doch könnten solche Formen auch Rückbildung aus dem schwachen Präteritum lette, latte nach dem Muster von set(ten) ʻsetzenʼ, Prät. sette, Part. sett sein.“ (BRUNNER 1960– laszen : straszen (Uhland) 1962: II, 247) [emphasis mine] laszen : ubermaszen (Froschmäusekrieg) laszen : anmaszen (Ayrer, D. v. d. Werder) The North Germanic evidence (short besides long vowel): underlasz : winkelmasz (F. v. Spee) with original meaning ʻletʼ: with novel meaning ʻwhimper (< make [let go] a sound)ʼ:
But note: imperfect rhymes are always possible and would have to be studied separately for LANGUAGE ROOT VOWEL INFINITIVE LANGUAGE ROOT VOWEL INFINITIVE each case / poet. OIcel. long láta NNorw. lang låta short lata ModSw. long låt (3) Direct (New High German) evidence ONorw. innovation leta (cf. prs. letr) ModSw. innovation läte (cf. prs. läter) According to DWB1 6, 213, the long vowel is retained in Eastern Central Germany, Hesse, OSw. long láta ModDan. long låt (älter låd) Thuringia, Upper Saxony, Silesia, Berlin and southern Bavaria. short lata innovation lǽta (cf. prs. lǽter) Cf. semantically NHG es läßt schön ʻit makes for a Otherwise, the Standard New High German short vowel in lassen prevails. ODan. long látæ pretty sightʼ; MHG si lieӡen alle jêmerlîche (Herb. short latæ 9798) ʻthey all seemed miserableʼ (visual quality) (4) Indirect evidence via specific New High German (dialectal) sound changes MIcel. long láta and New Norwegian låta etc. ʻto make a soundʼ The sound change MHG â > au in the dialect of Nuremberg attests to an original long vowel NNorw. short lata (acoustic quality) for Franconian: lauß'n ʻletʼ (< MHG lâӡen) cf. schlauf’n ʻsleepʼ (< MHG slâfen), dau ʻthere, ModFaer. long láta thenʼ (< MHG dâ(r)), nauch ʻtowardsʼ (< MHG nâch), Audem ʻbreathʼ (< MHG âtem), ModSw. long låta ModDan. short lade blaus’n ʻblowʼ (< MHG blâsen), haut ʻhasʼ (< MHG hât) (examples in FROMMANN 1857: 296). Development of the short vowel in Old Norse: Already the Fastnachtspielen (Carnival Plays) of 15th century Nuremberg (Northern Bavarian) NOREEN, Aschw.Gr. §151, 139: lata was shortened in proclitic position (just like ia ʻjaʼ, þa feature several examples of o < â: loßen ʻletʼ (< MHG lâӡen) as in geschloffen (< MHG ge- ʻthereʼ, nar ʻwhenʼ, var (hærra) ʻour Lordʼ next to stressed já, þá, nár, vár (hærra)), and was slâfen), noch ʻtowardsʼ (< MHG nâch), odem ʻbreathʼ (< MHG âtem), hot ʻhasʼ (< MHG hât); then used in stressed postion. 4 besides, however, lassen / laßen < MHG lâӡen or laӡӡen (?) (examples gathered by a run- NOREEN, Aisl.Gr. §505, 340: „Im inf. kommt neben láta nicht selt. lata vor […], urspr. wol through of the edition by KELLER 1853). nur, wenn das wort proklitisch stand“ [emphasis mine] Alemannic (Switzerland, Alsace, Swabia) exhibits the same sound change (â > au or o): Lauӡ MOTTAUSCH (1993:159) compared this development (shortening of láta) with the case of th uӡ meins hertzen senende pein (song of courtly love, 15 c., Schwäbisch Gmünd; KELLER MHG lân < lâӡen and NHG lassen < *lāßen due to unstressedness in the sentence (following 1846 : 243; cf. ibid. Wann ich wol stetz bin uff der stravӡ [< MHG strâӡe ʻStraßeʼ]); all decki WILMANNS 1897: 334). und lilach sol er lossen ligen (Basler Bischofs- und Dienstmannenrecht, 14th c.); das es nicht sein kan etwas gros / deshalb ich mich wol zu ihm los (Fischart, Flöhhatz 52, ed. 1573).17 Question: Is the evidence for the short vowel in the paradigm of ʻlassenʼ, widespread in the Germanic individual dialects, entirely due to secondary devolpments (proclitic position etc.) The long vowel is attested for (more or less) the whole High German language area; the or can a Proto-Germanic form with a short vowel (*lat-a-) be assumed besides the better at- short vowel is elusive especially for earlier language stages. tested long vowel form (*lēt-a-)? (5) Language comparison (within the Germanic family) Proposition:
Long: Goth. letan, OS lâtan, MLG lâten, OE lǽtan, ME lete (> ModE let), ON láta, OFr. Goth. letan, OIcel. láta < PIE *léh1d-e/o- (type letan) besides OWN lata, ME late < PIE 18 leta *lh1d-é/ó- (type taka) : 19 Short: OIcel. lata, ME late (rare side-form of lete), lat (imperative) Proto-Germ. *lēt-a- < PIE *léh1d-e/o- (full-grade thematic present) „[zu Ipv. lat] Kürzungen in satznebentonigen Wörtern sind aus dem Sprechtakt zu erklären, in dem die Proto-Germ. *lat-a- < PIE *lh d-é/ó- (aorist present) Vorbedingungen zur Kürzung vor mehrfacher Konsonanz [vgl. etwa me. lafdi, lefdi ʻHerrinʼ < ae. hlǣfdiȝe, 1 me. chepman, chapman ʻKaufmannʼ < ae. cēap ʻMarktʼ + man ʻMannʼ] oder in drittletzter Silbe [vgl. etwa Proto-Germ. *lelōt- (Goth. lailot) / *lelt- (OE leort) (perfect) me. haliday ʻFeiertagʼ < ae. hāliȝ + dæȝ] auch in einsilbigen Wörtern eintreten konnten.“ (BRUNNER 1960– < PIE *le-lóh1d- / *le-lh1d-´ 1962: I, 262). „[zu me. late] […], welches, soweit es nördl. ist, von an. lāta, dem etymologisch und bedeutungsmäßig ent- Thus also OHG lāӡ(ӡ)an (type letan) besides laӡ(ӡ)an (type taka) as a different proto- sprechendem Verbum, stammen kann, südhumbr. (nach der Verdumpfung von /a:/ zu /:ɔ/) aber eine Rück- 20 form / etymology (as per 1. (c)) ?
17 In some cases dialectal forms with Verdumpfung (au or o < â) have entered the Standard language; e.g. Mond 18 (< mâne) ʻmoonʼ, Docht (< tâht) ʻwickʼ, Kartaune (< kartâne it. quartana) ʻcannon royalʼ (loanword with re- For the originality of OWN taka as an aorist present (tudáti-type) see PROKOSCH (1939: 149) and MEID (1961: 1 gular dialectal au if originated in Augsburg, an early center of artillery manufacture; see DWB s.v. kartaune (XI, 238); pace MOTTAUSCH (1993: 159). 19 Sp. 234): „das au für â könnte aus Augsburg stammen, das sich früh im geschützwesen auszeichnete.“ Vgl. alb. lodh ʻexhaustsʼ < *léh1d-e/o- (with different semantics); and cf. 2.7. 11 12 2 2.7. The problem of short forms of lāӡ(ӡ)an in Old High German Root formation of the unextended root (*leh1- / *lh1-; s. LIV 399):
Early (pre-MHG) short form of lassen are not expected if the scenario described above ap- Alb. la ʻleft/letʼ < PIE *lh1-t (zero-grade root aorist) plied, because post-OHG changes are required (see 2.5.). Hitt. lē (negation ʻnot, don’tʼ < ʻleave (be)ʼ) < PIE *léh1 (full-grade root aorist) i Nonetheless, several short forms are attested already in Old High German: Hitt. lā- / l- ʻleave (be)ʼ < PIE *lóh1- / *lh1-´ (ḫi-inflected root verb) th 2 Ipv. (°-)la, (°-)lâ Otfrîd 1,18,41 (9 c.; Rh-Frk.) Alongside the extended root (*leh1∙d- / *lh1∙d-; s. LIV 400): Nôtker (frequent) (10th/11th c.; Alem.)21 Proto-Germ. *lēt-a- (Got. letan, OHG lāӡӡan etc.) < PIE *léh d-e/o- (thematic present) Gl. 2,636,50.254,43 (11th c.; Bav.) 1 Bammberger Beichte (12th c.) Alb. lodh ʻexhausts’ < PIE *léh1d-e/o- (thematic present) 3rd sg.prs. uz-lat Gl. 2,533,47 (13th c.; Alem. [Einsiedel]) Lat. lassus ʻexhaustedʼ < PIE *lh1d-tó- (verbal noun) 3rd sg.prt. fer-lie Nôtker (10th/11th c.; Alem.) Would be a case of 1. (c): different proto-form / etymology gi-lie Gl. 2,600,70 (3rd quarter 11th c.; Bav.) NB: If the unextended root formation of the imperative lâ in Nôtker (and elsewhere) is indeed Gl. 602,57 (3rd quarter 11th c.; Bav.) inherited (fossilised like extra-paradigmatic Hitt. lē), the short forms of lassen could also have lie … ûӡ Nôtker (10th/11th c.; Alem.) been analogically created on these old imperative forms: stâ : stân ~ lâ : lân. The evidence does, however, not allow us to trace the entire paradigm of the short verb, not fully estab- Ptc. dat.sg.m./n. pa-lantemo Gl. 2,464,49 (lexical status uncertain; perh. rather with balawên lished till MHG times, back to a derivative of the unextended root (virtually MHG 3rd sg.prs. ʻbetrayʼ or blantan ʻblendʼ [see Ahd.Wb. s.v. bi- rd lâzan 669]) lât < PIE *léh1-e-ti, 3 pl.prs. lânt < *PIE léh1-o-nti), as there is no further evidence for a short verb within Germanic. Short forms are, in part, OHG but realtively late. Forms of the indicative are only attested th from the 11 c. Only the imperative sg. form lâ/la is older (Nôtker, Otfrîd). Nôtker is, how- 3. Conclusions 21 ever, late-OHG ; the single early attestation in Otfrîd (1,18,41 [ms. F] ) could be an error: The Middle High German short verbal forms can easily be explained by means of factors 22 Ínnan thines hérzen kuſt / ni láz (Var. F la ) thir theſa uuóroltluſt ; already recognised in the Neo-Grammarian framework (see 1.), i.e. regular sound change fliuh thia géginuuerti, / ſo quimit thir frúma in henti. (sound law) and analogy, or by positing a different proto-form (cf. stân < *steh2+ as opposed to *stand-a-) (see 2.1.–2.3.). An as yet unexplained exception remains however hân ~ haben. Analogical scenario fassen : fân ~ lassen : lân could be older than MHG. The processes could have started as early as Nôtker (if one discards the Otfrîd attestation) generating first only the The short verbal forms of lâӡ(ӡ)en, usually explained by the assumption of an irregular, fre- imperatival form lâ. (Although this scenario would leave the fact that only the ipv. features a quency-induced sound change, can also be explained by analogy within the system of long vs. short form unexplainded [for an alternative account of the imperatival form lâ see below]). short verbal forms in Middle High German, if one assumes that lân (short form) next to lâӡ- (ӡ)en (long form) is patterned on a suppletive paradigm consisting of vaӡӡen (as the long form) If so, the requirements listed in 2.5. have to be met already in Nôtker: and vân < vâhen (as the corresponding short form) (see 2.4.–2.5.). (1) deletion of -h- and subsequent contraction (is fulfilled; see 2.3.) Forms of the verb lassen with a short root vowel (see 2.6.), necessary for the analogical (2) semantic match of faӡӡōn with fāhan (doubtful; faӡӡen is in Nôtker only attested with its creation of lân (by identifying lăӡӡen with văӡӡen), can be attributed either to an earlier rhyme original meaning ʻetw. in ein Gefäß füllen, beladenʼ; see the table 2.3.) formation of lâӡӡen with vaӡӡen, or, alternatively, be traced back to a different proto-form, namely an aorist present *lat-a- < *lh d-é/ó-, which possibly existed alongside the full-grade (3) short vowel a in laӡӡen (instead of lâӡӡen certainly attested in Nôtker; see 2.6.) 1 present *lēt-a- < *léh1d-e/o-. The former explanation can only account for the German short Because of the semantic difficulties (2) the imperative lâ in Nôtker remains a problem and root vowel (as in the Modern German standard language), whereas the second explanation is cannot easily be reconciled with the scenario given in 2.5. able to account also for the rest of the Germanic evidence attesting to a short root vowel. Problematic Old High German forms of the short verb lân, which could not have arisen accor- Alternative explanation regarding the OHG Imperative lâ : ding to the here presented scenario, i.e. at a time before vaӡӡen and vâhen had become seman- The OHG ipv. lâ in Nôtker (and possibly also in Otfrîd – if not a mere error) could continue tically similar to each other, can in most cases be attributed to the same development, which an unextended IE root: OHG lā < Proto-Germ. *lē < PIE *léh ʻleave it be!ʼ (root aorist) or 1 then must have started somewhat earlier, in which case the analogical scenario must have star- *léh -e (thematic present). Such an unextended root is well attested and could have been 1 ted already in late Old High German times. The only short form widespread already in Old preserved in the imperative until OHG due to its marginal position within the paradigm. High German (Nôtker and possibly also Otfrîd) is the imperative singular lâ. It is conceivable that this form goes back to a different root (*leh1-), which held its ground in a marginal 20 Alternatively, German lassen could have originated via a rhyme formation with the semantic opposite fassen paradigmatic position against forms of the extended root *leh1∙d-, from which the rest of the (see 2.5. and fn. 15), although this scenario would leave the remaining Germanic evidence for *lăta- unexplained. paradigm of Germanic *lēt-a- is derived. Similarly, the imperative *léh1 is preserved in Hittite 21 Nôtker Labeo (aka. Notker III, Notker The German) ca. 950–1022. 22 in a fossilised form in the negation lē ʻnot, don’t (< leave be)ʼ (see 2.7.). Regarding the inferior quality of the Freising manuscript (F) see WOLLF, Otfrids von Weissenburg Evange- lienbuch. Text und Einleitung, 151: „Auch bedeutende Unachtsamkeiten kommen vor, wodurch sich die Hand- schrift schon nach äusseren Betrachtungen als eine ungenaue und flüchtige ausweist.“ ______
13 14 References: Textual Sources: 15 Ahd.Gr. : BRAUNE, Wilhelm / REIFFENSTEIN, Ingo. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I: Laut- und Elis. = Das Leben der heiligen Elisabeth SB = Benediktinerregel Formenlehre. 15. Auflage. Tübingen: 2004. Herb. = Herbort von Fritzlâr Troj. = Konrad von Würzburg (Troj. Krieg) Ahd.Wb.: KARG-GASTERSTÄDT, Elisabeth / FRINGS, Theodor / GROẞE, Rudolf (Hrsgg.), Alt- N(p) = Nôtker (Psalme) W = Williram hochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Auf Grund der von E. von Steinmeyer hinterlassenen Samm- lungen. Berlin: 1968ff. Pk = KLECZKOWSKI, Adam. 1923–1926 Neuentdeckte altsächsische Psalmenfragmente aus 4 der Karolingerzeit. 2 Teile. Krakowie. Aisl.Gr. : NOREEN, Adolf. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexions- lehre). Unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. Vierte, vollständig umgearbeitete Auf- lage. Halle (Saale): 1923. Aschw.Gr.: NOREEN, Adolf. Altschwedische Grammatik. Mit Einschluss des Altgutnischen. Halle: 1904. BMZ: BENECKE, Georg Friedrich / MÜLLER, Wilhelm / ZARNCKE, Friedrich. Mittelhochdeut- sches Wörterbuch. 4 Bde. Leipzig: 1854–1866. BRUNNER, Karl. 1960-1962. Die englische Sprache. Ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung. Erster Band: Allgemeines / Lautgeschichte (1960). Zweiter Band: Die Flexionsformen und ihre Verwendung (1962). Zweite, überarbeitete Auflage. Tübingen. 1 DWB : GRIMM, Jacob / Wilhelm. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: 1894–1971. FROMMANN, Georg Karl. 1857. Joh. Wolfg. Weikert’s Ausgewählte Gedichte in Nürnberger Mundart. Nürnberg. KELLER, Adelbert. 1846. Altdeutsche Gedichte. Tübingen.
. 1853–1858. Fastnachspiele aus dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert. Bd. 1–4. Stuttgart. Lexer: LEXER, Matthias. Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch. 3 Bde. Leipzig: 1872–1878. 2 LIV : RIX, Helmut et al. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Pri- märstammbildungen. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden: 2001. MAŃCAK, Withold. 1984. Das germanische DentalPreterite. KZ 97, 99–112. MEID, Wolfgang. 1967. Das germanische Preterite. Innsbruck. 25 Mhd.Gr. : PAUL, Hermann / KLEIN, Thomas / SOLMS, Hans-Joachim / WEGERA, Klaus-Peter. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25. Auflage. Tübingen: 2007. MOTTAUSCH, Karl-Heinz. 1993. Zwei verkannte germanisch-italische Isoglossen. HS 106, 148–175. NÜBLING, Damaris. 2000. Prinzipien der Irregularisierung : eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen. PROKOSCH, Eduard. 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Philadelphia. SCHIRMUNSKI, Viktor M. 2010. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formen- lehre der deutschen Mundarten. Frankfurt am Main / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Oxford / Wien. SÓSKUTHY, Márton / HAY, Jennifer. 2017. Changing word usage predicts changing word du- ration in New Zealand English. Cognition 166, 298–313. STREITBERG, Wilhelm. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg. WEINHOLD, Karl. 1863. Alemannische Grammatik. Berlin. WILMANNS, Wilhelm. 1897. Deutsche Grammatik. 1. Abt. Lautlehre. 2. Auflage. Straßburg. WNT: DE VRIES, M. / TE WINKEL, L.A. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. Leiden: 1864– 2001. TORP, Arne. 2003. Frekvens, trykkletthet, reduskjon. In: FAARLUND, Jan Terje (Hg.), Språk i endring. Indre norsk språkhistorie. Oslo, 219–254. 15 16