The Proto-Germanie shift *ã > *õ and early Germanic linguistic contacts*
Post-PIE *õ and *ã fromall possible PIE sources are both reflectedin Germanic by a single sound which, because of the sounds thatcontinue it in the individual Germanic languages, is usually reconstructedas *õ forthe latest stage of Proto-Germanic.1This mergeris paralleled by the mergerof the post-PIE shortnon-high back vowels *o and *a in PrGmc. *a. The merger of non-highback vowels is - at least in descriptive - terms a northwesternIE areal feature,2encompassing Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Celtic, with differencesin the details. In Baltic, only the shortvowels merged,but the reflexof *ã remaineddistinct from that of *o; the opposite is the case in Celtic, where only the long vowels were affectedby the merger,whereas short*o and *a remaineddistinct. The resultantvowel systemof Proto-Germanicis oddly imbalanced, with the shortvowels lacking a rounded mid-highback vowel and the long vowels lacking a long low back vowel. Therefore it has been suspected that the parallelism of developments within Germanic had indeed been perfectand that the erstwhileoutcome of the mergerhad been not a trapezoidor triangularvowel system,but a quadrangularone in which the shortand long low back vowels correlatedwith each other in quality.These vowels could be writtenphonemically *a and *ã, or, if greaterallowance is made to phonetics,[a(:)] or ratherrounded [d(:)]> if not [э(:)]. For the sake of clarity and in contrastto the later vowel system,here the symbols *â and *â will be used with referenceto the low back vowels before the emergence of the classical reconstructable Proto-Germanicstage.
* My thanksgo to RobertNedoma and StefanSchumacher for many valuable and importantsuggestions to thisarticle. Part of thispaper was writtenwithin the FWF- fundedproject P20755-G03 'Die altkeltischenSprachreste in Österreich'(The Old- CelticLanguage Remains of Austria; http://www.univie.ac.at/austria-celtica/). Thehypothesis of Schrijver2003 that *ã and*õ remaineddistinct in Germanicin finalsyllables and beforetautosyllabic *n in initialand finalsyllables, is of no consequencefor the lexical items discussed here and will not be examinedfurther. It maybe notedhere that also Proto-Finno-Ugricas well as Proto-Finno-Lappic possesseda quadrangularlong vowel system consisting of *Të õ -й(see Sinor1988: 268,297, 523).
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *ã > *o andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 269
Given the ultimatedivergence in quality between the short and the long vowel, it seems rational to surmise that despite their phonemic correlationthere must have existed slightallophonic differencesin their phoneticrealizations, with the long vowel *â tendingstronger towards roundness.This is inferablefrom the veryfact that it ultimatelyresulted in *õ some time in the Proto-Germanicperiod (thus basically Hollifield 1984: 65, but the scenario sketchedby him is rathervague). Why then the phonological correlationbetween the two sounds was ultimately broken,can only be conjectured.3Perhaps the long vowel came under pressure fromthe incipientshift *ë > *œ > *ã, at least in the western and northernvariants of Germanic. Furthermore,*ã may have been introducedas a marginal phoneme by the Proto-Germanicloss of *j between identical vowels, i.e. *aja > *ã (řórhallsdóttir1993: 35-36, citingCowgill 1973: 296). On the otherhand, the monophthongization of *a and a tautosyllabicnasal beforea velar fricativedid not help to fill the gap in the long-vowel system,because it resulted in a nasalized vowel *q (i.e. *anx > *QX),not in an oral long vowel *ã. Thus around the beginningof the historicalperiod, Germanic was on the verge of acquiring a new *ã. In words thatwere borrowed into Germanic or its dialects fromLatin in the imperialperiod, Lat. ã is not reflectedby *o but by the new *ã by default (Kluge 1913: 23-24, 128), e.g. OHG phãl 'stake' <- pãlus, OHG strãzza 'street' <- strãta, OHG kãsi 'cheese' <- cãseus, the OHG agentivesuffix -ãri <- ãrius. Cases where Lat. ã seems to be reflectedby Gmc. *ã are actually borrowingsfrom Vulgar Latin withpretonic shortening, e.g. OHG ratih,retih 'radish' <- VLat. radíc- < Lat. rãdíx 'root'. Two conclusions can be drawn: first, early Proto-Germanic*â had been moved up the phonetic triangle towards*õ by the time of those loans, so thatto the speakers of Germa- nic it was not a phoneticor phonological equivalentto Lat. ã. Secondly, loans fromLatin helped establish *ã as a more or less marginalor even erstwhileloan phonemein Germanic. Nevertheless, a handful of words (partly transmittedin secondary sources,partly foreign loans into Germanic) have been cited as evidence for a relativelylate date for the conjectured shift*ã > *õ during the Proto-Germanicperiod. In particular,it has been claimed that some of the evidence proves thatthe shiftmust have taken place afterthe first contacts of Germanic-speakingpeoples with Rome, that is, in the 1st centuryB.c. or even as late as the 1stcentury A.D (see, for example, Ringe 2006: 145-146). In this article, this evidence will be reviewed
3 See also,for example, Tops 1973, Van Coetsem (1994: 76-81).
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 270 DavidStifter and it will be argued thatits chronologicalvalue is not as unambiguous as has been assumed hitherto.
* 1. The Gothic placename Ruma (dat. sg. Rumai, Gal exp A) 'Rome' and the accompanyingi-stem ethnonym Rumoneis* (dat. pl. Rumonim, Rom exp; 2 Tim 1, 17) 'Romans', togetherwith Old High German Ruma 'Rome', rümisk'Roman', etc. (beside innovated Rõma, rõmisk, etc.), Old Norse Rúm, Rúmaborg 'Rome', etc. (beside innovatedRóm, Rómaborg, etc.), and once Old English Rûmwalas* 'the Romans' (beside ordinaryRõm), allow us to set up a Proto-Germanicpair of toponymplus ethnonym*Rümö 'Rome', *Rümönaz 'Roman' (the shift in stem-class of the ethnonymto the i-inflectionin the plural is a specifically Gothic development,see Liihr 1985: 142-143, 147). The two names obviously go back to Latin Rõma, Rõmãnus in some way. However, in themLat. õ is representedby Gmc. *й,4and Lat. ã by Gmc. *õ, very much unlike the regular substitute*ã mentionedabove. This has been used as the prime piece of evidence for an early loan from Latin when the shiftin Germanic had not yet taken place. It has been suggested thatthe names were borrowed at a time when *â was still a closed, rounded sound in Germanic (perhaps approximately[d:]), but neverthelesssuitable to representLat. ã, whereas the best approximation forLatin closed õ was to substituteit withGmc. *й. Thus *RHmõwould allow a rare glimpse at phoneticdevelopments within the reconstructed Proto-Germanicperiod. This is the line of argument,for example, of Noreen (1894: 11-12), Streitberg(1896: 48-49), Jellinek(1926: 182- 185), Schwarz (1951: 21-22), Corazza (1969: 39-40), Hollifield (1984: 65), Ringe (2006: 146). This explanationis quite plausible and cannot be disproved on purely linguisticgrounds. But thereexists a less straightforwardalternative to explain Gmc. *Rumõ 'Rome' and *Rümönaz, an alternative which neverthelessaccounts betterfor the historicaland political environment in which the borrowingtook place in Iron-Age Central Europe. Gmc. *RHmõ, *RHmõnaz could be loans from a Central-European Celtic language like Gaulish (Gaulish will be used here as a shorthandterm for any Central-EuropeanCeltic language; such a source of *Rümö was already suspectedby Luftand Schwarz, accordingto Corazza 1969: 40;
4 Lat.õ is regularlysubstituted by Gmc.*й, e.g. OHG mürberi'mulberry' <- Lat. mõrus,OHG lürra 'pomace' <- lõrea,Middle Ripuarian ur 'hour' <- hõra,and perhaps, withshortening, OHG wlnzuril'winemaker' <- Lat. uïnitôr(Streitberg 1896: 48-49, Kluge1913: 25).
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *ã > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 27 1 cf. also Öhmann 1919). The Gaulish exonyms forthe city of Rome and for its citizens are not directlyattested, but that such words must have existed is beyond doubt,and it is not unlikelythat they were *Rúmã and *RHmãnos,themselves loans fromthe Latin words with adaptation to the Old-Celtic phonological systemby substitutingrounded high *ü for Latin closed <5.In Proto-Celtic,the pentadiclong-vowel system*I-ê-ã- õ-й, inheritedfrom post-PIE, had been firstreduced to a triangularlong- vowel system*ï-â-û (the question of possible remainsof *ë are passed over here), a stage thatstill obtained in earlyGaulish. The gap leftby *õ had not yet been filled again at the time when Gauls and speakers of otherCentral-European Celtic languages were confrontedwith the rising Roman power in the second half of the 1stmillenium B.C. The process of introducinga new õ into the system by the monophthongizationof Proto-Celtic*oy. < Pre-Celtic *eu, *ou and partly*uu happened only as late as the historicalstages of the Celtic languages and is observable in the preservedlinguistic material. A rare furtherinstance of the Gaulish substitutionof й
5 Thename of the contractor ofthe inscription is traditionally read as AuaroRumonis f(ilius),but Weber (1973: 74; see also DietherSchürr in Ubierat Lupa 1999)suggests thata lettermay be missingat the beginning. It would then be possibleto read it as the well-knownCeltic name Cauaro = *каиагй.It is noteworthythat this same name is attestedas kavaron..s.in theVenetic inscription Gt 4 fromthe Gurina in southern Carinthia,while the name *гйтй, which possibly underlies the spelling Rumonis , may be a loanfrom Venetic into Celtic (Pellegrini & Prosdocimi 1967: 163).
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 272 DavidStifter
Rumanehi[s] (Bonn, CIL 13, 8028), Matronis Rumanehis(Rommerskir- chen, AE 1977, 574), Matronis Rumnaehabus (Jülich,CIL 13, 7869), Matronis Rumanehis (Uellekoven, CIL 13, 8149), M[a]tronis Ruma- nehis (Weilerswist,AE 1977, 561), and once with о in Matronis Roma- nehis (Lommersen, CIL 13, 7973). For the apparently ethnical component of these names one may compare Matronis Romaniscis (Romanèche, ILTG 311) in Gallia Lugdunensis, or Matribus meis [Gerjmanis Suebis, Matribus Frisauis paternis, Matronis Hamauehis (from the ethnonym Chamaui), or Matribus Kannanef[atibus] (see Neumann 2001: 439 and Birkhan 1997: 515-516; Nedoma 2010: 119 calls them probably detoponymic, but without a clear derivational basis). Delamarre analyses Rumanehis as *ro-mãni-iã- 'the very good ones' (Delamarre 2007: 155-156; 226), but this is obviated by the preponderantspelling и in the firstsyllable, which is hard to square with Gaul, ro- < *pro, the prefix for the excessive degree. For Neumann (1987: 104), the names contain the ethnicon'Roman', but theyattest to the phoneticmerger of о and u. That means that forhim the adjectives are based on recent loans of the ethnonym.But it cannot be excluded that the names are of much greaterantiquity and thattheir vocalism is due to the nativeGaulish phonology. Whereas Gaulish-Romancontacts and in consequence a knowledge of the name of the Roman capital among the Celtic-speakingpeoples of WesternEurope can be taken for grantedfor the 4thcentury B.C. at the latest,for all we know Germanic-speakingpeople came into the focus of Roman attentiononly in the 2ndcentury B.C., when firstthe Bastarnae and the Sciri, and laterthe Cimbri and Teutones moved southwardfrom theiroriginal homelands and caused disturbanceswithin the sphere of Roman influence.Naturally, it is difficultto say when Rome in its turn had come into the focus of Germanic peoples, but it involves not too much speculation to assume that for theirpart some Germanic peoples had become aware of Rome and of its risingpower by the 3rdor early 2nd centuries B.c. Given the fact that Germanic peoples in western Central Europe bordered on Celtic peoples in all those directionsthat led to and fromRome and the Roman power sphere,it is quite naturalto suppose that any informationabout Rome that reached them firsthad had to pass throughCeltic lands and mouths.The close culturalconnec- tions across the Germanic-Celtictransitional zone and the Celtic lexical influenceon Germanic have been noted long before (see, for instance, Birkhan 1970, Beck et al. 1998 passim, Mees 1998, Rübekeil 2002, Schumacher2007). Loan relationsand parallel developmentsespecially
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *ã > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 273 in the semanticfields of social institutionsand organisationattest to the close interrelationshipbetween the two linguisticgroups. At the same time, borrowingsoccurring before the operation of Grimm's Law like * Gmc. *rlkija"'realm' <- Celt. rigidon virtuallyguarantee the early date of Celtic-Germaniccontacts, and borrowingsunaffected by Grimm's Law like Gmc. *ambaxtaz 'servant' <- Celt. *ambaxtos attest to the long persistanceof the contacts. In such a socio-politicalenvironment it would not be surprisingto find thatthe name of the Roman capital cityhad enteredthe Proto-Germanic language via the transmissionof speakers of Celtic, in a phonological shape thatcan be postulated for an Old-Celtic language. The ordinary trafficand exchange of people and informationbetween the cultural groups would have allowed the intrusionof the name into Germanic at almost any time while the channels of communicationwere open. It is most unlikely that the name of Rome had not been passed on to Germanic by the time when the Cimbric-Teutonic expedition was underway,an enterprisewhich had a notable Celtic component.In con- sequence, Goth. Rumoneis and the related words in youngerGermanic languages cannotbe adduced as evidence fora relativelylate shiftof *ã > *õ withinthe Common Germanicperiod, because this particularword could have been borrowed from Celtic, not directlyfrom Latin, very early in history.
2. Goth, siponeis 'disciple' (for Greek ца0г|тг|<;)and the OHG hapax sejfu gl. satelles (AhdGl. II 444, 50; 11thcentury) have been suspected to be loans froma Gaulish *sepãni[os 'follower' (from the PIE root VseA*'to follow'; e.g. Wissmann 1961, Delamarre 2003: 271; for a survey of the research up to his time see Birkhan 1976 who himself proposes a non-Celtic explanation). The relationship between these words would exhibit the same correspondencebetween Gaul. *ã and Gmc. *õ as the one postulatedabove for the word 'Rome'. However, a Celtic etymologyfaces the severe morphologicalobstacle that a suffix *-ãno- or *-ãn(i)io- is foreignto Celtic languages as we know them (*-ãno- in presumed *Rumãnos is of course a loan suffix). It is in principle thinkable that there was an agent noun Gaul. *sepü, gen. *seponos 'follower' < amphikineticPre-Celtic *sékřo(n) that could underlie OHG sejfu (for the inflectionaltype R(é)-õ(n), ср. the Gaul, ethnonymsRëdones < *reictõ(n) 'rider', or Lingones < Pre-Celtic *plengõ(n) 'jumper', Schaffner2005: 77-78, 105-106). But in orderto arrive at a basis from which Goth, siponeis could be borrowed, a
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 274 DavidStifter considerablylarger amount of unprecedentedmorphological restructur- ing would be required. Without a certain etymology (see Lehmann 1986: 305-306 for alternativesuggestions), this word does not qualify as an itemrelevant to the discussion about the chronologyof the shift*â > *õ in Germanic.
3. Anotheritem thathas been cited foran absolute datingof the inner- Germanic phonetic developmentis Bãcenis silua (presumablymeaning 'beech wood'), the name of a forestin Germania, reportedby Julius Caesar in the Commentariide Bello Gallico 6, 10, 5. This is an adjective *bõkeniz 'beechen' derived froman n-stem-derivativeof the Gmc. root noun *bõk- 'beech' < PIE *bheh2g-(see Neumann 1973: 572 and Griepentrog 1995: 60-77, esp. 70-71; sceptical, but non-committal Rübekeil 2002: 175-180). But this example is not probative eitherfor the hypothesisthat the shiftfrom earlier *á to directlyreconstructable *õ had not yet taken place by the middle of the 1stcentury B.C., when the Romans encountered Germanic peoples habitating the Bãcenis silua. Again it is more likely from the entire political and historical environmentin the firsthalf of the 1stc. B.C. thatthe name reached the Romans via Gaulish transmission(thus already Hirt 1898, see Neumann 1973: 572), i.e. in a Gaulicized phoneticguise withsubstitution of Gaul. *ã forGmc. *õ. Again, the Gaulicization could have occurredmuch ear- lier than the 1stcentury B.C. If at the time of the substitutionthe donor language Germanic had already arrivedat its final reconstructablepho- nological system*Т-ё-0-й, it is importantto note thata differentkind of substitutionfrom the one in Lat. Roma -> Gaul. *Rümä above has to be invoked here. Whereas for Latin closed [o:] Gaul. *ü seemed most ap- propriateas a substitute,for open Germanic [o:] Gaul. *ã offeredthe betterphonetic approximation,even more so as in all likelihood it too was phoneticallyrounded, to judge fromthe furtherfate of Proto-Celtic *ã in the Insular-Celticlanguages.
4. Possibly the same situation obtains in the next example, but the directionof borrowingis disputed. OE pl. brëc (sg. brõc), OHG proh, bruoh,ON brók,pl. brœkr,etc. (see Griepentrog1995: 81-83) continue the Proto-Germanicfeminine root noun *brõk, pl. *brõkiz 'breeches, short trousers'. Latin and Greek authors make referenceto a similar word in Gaulish. Although the word is not attestedin native Gaulish sources, it has been borrowed- with the object - into Latin as pl. brã- cae, beside rare braces 'trousers', repudiated by the grammarians.
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *a > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 275
Brãcae is firstattested between 116 and 110 B.C. in the works of the satiristC. Lucilius (ca. 180-103 B.C.), and frequentlyafterwards (see Kramer 1996: 119-120 forthe attestations).Diodorus 5, 30, 1 (firsthalf of 1stcentury B.c.), most likely drawingon Posidonius (beginningof 1st centuryB.C.), speaks of Gaulish ßpmew;(Greek acc. pl.); Hesychius (5th • or 6thcentury A.D., but using older material) mentionsCeltic Ppáiceç áva^upíôeç. The word also occurs as an ã-stem ßpmcai6 and Greek papyri fromEgypt attestto a derivative ßpaiciov7(see Kramer 1996: 119-124 for references) that is continued as ßpaici in the modern language. The Posidonian-Diodoriantestimony ppáicaç is perhaps direct evidence for the word in Gaulish; as is well known, Posidonius spent some time in the Narbonensis.The formis ambiguous as to the word's originalstem class in Gaulish: Gaul. *brãkãs could be the acc. pl. both of an ã-stem (< Pre-Celt. *-ãns) and of a consonant stem (< Pre-Celt. *-ns). In the lattercase, the word would be a root noun in Gaulish. The Latin evidence points in the same direction.The rare pl. brãcês could continuea Gaulish consonant stem inflection,and brãcae could be due to 'feminine thematization',the startingpoint for which would be preciselythe Gaul. acc. pl. This double treatmentfinds a parallel in the Gaul, compound root noun *druuid- 'druiď, which appears in Latin on the one hand as a consonantstem pl. druidës,druidum, and on the other hand as druidae, druidãrum,having undergone'feminine thematization' on the basis of the Gaul. acc. pl. *druuidãs. Still, on the basis of the evidence in classical literaturetwo differentstem classes cannot be excluded forGaulish, even thoughthe rootnoun is more likely. Since an 'Urverwandtschaft'of Gmc. *brõk- and Gaul. *brãk- is excluded, the question arises which of the languages borrowedfrom the other(the thirdlogical alternativethat both languages borrowedfrom a third,unknown party is not pursued here). No consensus has been reached as to the diachronicanalysis of the word. While some scholars favoura Germanic origin,others speak out in favourof Celtic/Gaulish. Since the matteris not essential to the main argumentof this article,I
6 The gloss ßpatoccu• myeimôupOépai Jtapà Keàtoîç. frequently ascribed to Hesychiusin the scholarship, must be a phantom. Kramer(1996: 123-124)mentions also a by-formßpsidov, first attested between 317and 324 A.D.,the e ofwhich he ascribesto theeffects of Germanic i-umlaut. Such an earlydate, however, would be quiteremarkable for Germanic i-umlaut. Krahe & Meid(1969: 59) speakof a dateseveral centuries later for the first occurrences of its effects.In OldHigh German, *a beforeweakly stressed *i startsto be written,
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 276 DavidStifter just want to sketchthe main points in the discussion and referto Grie- pentrog (1995: 79-90, esp. 85-89) for the details: 1. Gmc. *brõk-, which beside 'shorttrousers' has also the meaning 'tail-bone', has been 8 compared with Lat. sujfrãgõ 'hinder part of four-footedanimals', and both words have been referredto the PIE root Viřreg/g 'to break (intr.)' (LIV 91). However, the relationshipof the two words to the root is not particularlystriking on the semantic side, and the long vowels of the nominal formshave been said to be morphologicallyobscure (but see fn. 9 below). 2. It is undecided whether 'tail-bone' is the primary meaning of Gmc. *brõk-,or whetherit has been secondarilytransferred from'trousers'. 3. Not even a distantlyacceptable Celtic etymologyhas been proposed for Gaul. *brãk- thus far. Szemerényi's (1989: 117-118, 122) attemptto etymologizethe word withinGaulish from*brãgikã (in its turnrelated to Lat. suffrago)via syncope of the middle vowel is ad hoc and withoutparallel. 4. Outside Gaulish the word lacks continuants elsewhere in Celtic. Related words in Insular-Celticare late loans from Latin or medieval Germaniclanguages. Because of the objections raised under nrs. 1. and 2., Griepentrog (1995: 85-89) emphaticallyrejects a Germanic etymologyfor *brõk- and dismisses possible connections with sujfrãgõ by arbitrarily redefiningthe meaning of the PIE root Vbhreg/g as 'to bow'. He apodic- tically assigns the breech-wordto Gaulish, but does not offereven the slightest clue to an etymology and does not comment on the conspicuous absence of the word elsewhere in Celtic. All of this does not help to instil confidence in Griepentrog's position, renderingit ratherunconvincing and inconclusive. Although it must be conceded that the connections of *brõk- to suffrago and its furtherroot etymologiesare far fromcertain, I still consider a weak Germanic ety- mology betterthan an isolated one in Gaulish. But I explicitelystate that this is a provisional opinion in a matterwhich has not yet been finally decided.9
8 The relationshipof sujfrãgõto Lat. suffrãgium'vote, voting' is an additional problem.Since I do notassume that the two words necessarily be relatedI do notenter intothe discussion Vaahtera 9 (differently 1993). 1want to sketch three conceivable explanations ofthe words: 1. Derivationfrom ibhreg/g 'to break (intr.)': In viewof Oír. braigid 'to fart',which is cautiouslyreferred tothis root in LIV 91 (butsee below), it could be postulated that in Germanic,too, the root possessed the meaning 'to fart'in additionto its primary semantics.In thatcase, an agentiveroot noun *b rõg/gs> Gmc.*brõk 'farter' could be postulated.For the long vowel of this formation, cp. otheragentive root nouns like Gr. кМ>*|/'thief, Lat. fiir 'thief, uõx 'voice',etc. In a furthersemantic step, the word 'farter'must then have been transferred to the 'buttocks' and finally to the'tail-bone'.
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *ã > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 277
In any case, no matterwhether Germanic or Gaulish is the place of the word's origin,what *brõkizand *brãkes demonstrateis thatthere exists among themthe same equivalence between Gmc. *õ and Gaul. *ã as in the examples discussed before.
5. In the certain examples discussed so far possibly three or more linguistic links are involved in complex chains of transmission: 1. - - *RHmõ: Latin (- ► Etruscan/Venetic) > Gaulish *• Germanic; 3. Bãcenis : Germanic - > Gaulish - ► Latin; 4. brãcae : Germanic - * Gaulish - * Latin (?). The next example is limitedto only two. The name of the river Danube was *Dãnouios in Gaulish (the basis of the fol- lowing are Schmid 1986 and Schumacher 2007: 181-182). Apart from the name of the riverDonwy in North Wales, identical in formationto *Dãno'fios, the name of the riveris tangible for us only throughLatin transmission,i.e. Dãnuuius and Dãnubius, and through Greek Да- vowßio«;and Aavoúioç, which itselfis a loan fromLatin. The b of the Latin spelling Dãnubius is most probably simply orthographicfor [ß], [v] or [w], i.e. for the Latin sound that substitutedGaul. *u. Whether *Dãnoyios is an original formationin Celtic or continues something earlier, for example an Old-European rivername *Dãneuios or an Iranian *dãnu-, is irrelevanthere. From Gaulish, Gmc. *Dõnawjaz must have been borrowed. Gaul. *d is representedby Gmc. *d, which
Fromthere, it would have been carried over metonymically tothe piece of clothing that coveredthat body-part. This, in itsturn, was subsequentlyborrowed into Celtic. Apart fromthe chain of semanticshifts, which notwithstanding itsmany stages involves no controversialsteps as such,the main problem with this explanation is that the meaning 'tofart' is notattested for л¡bhreg/g inGermanic. 2. Derivationfrom yb reHg/g 'to smell(intr.)': It is betterto referOír. braigid 'to fart'to a root^bh reHg/g 'to smell (intr.)' (not recorded in LIV; cp.Schrijver 1995: 170- 171,Stüber 1998: 62, Schumacher2004: 232-233). From this could then be derived Gmc.*brõk 'tail-bone' < rootnoun *bHreh2/3g/gs or *bhrõHg/gs, and Lat. suffrãgõ 'hinderpart of four-footedanimals' < *bhfHg/gen~,unless an agentiveroot noun *bhrEHg/gs'tail-bone < *farter'existed already in theproto-language. The further developmentof*brõk within Germanic and the loan into Celtic would be parallelto that outlinedin the preceding section. 3. Derivationfrom y¡bra(n)k 'to lockin, constrict': Finally, just for the fun of it, Celt. *brãk-could be explainedas a rootnoun with lengthened grade generalized from the Pre-Celt.nominative *brõ/ãks, derived from the root ^¡brak 'to lockin, constrict' (not recordedin LIV) thatappears also as Shrankwith 'prenasalization' in Gmc. *pranga- 'narrowing,tightness' and in Lith. brañ(k)tas 'part of harness for a horse',Latv. brankti 'adjacent'(EIW 103,Lehmann 1986: 32). 'Prenasalization'is one of the features that havebeen claimed for a particularstratum of loanwordsfrom an unknownsource in northwesternIE languages (see Kuiper1995: 68-69). Pre-Celtic *brõ/ãkes would thus be the'tights'. In thiscase, Celtic would be thedonor, Germanic the borrower. But this is strictspeculation.
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 278 DavidStifter demonstratesthat the loan took place afterthe operation of Grimm's Law. In the vowels we find the expected phoneme correspondences Gaul. *ã - ►Gmc. *õ, and *o - ►*a. For Gothic, the Germanic formis attested as Aovvaßiv (асс.) in a Greek text of the 6th centuryA.D. (Pseudo-Caesarius of Nazianzus 1, 68; 3, 144), a spelling that pre- sumably reflectsa very closed, high articulationof *õ that was sub- stitutedby Gr. й, or (Ostro-)Gothicraising of *õ > й. In Old High Ger- man, the name surfaces as fem. Tuonouwa. The suffix has been re- modelled afterGermanic *awjõ 'island, rivermeadow', so thatno strict substitutionrules can be set up between the rear portions of the two words. - A three-linkchain of loans (Gaulish -*■fLatin > Germanic), i.e. via intermediaryLatin Dãnubius, is excluded by the first syllable of Tuonouwa. Whereas the rest of the sound correspondenceswould be essentiallyunproblematic (but in view of the folketymology that operat- ed on the suffixan exact phonological equivalence mustnot be expected in the firstplace), loans fromLatin into Germanicnever substitute*o (< *à) for Lat. ã (Kluge 1913: 128; the apparentcase of *Rümö for Lat. Rõmã has been disposed of above). For all that is known, when Ger- manic people startedto encounterRomans at the Danube on a regular basis, approximatelyin the Augustan period, Germanic or its dialects representedLat. ã by the new marginalphoneme ã. Unlike with Gaul- ish, with Latin thereexisted no establishedpattern of substitutingGmc. *õ forã. Furthermore,the name of the Danube is likely to have entered Germanic much earlier than the Augustan period. Those peoples and tribes that made incursions into the south in the 2nd century B.C. naturallyhad to cross the river.For the firsthalf of the 1stcentury B.C., in the archaeological phase Latène D2a (85^5 B.c.), archaeology has unearthedGermanic settlementsin the foothillsof the Alps in south- easternBavaria (Rieckhoff1993; 2007: esp. 418-420, 423-427), thatis seven decades before a Roman militarypresence was establishedin the region. And apparentlyby the middle of the 1stcentury B.C. at the latest, Germanic (Marcomannic?) and Celtic (Boian) elementsstarted to blend in the area immediatelyto the northof the Danube in modernAustria, as displayed by Germanic names (Ainorix , Biatec[, Fariarix) in an otherwiseCeltic environmenton 1stcentury B.C. coins of the Boii (Birk- 10 han 1971 and Birkhan in Gobi 1994: 69-71, 73-74). In any case, as
10 Thisearly presence of Germanic people along the Danube, north of the Alps is of greatrelevance for the question of the origins of the Runic script. The chronological and spatialgap betweenthe Germanic peoples and the various North Italic alphabets that
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *ã > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 279 with *Rúmõ above, it is most economic to assume that Germanic peoples firstlearned the name of the riverDanube fromtheir immediate Celtic neighbours,not frommore distantparties.
In conclusion it can be said that none of the pieces of loanword evidence assembled above sufficesto prove a particularlylate date (say, for instance, 1stcentury A.D.) for the inner-Germanicshift from early Proto-Germanic*â > *õ. What is more, fornone of the words thatwere borrowed into Germanic can it be shown that they must have entered Germanic through direct contacts with Romans. Instead, all of the relevantexamples (i.e. *Rümö, *Rümönaz, *Dõnawjaz) most probably were transmittedby speakers of Gaulish or a related Central-European Celtic language. Likewise, all those words thatwere ultimatelyexported fromGermanic into Latin (i.e. Bãcenis silua, perhaps brãcês, -ae) are likelyto have been transmittedby Celts. Thereforethe primarypertinent question is the one regardingthe relationshipbetween Gaulish and Ger- manic, a relationshipthat has all appearances of having been extremely close and intertwinedacross the Celtic-Germanic contact zone in westernCentral Europe duringthe greaterpart of the 1stmillenium B.C. What there may have existed across this contact zone is a state of bilingualismwith an intuitivelinguistic awareness of the propertiesof the other group's phonological system. As long as this particular historicalsituation persisted there may have operateda rule of automatic phoneme substitutionbetween Gaul. *ã and Gmc. *õ (or *â, for that matter)when one lexical item was transferredfrom one language to the other. In more abstract terms it can be stated that there existed a bidirectionalequivalence between Gaul. *ã and Gmc. *õ (represented by the symbol below), as against unidirectionalequivalences like - postulatedearly Gaul. *й <- Lat. õ (against, presumably,Gaul. *w ► Lat. м). If thatwas the case, the basis for establishinga chronologyof loanwords containingthose respectivesounds becomes very thin. Only if it could be shown thatthere were Gaulish loanwords in Germanicthat representedGaul. *ã by the new Gmc. *ã, or Germanic loanwords in Gaulish with new Gaul. *õ for Gmc. *õ it could be said with certainty that the bidirectional equivalence had ended. If pressed hard, with Germ. *õ and Gaul. *ã being the only non-highback long vowels avail- able, the previouslydiscussed materialdoes not even yield evidence that
maybe regardedas themodels for the Runic script is constantlyshrinking (see, for example,the new identifications ofspecimens of Venetic and - perhaps- Raeticscript inthe south of Austria edited in Stifter 2010).
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 280 DavidStifter there ever was a shiftof > *õ in Proto-Germanie.Evidence for an originalstage *a in earlyProto-Germanic must be soughtelsewhere.
The foregoing discussion now permits to set up the following provisionalchronology of loans and substitutionrules:
* 1. Lat. Rõma (- > Etr. Rumai or Ven. *Rãmã) - > Gaul. *Rümä (Lat. õ - (- > Etr. w/Ven.ül) > Gaul. *й, probablyby the 4thcentury B.C.) 2. Gaul. *Rúmã - ►Gmc. *Rümö (Gaul. <-►Gmc. *w, Gaul. <-> Gmc. *õ, after1. and beforethe 2ndcentury B.C.) 3. Gmc. *bõkeniz - > Gaul. *bãkenis (Gaul. *ã <-►Gmc. *o, between Grimm's Law and the firsthalf of the 1stcentury B.C.) 4. Gaul. *bãkenis - ►Lat. Bãcenis (Gaul. *á <-►Lat. *ã9 after3. and beforethe firsthalf of the 1stcentury B.C.) * 5a. ? Gmc. *brõkiz - ►Gaul. brãkes (Gaul. *ã <-►Gmc. *o, between Grimm's Law and the 2ndcentury B.C.) 5b. ? Gaul. *brãkes - ► Gmc. *brõkiz (Gaul. *ã <-►Gmc. *õ, after Grimm's Law) 6. Gaul. *brãkes - > Lat. brãcês, -ae (Gaul. *ã Lat. *ã, after5a. and beforethe end of the 2ndcentury B.C.) 7. Gaul. *Dãnouios - ►Gmc. *Dönawjaz (Gaul. *ã <-►Gmc. *õ, after Grimm's Law)
References
Beck,Heinrich et al. (1998):'Germanen, Germania, Germanische Altertumskunde', in: Reallexikonder germanischen Altertumskunde. VonJohannes Hoops. Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage. Elfter Band. Gemeinde - Geto-dakische Kulturund Kunst. Herausgegeben von Heinrick Beck, Heiko Steuer, Dieter Timpe, Berlin- NewYork: Walter de Gruyter,181-438. Birkhan,Helmut (1970): Germanenund Kelten bis zumAusgang der Römerzeit. Der Aussagewertvon Wörtern und Sachen für die frühesten keltisch-germanischen Kultur- beziehungen[= Sitzungsberichteder Phil.-Hist.Klasse 272], Wien: Verlagder ÖsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. - (1971): 'Die "keltischen"Personennamen des boiischenGroßsilbers', Die Sprache 17,23-33. - (1976):'Altgermanistische Miszellen aus "funfzehenZettelkästen gezogen". 2. Got. siponeis- einkeltischer Gefolgschaftsterminus?', in:Festgabe für Otto Höfler zum 75. Geburtstag.Herausgeber Helmut Birkhan [= PhilologicaGermanica 3], Wien: WilhelmBraumüller, 19-20, 67-68. - (1997):Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur , Wien: Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften.
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *ã > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 28 1 Corazza,Vittoria (1969): Le parolelatine in gotico [= Attidella Academia Nazionale dei Lincei.Memorie. Classe di Scienzemorali, storiche e filol.8, 14, 1], Roma: AcademiaNazionale dei Lincei. Cowgill,Warren (1973): The Sourceof Latin stãre, with Notes on ComparableForms Elsewherein Indo-European', Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 271-303. Delamarre,Xavier (2003): Dictionnairede la languegauloise. Une approche linguistiquedu vieux-celtiquecontinental Préface de Pierre-Yves Lambert. 2e édition revueet augmentée, Paris: Éditions Errance. - (2007):Nomina Celtica Antiqua Selecta Inscriptionum. Noms de personnes celtiques dansl'épigraphie classique , Paris: Éditions Errance. Gobi,Robert (1994): Die HexadrachmenprägungderGross-Boier. Ablauf, Chronologie undhistorische Relevanz fur Noricum und Nachbar gebiete, Wien: Fassbaender. Griepentrog,Wolfgang (1995): Die Wurzelnominades Germanischenund ihre Vorgeschichte[= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 82],Innsbruck: Institut fürSprachwissenschaft drUniversität Innsbruck. Hollifield,Patrick H. (1984): 'Raisingin UnaccentedSyllables in Germanic',Die Sprache30, 29-72. Jellinek,Max Hermann (1926): Geschichte der gotischen Sprache [= Grundrissder ger- manischenPhilologie 1/1], Berlin - Leipzig:Walter de Gruyter. Kluge,Friedrich (1913): Urgermanisch. Vorgeschichte deraltgermanischen Dialekte [= Grundrissder germanischen Philologie 2], Strassburg:Trübner. Krähe,Hans & Meid,Wolfgang (1969): Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Einleitung undLautlehre. 1. Auflage[= SammlungGöschen 2232], Berlin - NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. 4 Kramer,Johannes (1996): Papyrusbelegefür fünf germanische Wörter. áp^aAmjooiov, ßavÖov,ßoDpöcov, ppaKÍov, aacpamov', Archiv für Papyrusforschung 42/1, 1 13-126. Kuiper,Franciscus B.J. (1995): 'Gothicbagms and Old Icelandicylgr' North-West EuropeanLanguage Evolution (NOWELE) 25, 72-76. Lehmann,Winfred P. (1986):A GothicEtymological Dictionary. Based on thethird editionof VergleichendesWörterbuch der GotischenSprache by SigmundFeist, Leiden:Brill. LIV: Lexikonder indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzelnund ihre Primärstammbildun- gen.Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von MartinKümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterteund verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix, Wiesbaden:Reichert. Lühr,Rosemarie (1985): 'Zur Deklinationgriech. und lat. Wörterin Wulfilasgot. Bibelübersetzung',Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft46 [= Festgabefür KarlHoffmann. Teil III], 139-155. Mees,Bernard (1998): 'CelticInfluence in theVocabulary of Hierarchyduring the CommonGermanic Period', Zeitschrift der Savigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte. GermanistischeAbteilung 115, 361-388. Nedoma,Robert (2010): 'Matronae Aviaitinehae' Die Sprache48 (2009[2010]), 118- 126. Neumann,Günter (1973): 'Bacenis', in: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. VonJohannes Hoops. Zweite, völlig neu bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage. ErsterBand. Aachen - Bajuwaren.Herausgegeben von HeinrickBeck, Herbert Jankuhn,Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Reinhard Wenskus, Berlin - NewYork: Walter de Gruyter,572. - (1987): 'Die germanischenMatronen-Beinamen', in: Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten.Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums veranstaltet von der Göttinger Akademie- kommissionfür die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas [= Beihefteder Bonner Jahrbücher44], Köln: Rheinland-Verlag, 103-132.
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 282 DavidStifter
- (2001):'Matronen', in: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. VonJohan- nesHoops. Zweite, völlig neu bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage. Neunzehnter Band.Luchs - Metrum.Herausgegeben von Heinrick Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Heiko Steuer,Berlin - NewYork: Walter de Gruyter,438-440. Noreen,Adolf (1894): Abriss der urgermanischen Lautlehre. Mit besonderer Rücksicht aufdie nordischenSprachen. Zum Gebrauch bei akademischen Vorlesungen , Strass- burg:Karl Trübner. Öhmann,Emil (1919): 'Miszelle.Lat. a = got.õ; lat.о = got.ã' Neuphilologische Mitteilungen20, 18-19. Pelegrini,Giovan Battista & Prosdocimi,Aldo Luigi (1967): La linguavenetica. II - Studi, Padova: Istituto di Glottologicadell'Università diPadova. Rieckhoff,Sabine (1993): 'FrüheGermanen in Südbayern',in: Das keltischeJahr- tausend.Herausgegeben von HermannDannheimer und RupertGebhard. 2., erweiterteAuflage, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 237-242. - (2007): 'Wo sindsie geblieben?- Zur archäologischenEvidenz der Keltenin Süddeutschlandim 1. Jahrhundertv. Chr.', in: Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau. Akten des4. Symposiumsdeutschsprachigen Keltologinnen und Keltologen. Philologische - Historische- Archäologische Evidenzen. Konrad Spindler (1939-2005) zum Geden- ken.(Linz/Donau , 17.-21. Juli 2005), Herausgegeben von Helmut Birkhan unter Mit- wirkungvon HannesTauber, Wien: Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften2007, 409-440. Ringe,Don (2006): A LinguisticHistory of English. Vol. 1. FromProto-Indo-European toProto- Germanic, Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press. Rübekeil,Ludwig (2002): DiachroneStudien zur Kontaktzonezwischen Kelten und Germanen[= Sitzungsberichteder Phil.-Hist.Klasse 699], Wien: Verlagder ÖsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. Schaffner,Stefan (2005): Untersuchungenzu ausgewählten Problemen der nominalen Morphologieund der Etymologieder altindogermanischenSprachen. 1. Die mit *-on- undsekundären Nomina. 2. Lateinisch Suffix ' gebildetenprimären' müstella, müstelaWiesel ; Quappe undder Wortbildungstypvedisch ašvatará-. 3. Altenglisch umbor'Kind'. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Regensburg. Schmid,Wolfgang P. (1986):'Donau. II. Philologisches.§ 5. Die Namender D[onau]', in: Reallexikonder germanischenAltertumskunde. Von Johannes Hoops. Zweite, völligneu bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage. Sechster Band. Donar-Pórr - Einbaum.Herausgegeben von Heinrick Beck, Herbert Jankuhn, Kurt Ranke, Reinhard Wenskus,Berlin - NewYork: Walter de Gruyter,14-16. Schrijver,Peter (1995): Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology [= LeidenStudies inIndo-European 5],Amsterdam - Atlanta: Rodopl. - (2003): 'EarlyDevelopments of theVowel Systems of North-West Germanic and Saami',in: Languages in Prehistoric Europe. Edited by Alfred Bammesberger, Theo VennemanninCollaboration with Markus Bieswanger, Joachim Grzega, Heidelberg: UniversitätsverlagWinter, 195-226. Schumacher,Stefan (2004): Die keltischenPrimärverben. Ein vergleichendes, etymologischesund morphologisches Lexikon. Unter Mitarbeit von Britta Schulze- Thulinund Caroline aan de Wiel [= InnsbruckerBeiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 110],Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. - (2007): 'Die Deutschenund die NachbarStämme: Lexikalische und strukturelle Sprachkontaktphänomeneentlang der keltisch-germanischen Übergangszone', in:Jo- hannKaspar Zeuß im kultur-und sprachwissenschaftlichen Kontext (19. bis 21. Jahrhundert),Kronach 21.7.-23.7.2006. Herausgegeben von Hans Hablitzelund DavidStifter [= KeltischeForschungen 2], Wien:Praesens Verlag, 167-207. Schwarz,Ernst (1951): Goten,Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen. Studien zur Ausglie- derungder germanischen Sprachen , Bern: A. Francké& München:Leo Lehnen.
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheProto-Germanie shift *я > *õ andearly Germanic linguistic contacts 283 Sinor,Denis (1988): The Uralic Languages.Description , History and Foreign Influences.Edited by Denis Sinor [= Handbookof Uralic Studies lj, Leiden- New York- Kßbenhaven- Köln: Brill. Steinbauer,Dieter H. (1999):Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen [= Subsidia Classica 1], St.Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae. Stifter,David (2010): 'NeueInschriften in norditalischer Schrift aus Österreich',Die Sprache48 (2009[2010]), 233-240. Streitberg,Wilhelm (1896): UrgermanischeGrammatik. Einflihrung in das vergleichendeStudium der altgermanischen Dialekte , Heidelberg: Winter. Stüber,Karin (1998): TheHistorical Morphology of n -Stems in Celtic[= Maynooth Studiesin Celtic Linguistics 3], Maynooth: Department ofOld Irish, NUI Maynooth. - 'Effectsof Contacton Romanand Gaulish Personal in: (2007): Language ' Names', XIII.International Congress of Celtic Studies, Bonn 2007. Workshop The Celtic Lan- guagesin Contact'.Organised by Prof.Dr. HildegardL.C. Tristram(published as CD). Szemerényi,Oswald (1989): An den Quellendes lateinischenWortschatzes [= Inns- bruckerBeiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 56], Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissen- schaftder Universität Innsbruck. Tops,Guy A.J. (1973): 'Indo-Europeanа, о > Germanica; Indo-Europeanã, õ > Germanicõ' Orbis22/1, 138-150. Êórhallsdóttir,Gudrun (1993): The Development ofIntervocalic *j inPro to-Germanic, Ph.D.Dissertation, Cornell University. Ubierat Lupa = http://www.ubi-erat-lupa.org Untermann,Jürgen (1961): Die venetischenPersonennamen , Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Vaahtera,Jyri (1993): 'The Origin of Latin suffrãgium' Gioita 71/1-2, 66-80. Weber,Ekkehard (1973): 'Epigraphische Zeugnisse für die Königsnamen inNoricum', in:Robert Göbl, Typologie und Chronologie der keltischen Münzprägung inNoricum [= Denkschriftender Phil.-Hist.Kl. derÖAW 113; VeröffentlichungenderKom- missionfür Numismatik 2], Wien:Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften,71-76. Wissmann,Wilhelm (1961): 'Ahd. seffo' Zeitschrift fürvergleichende Sprachforschung 77,81.
Institutfür Sprachwissenschaft David Stifter UniversitätWien Sensengasse 3a A-1090 Wien email: [email protected]
Hist.Sprachforsch. 122, 268-283, ISSN 0935-3518 © Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,Göttingen 2009 [2010]
This content downloaded from 149.157.1.188 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:24:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions