US WURK XXX (1981), p. 49 [0580] OLD FRISIAN AND THE OLD ENGLISH DIALECTS It is a peculiar fact that each of the three Old English dialects, Anglian, West Saxon and Kentish, has, by different scholars, been considered more closely connected with old Frisian than has either of the remaining dialects. Ferd. Wachter, e.g., finds the resemblance between Anglian and Frisian especially striking, something which he attributes to Frisian settlement in Northern England (1850:417, 420-21). But while Wachter has mainly the Northumbrian US WURK XXX (1981), p. 50 branch of Anglian in mind, W.W. Skeat (1887:32, 77; 1896: 221) believes that Mercian is the OE dialect or subdialect to show the greatest similarity to Frisian. Both Mercian and Frisian take up intermediate positions, the one "between the Anglian and the Saxon," the other "between Scandinavia and Holland." 1 As Mercian/Frisian agreements Skeat lists the absence of breaking in al(l), bald and half, the undiphthongized e of Merc. werc , werpan, Fris. werk, werpa, and the ē of dēd(e) (Old Saxon dād) and of Merc. geh ēran, Fris. hēra (Goth. hausjan), cf. below. Unlike Wachter, K.J. Clement thinks that the special links of Anglian to Frisian date back to a time when Angles and Frisians were neighbours in Schleswig (1862:17-19), and another scholar to advocate special Friso-Anglian relations is Otto Bremer (1900:843), who cites the shared absence of front diphthongization after c, g, sc (cf. below) in support of his view. Carl Karstien (1939:12) tries to illustrate a similar thing by suggesting a further parallel, viz. West Germanic ā > OFris./Angl. ē. Finally, Wolfgang Jungandreas sees a particularly close connection between Anglian and Old East Frisian, but does not provide any evidence (I 1949:60). However, Jungandreas (III 1949:24) also links Frisian (esp. Old West Frisian) to Kentish, and among the five shared innovations cited, three have been taken over from Theodor Siebs (1901:1157-8; 1930:65, 71-2): ū + i, j > ē, eu > ia and ēg > ēi. The inference made by both Jungandreas and Siebs is that such parallels must have arisen prior to the departure of the Jutes from the Continent. 2 In his lexical investigation of Anglian Richard Jordan does not find any special links connecting that dialect with Frisian.3 What he does find, though, is a number of correspondences between West Saxon on the one hand and OFris. and Old Saxon on the other (cf. 1906:120, 122). In Otto Bremer's view there is an especially close relationship between WS and (Old) Insular North Frisian 4 in that both dialect areas appear to share front diphthongization after palatal consonants (1900:848), but cf. below. Having thus, at least in part, uncovered the diversity of scholarly opinion, we shall proceed to survey the parallels between Frisian and Angl., Kt. or WS. The evidence presented repeats items found in Nielsen 1981:ch. III.ix 5, though sometimes in an abbreviated or altered form. The reasons for basing the survey on morphological and phonological points are given in Nielsen 1981:73-4. 6 1. The Angl. nom.pl.masc. n-stem forms oexen, exen closely correspond to OFris. ixen and West Norse yxn , øxn, seeing that all the forms listed have undergone i-mutation, cf. Nielsen 1975:7. In Brunner's view (1965:§276 Anm.1, §277Anm.1), the Indo-European *-en -grade (Germanic *-in(iz) ) of the thematic element may be held responsible for this. However, there is not much support for US WURK XXX (1981), p. 51 IE *-en - in the plural paradigm, but another explanation is possible: the vanishing grade of the thematic element, which is to be found in gp. Old Norse oxna , yxna , Gothic aúhsn ē and OE oxna , cf. Nielsen 1979: No. 5, may have been extended to the nominative, resulting in np. * oXsniz (* uXsniz ). The fact that a similar np. form is not attested in Goth., is likely to be a coincidence; the vanishing grade is well established in the n-stem paradigm of this language (Krahe 1967:90-91). 2. A vernerized superlative form of ‘little’ is attested in OFris. ( lērest ) as an alternative to lēst . Among the OE dialects a similar form is recorded only in Kt.: : læ resta (once). 3. It is a characteristic feature of WS/Kt.and OFris. (OS, Middle Dutch) that they have uniform accusative/dative forms in 1/2. personal pronouns: WS/Kt. mē, ūs ; þē, ēow ; OFris. (/OS) mī, ūs th ī, iu (MDu. mi , ons ; di , (j)u ). As pointed out in Nielsen 1981:225-7, early Gmc. had uniform a/dp. forms, while the two cases were differentiated in the singular. The ousting of acc. sg. forms in -k by the datives is therefore a common innovation. 4. None of the OE dialects exhibit forms with an initial s- in n/asf. and n/ap. of the 3rd pers.pron. In the south-eastern dialect of Middle English such forms do occur, however, perhaps in consequence of contacts between Kent and the Continent, cf. OFris. se , MDu. si (Brunner I 1960:80-81, Steller 1928:§83 and Franck 1910:§210). See also Århammar 1966 (1968b):62-3, 72. 5. In some Nhm. texts asm.dem.pron. þene occurs beside the normal form, þone . Streitberg (1974:269b) thinks that the -e-form reflects the suffix * -in-ōn (i- mutation), cf. OE ænne *ainin ōn. Another explanation is possible, however. Very likely, the asm. vowel was originally -a- in all Gmc. dialects, cf. Nielsen 1979:No.10. On the analogy of gen.sg., -e- was extended into asm. in Old High German ( den ), and from here it may have spread northwards, cf. OS thena , thana ; OFris. thene and MDu. dien . What was later to become Nhm., may have been affected by this development. 6. WS/Kt. and OFris. exhibit -e in the 1st pres.sg.ind. of the (strong) verbs instead of the regular reflex of IE *-ō, which we find in Goth. baíra , ON ber , Runic w r i t u, OS/OHG biru and Angl. beoru , bindo. WS/Kt. -e has been explained as (1) an early weakening of –u/-o ( Krahe II 1969:§69), (2) an optative ending (Hirt II 1932:§112) and (3) a reflex of Gmc. *-ōm, (-m added on the analogy of secondary endings, cf. Campbell 1959:§731). Any of these explanations may apply to OFris as well. 7 However, it is very doubtful whether this correspondence between the US WURK XXX (1981), p. 52 southern OE dialects and OFris. developed prior to the Anglo-Saxon emigration: in early WS (once) and Kt. -o (-u) forms occur (Campbell: 1959:§735 a). 7. Syncopated forms in the 2/3.pres.sg.ind. of the strong verbs (and Class I weak verbs) are characteristic of OFris. (binst, bint) and, with some vacillation, of WS and Kt., whereas unsyncopated forms are retained in Angl.: bindes, binde ᾩ. According to Walde (1900:125Anm.), the origin of the shortened forms is to be sought in the inverted expressions bindis þu, bindi ᾩ he; the generalization in WS/Kt. did not take place until perhaps the late ninth century, and uncontracted endings must be assumed for all OE dialects in the preceding centuries, cf. Sisam 1953:125-6, Brunner 1965:§358. 8. In the pt.pl.. of ‘do’ Angl. has dedon besides dydon, and in the inscription on Codex Aureus deodon crops up, the accented vowel of which leads Campbell (1959:§768b) to posit short vowel quantity (back mutation). (For a different view, see Brunner 1965:§429 Anm. l.) Kt. dede, dedon may represent exact counterparts of WS dyde, dydon. On the Continent -e-forms are attested in the sg. of OS/OHG (deda/teta) and in the OS pl. (d ēdun). If the first vowel in Angl. dedon is long, it would correspond to ā in OS d ādun, OHG tātun. The vowel quantity of e in OFris. dede, deden has been subjected to different interpretations, cf. v. Helten 1890:§310 and Steller 1928:§107. Siebs (1901:1333) thinks that the vowel is long (= Gmc. ē1) because modern dialectal forms presuppose length. No matter how the accented vowel of Angl. dedon is interpreted, it links up with the vowel of at least some of the OS/OHG/OFris. forms. In comparison, the WS -y-forms (dyde, dydon) stand completely apart, and are due to innovation (Beck 1963:16). 9. Reflexes of *waljan in the paradigms of the verb ‘will’ are expecially frequent in OHG, but Angl., OFris. and OS also exhibit quite a few instances (-e-forms), cf. Nielsen 1979: No.18. In WS and Kt., on the other hand, -i-forms are practically universal. 10. The reflex of Gmc. ēl (IE ē) in Goth., OFris. and Angl.Kt. is ē (l ēta(n)), in WS æ (læ tan) and ā in OHG (lāζζ an ), OS ( lātan ) and ON ( lāta ). Despite the front vowels in OE and OFris. most scholars think that only Goth. ē constitutes a retention, the innovation of ēl > ā taking place in all North and West Gmc. languages. There are at least three reasons for this assumption. First of all, the development of Gmc. *-ēn, -ēm > OE/OFris. -ōn, -ōm could hardly have taken place except by way of *-ān, -ām (Brunner 1965:§62 Anm.1). Secondly, the borrowing of Latin str āta as str āζζ a in OHG and str āta in OS and as str ēt(e) in Angl./Kt./OFris. and stræ t in WS suggests that the US WURK XXX (1981), p.