sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ancient Belgian language, Anglia (peninsula), Crimean Gothic, East Germanic languages, Eduard Sievers, ERIC

OLD GERMANIC

HERBERT PENZL

1. EARLY GERMANIC

1.1 General

Among Old include: Gothic (§2), Old North Germanic ('Proto-', §3) before its split into (ON) , the 'West Ger- manic' languages such as (OE, §4), (OFris., §5), (OS) and Old Low (OLF, §6), (OHG, §7). Compre- hensive research reports on Germanic languages without specific regional and time restrictions have appeared by Carl Karstien ("Altgermanische Dialekte"), Victor Michels ("Deutsch"), and Wilhelm Horn ("Englische Sprachwissenschaft") in Stand und Aufgaben (1924); in Götze et al. (1934); and in Streitberg et al. (1936). Many studies concern not only these individual attested languages but rather features shared by all or by some of them which we can thus attribute to an earlier reconstructed stage. Some early onomastic data, some cannot be easily assigned to any particular major Germanic . In this first subchapter (§1) shall deal with all these publications and those involve reconstructed stages of, or within, Germanic. The character and status of reconstructed forms and sounds were infrequently an issue, rarely the whole concept of a reconstructed ancestral like 'Proto- Germanic' ('Primitive Germanic', Urgermanisch), 'Common Germanic' (Gemein- germanisch) but frequently the assumption and grouping of specific intermediate proto- languages. Some scholars, however, like Pisani (1955), also van Coetsem (1969), avoided altogether references to 'Proto-Germanic'; other scholars, like Sparnaay (1961), criticized the concept of a monolithic proto-language without dialects. Maurer (1943) successfully attacked 'West Germanic' as an areal and tribal entity, within an analysis of the grouping and development of the Germanic languages but largely on the basis of Germanic tribal and archeology; cf. also H. Arntz in Götze et al. (1934:41-4). Schwarz (1951) found in analyzing all pertinent that Maurer's Elbgermanen, his Nordseegermanen, derived from Ingvaeonic, and his -Rhein- germanen are usable subdivisions. His Südgermanisch, already proposed by Neckel (1927), in opposition to the Gotonordisch of the Nordgermanen, essentially just OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1233 substitutes another term for the traditional West Germanic (Westgermanisch), not, of course, in the old sense of a uniform proto-language. To Kuhn (1955) Schwarz's Gotonordisch is a highly questionable 'Sorgenkind'. In Rosel's (1962) detailed, well documented study any Stammbaum division of Germanic is rejected;West Germanic is seen as characterized by the gradual realignment of Pre-English from North to . Rosenfeld (1954) denied that 'North-Sea Germanic' was ever a part of North Germanic. The grouping controversy has proven helpful in evaluating the posi- tion and linguistic data of Old Saxon, Old , and Old Frisian (§§ 5, 6) because partly removed the rigidity of the concept of West Germanic without in- validating reconstruction procedures of shared Germanic features. Wrede's (1924) earlier theory of an 'Ingvaeonic' spread to territory had been refuted but proved highly stimulating. Lack of specific North Germanic features makes it difficult to assign the oldest Runic inscriptions to 'Proto-Norse' (§3.1). This applies, .., to the famous inscription on the horn of Gallehus of 400 A.. (Schwarz 1951:243; Krause 1966, see §3.6 below), which is Spatgemeingermanisch to Kuhn (1955:45). Continental Runic inscriptions as described by Arntz and Zeiss (1939) cannot be called Old High German (§7.1 below) either, unless there is some reflection of the High German shift, as, e.g., in Wurmlingen's Idorih of the seventh century. The presumably oldest Germanic inscrip- tion (of the beginning of our era), the helmet of Negau, which was a favorite topic of analysis by Germanic scholars, was recently shown by the Austrian classicist Egger (1959) to contain genitive (HARIXASTI TEI). The characteristics of Germanic were described by Meillet (1937), sees in its differences from other Indo-European (IE) languages the result of the adoption of Indo-European by non-IE speakers. Similar opinions have been advanced in explain- ing the Germanic consonant shift by adherents of substratum theories (§1.2 below). Comprehensive comparative treatments of Germanic and were provided by Boer (1918), Hirt (1931-34), and Krahe (1967). Streitberg's Proto- Germanic of 1896 has been recently reprinted without changes (Streitberg 1963). Van Coetsem's (1969) most recent account emphasizes Germanic phonemics.

1.2 Phonology

The reexamination of the grouping of, and the relation between, the Germanic lan- guages (§1.1 above) by German scholars shows the unabated healthy influence of findings and methods of dialectal geography. This applies also to Germanic historical phonology in the twentieth century: cf. Bretschneider (1930). ' 'Schallanalyse' once seemed to provide a theory and a technique for direct access to the phonetic data contained in written monuments of the past as if in a deep freeze. The application to OE, OS, OHG material has shown Sievers' technique to be based primarily on highly sophisticated scholarly empathy, his theories concerning the 1234 HERBERT PENZL relation between oral and written data, pitch and change to be essentially mis- leading. Sound-identification through 'Schallanalyse' had a great influence in the twenties, cf. Fritz Karg in the Streitberg-Festschrift (Stand und Aufgaben 1924:112-25). A structural approach to sound-change and the recognition of 'systems' of and have been advocated since an early date. While Streitberg (Streitberg et al. 1936:291) ridicules Max Miiller's 'Unterscheidungstrieb' and declares the teleological explanation of as finished ('abgetan'), M.H. Jellinek in a postscript refers to Karl Luick's (§4.7 below) work with the remark: 'Jetzt urteilt anders.' Pfalz's (1918) 'Reihenschritte', i.e. parallelism in connected sound changes, expressed a useful concept for the description of historic and prehistoric changes. Martinet (1955) has formulated connected chains of phonemic change. . Fourquet pleaded for the recognition of this type of causation (§4.2 below), similarly van Coet- sem (1964) for a structural approach in Germanic historical phonemics. Benediktsson (1967) discussed the Proto-Germanic -system in terms of Roman Jakobson's 'distinctive features'. German scholars have now begun to apply American transformationalist techniques of description also to historical data, e.g. Motsch (1967) in his description of verbal ablaut. The Germanic consonant shift, 'Grimm's Law', is a reconstructed change from a reconstructed Indo-European consonant pattern to a reconstructed Proto-Germanic pattern. Yet its alleged cause has often been treated as if the explanation of phonemic change in general depended on it. The description of the change involved also postu- lating specific consonant values for Indo-European, e.g. for the so-called 'media aspirata' (Steinhauser 1930:102), the aspirated tenues, as well as for Proto-Germanic. Steinhauser (1930) and Kretschmer (1932), as J. Franck before, already assumed Proto-Germanic voiced stops *[bdg] for IE *bh *dh * in certain environments; Lessiak (1933) and others rejected this. Seebold (1967) investigated reflexes of IE *gtih in Germanic. The assumed Proto-Germanic aspiration of voiceless stops, a subtle detail to be reconstructed, led to a controversy because of their Finnish render- ing in (Streitberg et al. 1936:279 f.) from Germanic (§1.5 below). 'Verner's Law', i.e. the split of non-initial Pre-Germanic spirants as, e.g., from IE * in Gothic fadar, bropar, was generally considered to follow chronologically a general shift of IE voiceless stops to voiceless spirants. Boer (1918:123f.) linked the split to the IE pitch-accent rather than to the -accent. Repeatedly efforts were made to provide a 'phonetic explanation' for Verner's Law (see Russer 1931:95-107). The voiced *[] *[d] *[g] (from IE *p *t *) of the voiceless spirants coalesced with the shifted result of IE *bh *dh *gh. *- became a beside -*s, after the Germanic withdrawal of the accent to the root- removed the former deter- mination of the allophones by accent: PGmc. *-/s/, *-/z/. Investigation of the relative sequence (chronology) of the shifting of the various IE consonant types resulted in an early recognition of a structural link between the shift of mediae and tenues by some scholars, e.g. by Georg Curtius in 1853, Wilhelm Scherer in 1870 (Streitberg et al. 1936:291f.). More recently descriptions by Pisani OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1235 (1955), Kretschmer (1932), Fourquet (1948), and van Coetsem (1969:§4.224) stressed the structural chain of shifts through which, contrary to other IE languages, the IE consonantal oppositions remained intact in Proto-Germanic. Among reconstructed causes for the shift, a non-IE substratum was assumed by Karsten (1928a:120ff.), Güntert (1927), Meillet (1937), Sparnaay (1961:22), before them by Feist in many publications since 1910 (Streitberg et al. 1936:292-301). Various uniform articulatory and physiological tendencies were postulated to explain Grimm's Law, see Russer (1931:204ff.). The origin of PGmc. geminate tenues, possibly through before n, as in Old Norse lokkr, Lithuanian lugnas, has been a frequent topic (Streitberg et al. 1936: 329-35). Krahe (1967:§111), who writes of 'spontane Konsonantenverdoppelung', and others have attributed most instances to 'expressiveness', a kind of sound-sym- bolism; see also Martinet (1937), Wissmann (1932:160-98). before j and other voiced consonants, of course, is a feature shared by all West Germanic lan- guages, for which Schwarz (1951:262f.) assumes fairly late 'North-Sea Germanic' origin. Within the Common Germanic vowel pattern a good deal of attention was given to *£?! (< IE *e: Gothic nemum, OHG nämum; gebum, OHG gäbum, pret. ) and

*e2 (Gothic her, OHG hier). Hirt (1931:34f.) suggested deriving e2 from IE *ei rather than from an assumed *ei. Van Coetsem (1956) explained e2 as from a split of IE *ei into Gmc. *z and *e2 according to the following vowels (also van Coetsem 1969: §4.216). Lüdtke (1957) stressed the origin of e2 by contraction of *e of the prefix and the stem-vowel of the reduplicating , which Streitberg and others had assumed (Streitberg et al. 1936:367-9). The West Germanic and North Germanic coalescence of *e1 and *ä from nasalized long a (OHG brähta pret.) was linked to the develop- ment of the new e2, e.g. by Fourquet (§4.2 below). Hirt's (1931:§84) description of reduction and loss in Germanic unstressed final ('Auslautgesetze') included the differences in the reflexes of vowels with alleged ('dreimorige Längen') and acute accents ('zweimorige Längen'): e.g. in Gothic -a and -o in giba (< *IE a) and galeikö (< IE *äd); see Streitberg 1963:§152; Streitberg et al. 1936:437-48, Jung 1956:304-14.

1.3 Morphology

Common Germanic morphological features have found detailed discussion, not only in the comprehensive treatments by Boer (1918), Streitberg (1963), Krahe (1967), but also in comparative studies of individual Germanic languages, especially of Gothic (§2.3 below). Rosel (1962) based his research on the grouping of the Germanic lan- guages on extant morphological isoglosses. Certain inflectional form-classes in Germanic have been described from a comparative point of view: e.g. feminine o-stem by Flasdieck (§5.7 below), o- by Wissmann (1932), e-verbs also by 1236 HERBERT PENZL Flasdieck (1935, see §4.7 below), strong verb classes by van Coetsem (1956) and Stutterheim (1960), reduplicating verbs by Karstien (1921). Numerals were treated by Rosenfeld (1956), and differently by Szemerenyi (1960). striking Germanic innovation has been a frequent topic: the origin and forma- tion of the of the 'weak' verb with its dental . Many scholars have favored 'periphrastic' origin by the compounding of a deverbative nominal form and the IE verb *dho-/*dhe- 'to do' (see §2.3 below): e.g. Boer (1918:§229), Sverdrup (1929), Hirt (1932:§124), Krahe (1967:II.§90), Wisniewski (1963). Bech (1963) recon- structed a combination of the preterite endings of the verb 'to do' and a verbal with a *i-suffix. Hammerich (1921) has suggested a compounding of a nominal stem- form and the substantive verb *, for which adduced as evidence i in preterite optative forms (Hammerich 1959). Other scholars have preferred assuming an exten- sion from single IE forms or formatives containing a dental (Bech 1963:§61). Hirt (1932) favors for the first weak class the additional influence of the verbal in *to. Among single endings the 2nd pers.sing. of the strong preterite with its dialectal distinctions (Gothic, ON namt, OHG nami) has been the of considerable study: e.g. by Schroder (1921). The West Germanic ending was taken to be the reflex of a thematic IE form (Hirt 1932:§122). Rosel (1962:39-44) rejected the assumption by Schwarz (1951:264f.) and others that the retention of the ending -t - vided a strong argument for early 'Gotho-nordic' unity. Germanic word formation has received more attention in recent . It was taken up by Hirt (1932), particularly in chapters I and XIV. Kluge's (1926) treatment of nominal stem formation, revised by L. Siitterlin and E. Ochs, has remained the most detailed. Carr (1939) described nominal compounds, Johannisson (1939) verbal com- pounds, Hinderling (1967) verbal abstracts. like *-inga, *-unga were treated by Munske (1964), those suffixes containing -st by Meid (1964). Meid (1967) has recently added a supplementary volume to Krahe (1967) with a brief but comprehen- sive description including many comparative IE data.

1.4

Systematic descriptions of Germanic syntax came much later than those of phonology or morphology. It long remained, in the words of Helmut Arntz (Götze et al. 1934: 60), a 'Stiefkind' of scholars (Stand und Aufgaben 1924:419). The first really com- prehensive study of Germanic syntax was Hirt's (1934), although Behaghel's monu- mental work 'Deutsche Syntax' (§7.7 below) already offered many comparative Germanic data. Behaghel (1929) also studied the position of the verb in Germanic sentences. of Germanic were treated in publications by Schneider (1938), Fourquet (1938), Kuhn (1933). Phrases consisting of forms of 'to be' and the present , which became the 'progressive forms' of English (see OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1237 §4.4 below), were described by Mosse (1938). The Germanic definite was treat- ed by Heinrichs (1954), the by Schmidt (1962) in a dissertation, the function of the preterite by Rompelman (1953), the use of the present subjunctive in conditional clauses by Mattsson (1934), and the dual by (1956). The Ger- manic passive phrase was the topic of a semantic interpretation by 's Mittner (1939). 1.5 Vocabulary

Hjalmar Falk's and A. 's Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit of 1909 has remained the only comprehensive list of its kind. Stroh (Maurer and Stroh 1959: 1-49) provided a welcome summary of the Pro to-Germanic vocabulary. There have been a number of studies of specific areas of the vocabulary, e.g. of that of by Wessen (1927). The influx and diffusion of Latin terms in Early Germanic, partic- ularly in West Germanic, is the subject of a by Frings (1966). The remnants of Germanic language material as represented by and loanwords on Romance soil were studied by Gamillscheg (1934). Germanic loanwords in Slavic were analyzed by Stender-Petersen (1927) and by 's Kiparsky (1934), early Germanic loanwords in Finnish by Wiklund (1918), Karsten (1928b), Collinder (1932), and Fromm (1958). were also used as source material for Early Germanic; specific phonological conclusions proved to be rather controversial (§1.1 above). 1.6 Names

Personal and place names in Latin and Greek texts are the oldest Germanic material available. They have been used to document the relative chronology of such Common Germanic changes as *e > *i before i, *e > *i before nasal plus consonant, the change of IE *o to Gmc. *a, and others. M. Schonfeld's of Germanic personal and tribal names has since its appearance in 1911 remained unsurpassed as a source (Schonfeld 1965). Conclusions as to the phonological history of Early Germanic based on such forms as 's , 's Langobardi with both a and o, Caesar's with e versus Tacitus' Inguiomerus with i, Tacitus' Segimerus versus Velleius Paterculus' Sigimerus (Fromm 1958:95f.) remain quite tenuous, however, since only uniform, oral sources and regular and parallel substitutions would make such isolated -forms diagraphically comparable. Only in a later period do frequency, consistency, and geographic distribution show in name-forms with -marius, -marus {Ballomarius, Chnodomarius), and -meres, -meris, -merus clearly a change from e (*ex) to /a/. Gutenbrunner (1936) studied the names of Germanic gods in classical inscriptions. Krahe repeatedly investigated Germanic hydronomic data which he found to be especially archaic (Krahe 1964). Bach's (1952-56) treatment of German and Germanic names is most comprehensive and important. 1238 HERBERT PENZL

1.7 Bibliography

ARNTZ, HELMUT, and HANSZEISS. 1939. Die einheimischen Runendenkmäler des Festlandes. Leipzig, Harrassowitz. BACH, ADOLF. 1952-56. Deutsche Namenkunde. 3 vols. Heidelberg, Winter. BECH, GUNNAR. 1963. Die Entstehung des schwachen Präteritums. HFM 40/4. , Munksgaard. BEHAGHEL, OTTO. 1929. Zur Stellung des Verbs im Germanischen und Indoger- manischen. KZ 56.276-81. BENEDIKTSSON, HREINN. 1967. The Proto-Germanic vowel system. To honor Roman Jakobson, 174-96. The Hague, Mouton. BOER, . . 1918. Oergermaansch Handboek. (2nd ed. 1924.) Haarlem, H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon. BRETSCHNEIDER, ANNELIESE. 1930. Sprachkarte und Sprachgeschichte. IF 48.181— 221. CARR, T. 1939. Nominal Compounds in Germanie. (St. Andrews Univer- sity Publications 41.) Oxford, University Press. COETSEM, FRANS VAN. 1956. Das System der starken Verben und die Periodisierung im älteren Germanischen. MKNA 19/1. Amsterdam. . 1964. Structural linguistics and the study of Old Germanie. Some remarks and applications. Lingua 13.30-48. . 1969. Zur Entwicklung der germanischen Grundsprache. (Pauls Grundriß der germ. Philologie.) Berlin, de Gruyter. COLLINDER, BJÖRN. 1932. Die urgermanischen Lehnwörter im Finnischen. Uppsala. (Skrifter Humanist. Vetensk. Samf. i Uppsala 28/1, 34/3.) EGGER, RUDOLF. 1959. Die Inschrift des Harigasthelmes. AÖAW 96.79-91. FOURQUET, JEAN. 1938. L'ordre des éléments de la phrase en germanique ancien. (Publications de la faculté des lettres de l'université de 86.) Paris, Les belles lettres. . 1948. Les mutations consonantiques du germanique. Essai de position des problèmes. (Publications de la faculté des lettres de l'université de Strasbourg 111.) Paris, Les belles lettres. FRINGS, THEODOR. 1966. Romana. (Mitteldeutsche Studien 19/1.) 2. Aufl. von Gertraud Müller. (Saale), VEB Niemeyer. FROMM, HANS. 1958. Die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Finnischen. ZDA 88.81-101, 211-40, 299-324. GAMILLSCHEG, ERNST. 1934. Germanica. Sprach- und Siedlungsgeschichte der Germanen auf dem Boden des alten Römerreiches. (Pauls Grundriß der germ. Phil. 11/1.) Berlin, de Gruyter. GÖTZE, ALFRED, WILHELM HORN, and FRIEDRICH MAURER. 1934. Germanische Phi- lologie. Ergebnisse und Aufgaben. Festschrift für Otto Behaghel. Heidelberg, Winter. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1239

GÜNTERT, HERMANN. 1927. Über die Ursache der germanischen Lautverschiebung. WuS 10.1-22. GUTENBRUNNER, SIEGFRIED. 1936. Die germanischen Götternamen der antiken In- schriften. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. HAMMERICH, LOUIS L. 1921. Det germanske svage Praeteritum. Arkiv 38.21-50. . 1959. L'optatif du prétérit faible. Mélanges Fernand Mossé, 197-203. Paris, Didier. HEINRICHS, HEINRICH MATTHIAS. 1954. Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den ger- manischen Sprachen. (Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie, 1.) Gießen. HINDERUNG, R. 1967. Studien zu den starken Verbalabstrakta des Germanischen. Berlin, de Gruyter. HIRT, HERMANN. 1931-34. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. Teil I: Laut und Akzent- lehre, 1931. Teil II: Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, 1932. Teil III: Abriss der Syntax, 1934. (Indogermanische Bibliothek.) Heidelberg, Winter. JOHANNISSON, TURE. 1939. Verbal och postverbal partikel-komposition i de ger- manska Spraken. (Dissertation Lund.) Lund, Olssons boktryckeri. JUNG, EDMOND. 1956. Chronologie relative des faits phonétiques du Germanique commun. EGerm 11.294-320. KARSTEN, T.E. 1928a. Die Germanen. Eine Einführung in die Geschichte ihrer Sprache und Kultur. (Grundriß der germ. Philologie 9.) Berlin, de Gruyter. . 1928b. Die Fortschritte der germanisch-finnischen Lehnwortforschung seit . Thomsen. GRM 16.358-79. KARSTIEN, CARL. 1921. Die reduplizierten Perfekta des -und Westgermani- schen. Gießen, . Münchow'sche Universitätsdruckerei. KIPARSKY, VALENTIN. 1934. Die gemeinslavischen Lehnwörter aus dem Germa- nischen. AASF 32. Helsinki. KLUGE, FRIEDRICH. 1926. Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgermanischen Dia- lekte. 3. Aufl. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. KRÄHE, HANS. 1964. Unsere ältesten Flußnamen. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. . 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. I: Einleitung und Lautlehre. II: Formenlehre. (Sammlung Göschen 238, 780.) 6. Aufl. Berlin, de Gruyter. KRETSCHMER, PAUL. 1932. Die Urgeschichte der Germanen und die germanische Lautverschiebung. Wiener prähist. Zeitschrift 19.269-80. KUHN, HANS. 1933. Zur Wortstellung und Wortbetonung im Altgermanischen. PBB 57.1-109. . 1955. Zur Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. ZDA 86.1-47. LESSIAK, PRIMUS. 1933. Beiträge zur Geschichte des deutschen Konsonantismus. Brünn, Rohrer.

LÜDTKE, HELMUT. 1957. Der Ursprung des germanischen e2 und die Reduplika- tionspräterita. Phonetica 1.157-83. MARTINET, ANDRÉ. 1937. La gémination consonantique d'origine expressive dans les langues germaniques. Paris. 1240 HERBERT PENZL

MARTINET, ANDRÉ. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern, Francke. MATTSSON, GÖSTA. 1934. Presens konjunktiv i den germanska konditionalsatsen. Studia Germanica tillägnade Ernst Albin Kock, 220-5. Lund, C. Blom. MAURER, FRIEDRICH. 1943. Nordgermanen und Alemannen. Studien zur germa- nischen und frühdeutschen Sprachgeschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde. 2nd ed. Straßburg, Hünenburg-Verlag. MAURER, FRIEDRICH, and FRIEDRICH STROH. 1959. Deutsche Wortgeschichte, 1-50. (Grundriß der germ. Phil. 17/1.) 2nd ed., vol. I. Berlin, de Gruyter. MEID, WOLFGANG. 1964. Über s in Verbindung mit /-haltigen Suffixen, besonders im Germanischen. IF 69.218-55. . 1967. Wortbildungslehre. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III, von H. Krähe. (Sammlung Göschen 1218.) MEILLET, ANTOINE. 1937. Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. 5th ed. Paris, Hachette. MITTNER, LADISLAUS. 1939. Schicksal und Werden im Altgermanischen. WuS 20.253-80. MossÉ, FERNAND. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. Paris, Klincksieck. MÖTSCH, WOLFGANG. 1967. Zum Ablaut der Verben in der Frühperiode - scher Sprachen. Phonologische Studien, 119-144. (Studia Grammatica 6.) Berlin, Akademie-Verlag. MUNSKE, HORST HAIDER. 1964. Das Suffix *-inga/-unga in den germanischen Spra- chen. Marburg, Elwert. NECKEL, GUSTAV. 1927. Die Verwantschaft der germanischen Sprachen unterein- ander. PBB 51.1-17. PFALZ, ANTON. 1918. Beiträge zur Kunde der bayerisch-österreichischen Mundarten. SbÖAW 190.22-42. PISANI, VITTORE. 1955. Introduzione allo studio delle lingue germaniche. 3rd ed. by Marco Scovazzi. Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. ROMPELMAN, T. A. 1953. Form und Funktion des Präteritums im Germanischen. Nph 37.65-89. RÖSEL, LUDWIG. 1962. Die Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen nach dem Zeug- nis ihrer Flexionsformen. (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach-und Kunstwissenschaft 11.) Nürnberg, Hans Carl. ROSENFELD, HANS-FRIEDRICH. 1954. Zur sprachlichen Gliederung des Germanischen. ZPhon 8.365-89. . 1956. Die germanischen Zahlen von 70-90 und die Entwicklung des Aufbaus der germanischen Zahlwörter. WZIJG 6.171-215. RUSSER, WILHELMINA STEVINA. 1931. De germaansche klankverschuiving. Een hoofdstuk uit de geschiedenis der germaansche taalwetenschap. Haarlem, Tjeenk Willink. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1241

SCHMIDT, GERNOT. 1962. Studien zum germanischen Adverb. (Dissertation.) Berlin, Freie Universität. SCHNEIDER, KARL. 1938. Die Stellungstypen des finiten Verbs im urgermanischen Haupt- und Nebensatz. Heidelberg, Winter. SCHÖNFELD, M. 1965. Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen. Nach der Überlieferung des klassischen Altertums bearbeitet. 1. Aufl. 1911. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. SCHRÖDER, EDWARD. 1921. Die 2. Person Singular Perfekti starker Flexion im West- germanischen. IF 39.224-9. SCHWARZ, ERNST. 1951. Goten, Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen. Studien zur Aus- gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. (Bibliotheca germanica, 2.) Bern, Francke. SEEBOLD, E. 1967. Die Vertretung von idg. guh im Germanischen. KZ 81.104-33. SPARNAAY, H. 1961. Zur Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters. Groningen. Wol- ters. Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaft. 1924. Festschrift für Wilhelm Streit- berg. Heidelberg, Winter. STEINHAUSER, WALTER. 1930. Zur Diphthongierung von germ. e2 und . Teuthonista 6.81-108. STENDER-PETERSEN, A. 1927. Slavisch-germanische Lehnwortkunde. Eine Studie über die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Slavischen. (Göteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhälles handlingar 31.) STREITBERG, WILHELM. 1963. Urgermanische Grammatik. Einführung in das ver- gleichende Studium der altgermanischen Dialekte. 1. Aufl. 1896; 3. Aufl. Heidel- berg, Winter. STREITBERG, WILHELM, VICTOR MICHELS, and MAX HERMANN JELLINEK. 1936. Ger- manisch I. Allgemeiner Teil und Lautlehre. (Geschichte der idg. Sprachwissen- schaft II/2.) Berlin, de Gruyter. STUTTERHEIM, C. F. P. 1960. Structuralism and reconstruction. Some notes on the verbal system of Primitive Germanic. Lingua 9.237-57. SVERDRUP, JACOB. 1929. Das germanische Dentalpräteritum. NTS 2.5-96. SZEMERENYI, OSWALD. 1960. Studies in the Indo-European system of numerals. Heidelberg, Winter. WAGNER, HEINRICH. 1956. Zum Dual im Germanischen. KZ 74.177-84. WESSEN, ELIAS. 1927. Om den äldsta kristna terminologien i de germanska forn- spräken. Arkiv 44.75-108. WIKLUND, K.B. 1918. Die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Finnischen. IF 38.48-115. WISNIEWSKI, ROSWITHA. 1963. Die Bildung des schwachen Präteritums und die primären Berührungseffekte. PBB(T) 85.1-17. WISSMANN, WILHELM, 1932. Nomina postverbalia in den altgermanischen Sprachen. 1242 HERBERT PENZL

I. Teil: Deverbative ö-Verba im Germanischen. (Ergänzungsheft zur KZ, 11.) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. WREDE, FERDINAND. 1924. Ingwäonisch und Westgermanisch. Zeitschrift für deutsche Maa. 19.270-83.

2. GOTHIC

2.1 General

A classified bibliography of publications dealing with Gothic up to 1949 was made available by Mosse (1950), supplemented by him up to 1953 (Moss6 1953), and with Marchand up to 1957 (Mosse and Marchand 1957); it is being continued by E.A. Ebbinghaus. The Gothic corpus was published in by Streitberg (1919), and by Wrede (1920) who revised the edition of F. L. Stamm and M. Heyne. Welcome facsimile editions of the main Gothic , the Codex argenteus and the Ambrosian codices were supplied by von Friesen and Grape (1927) and by de Vries (1936), respectively. The minor Gothic monuments have repeatedly been studied: the Gothic Calendar by Loewe (1922) and Friedrichsen (1927), the Gotica Veronensia by von Kraus (1929); the ring of Pietroassa with its Runic inscription (gutaniowi- hailag) recently by Isba$escu (1960), and by Gutenbrunner (1964). The treatment of phonology, morphology, and syntax in Streitberg's (1920) book is basically descriptive. This applies to Mosse's (1942) grammar, which is the first com- prehensive study of Gothic in French. The many editions of Braune's grammar be- tween 1880 and 1920, its revision by Karl Helm in five editions between 1928 and 1956, and finally by Ebbinghaus (Braune and Ebbinghaus 1966), also Hempel's (1966), and other German treatments reflect the long tradition of Gothic as a teaching subject for Germanists in German universities. Jellinek's (1926) study constitutes an indepen- dent approach to questions of Gothic phonology, e.g. sound statistics (53-61), and word-formation; it is less diachronically oriented than its implies. Kieckers' (1928), Krahe's (1948), Krause's (1968), also van Hamel's (1931) handbooks empha- size the comparative treatment of Gothic sounds and forms, i.e. their derivation from reconstructed Proto-Germanic. This applies also to the first Gothic grammar in Italian since S. Friedmann's in 1896 by Mastrelli (1967).

2.2 Phonology

Wulfila's own for Gothic and its use in a fourth century sizable corpus largely free from scribal sixth century deviations attracted in recent years American scholars (e.g. Moulton, Penzl, Marchand, O. Jones, Hamp, Bennett) who investigated various aspects of the relation between , phonemic system, and sound OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1243 values from the structural point of view. The of Wulfila's Gothic have, however, in been the subject of intensive discussion for considerable time. Wulfila's ai in ains 'one', bairan 'to ', bairai (opt. 3rd pers.), saian 'sow', and au in augo 'eye', faur 'fore', bauan 'reside', since they correspond to Germanic short vowels, long vowels, and , respectively, were given these three, sometimes only two, sound-values on the basis of the comparative evidence: e.g. by Jellinek (1926:§40f.), Krause (1968:§49.3), Braune and Ebbinghaus (1966:§21f.). Wrede (1920) saw even different vowels in fisks '' (Gmc. */), and giban 'give' (Gmc. *e); in sums 'son' (Gmc. *u) and wulfs '' (Gmc. *o). Only monophthongs for ai au were assumed by Hirt (1931; §1.7 above), Arntz (1934), Mosse (1956:§25, pp. 45-7), O.L. Sayce in his revision of Wright's (1954) grammar, Mastrelli (1967: Appendix pp. 233-8), Ebbinghaus in Braune and Ebbinghaus (1966:§§20-6a). Van der Lee (1962) correctly stressed the fact that not the specific monophthongal or diphthongal values but rather the presence or absence of phonemic distinction compared to Wul- fila's graphic coalescence was the main issue, ai au are, however, certainly used to transliterate short Greek monophthongal e and o in names like, e.g., Zaibaidaius, Gaumaurra, etc. Streitberg, who proudly referred to Sievers' Intonationsforschungen in the Vorwort (Streitberg 1920:vii), was severely criticized by van Hamel (1931) for 'selling out' to Sievers' authority. Indeed, Streitberg's evidence for the values of ai au as well as for, e.g., stop values for medial b d g is simply information obtained from Sievers' 'Schallanalyse' (Streitberg 1920:§§70, 74; 35). DeVries (1930), as well as Manganella (1958), discussed Gothic /h/. Boüüaert (1950) derives the symbol written from a form of Greek k, and generally denies any influence from the as assumed by Gutenbrunner (1950) and others. An interesting Norse-Gothic involves Gmc. *jj and *ww: Olcel. tueggia, Gothic twaddje, but OHG zweiio 'of two' (gen.pl.), Olcel. tryggr, Goth, triggws, OHG triuwi 'true'. The underlying sound change, the so-called Verschärfimg, has been attributed to a of factors, frequently to position of the accent, and often discussed, e.g. by van Coetsem (1949), Lindeman (1962). Since Wulfila followed in writing the [rj] of /n/ as g, e.g. siggwan 'sing', it is not differentiated from the geminate cluster gg in bliggwan 'strike'. The belief in a flawless as created by Wulfila has led to a revival of the old view, held e.g. by L. Meyer in 1896, that gg always stands for /ng/, even in triggws: e.g. Mosse (1956:§23.1) who follows J.W. Marchand, Hempel (1966). It has been strangely difficult for European scholars, in spite of the double representation of IE *pl as fl (flodus '') and pi- (pliuhan 'flee'), to accept the fact that Gothic pi compared to West Gmc., North Gmc.,/7 was an innovation: cf. Matzel (1962), Braune and Ebbing- haus (1966:§71, Anm. 2).

2.3 Morphology

Schwarz (1951:71-119, §1.7 above) reconstructed in comparing Gothic and Old Norse 1244 HERBERT PENZL a Gotho-Nordic (Gotonordisch) morphology (§1.1 above). The more striking Gothic forms have been repeatedly treated, particularly if they disagree with other Gmc. forms: e.g. e in the gen.plur. (dage), the strange pronominal izwis (ON ydr, OS eu, iu) '', the 2nd pers.dual bigitats, the 3rd. pers.sing. imp. atsteigadau, the 1st pers.opt. qipau, the preterit iddja. -e instead of the expected -ö in dage was called 'möglicher- weise eine sekundäre Umbildung' by Krause (1968: §122); it was also derived from an IE instrumental-ablative (Arntz 1934:65). Krähe (1948:73) surmised an origin among 7'a-stems; cf. Kieckers (1928:108), Pisani (1930), Morgenroth (1965). izwis is derived from *wizwiz by Rosenfeld (1954, §1.7 above) through . A final particle -u is usually seen in atsteigadau: Kieckers (1928:193). This particle is also assumed in qipau after an IE subjunctive form by Kieckers, but Krahe (1948:§86) derived the ending from an IE optative -*oiip (> Gmc. *aiu(n)), which is accepted by Krause (1968 :§216). bigitats (< IE -*ethes) seems to reflect an unusual change of *- > -ts, for which Stang (1949) blamed the laryngeal underlying *, which was rejected by Dal (1952); cf. Krause (1968:§§96, 258), Jellinek (1926:§65, Anm. 2), and Höst (1954). Kieckers (1928:191) assumes original *-d z. The «-stem manna is analyzed by Ramat (1963), the comparative forms in -uma by Szemerenyi (1960), the weak verbs in -nan by Anner- (1956). The characteristic Gothic reduplicating plural endings of the weak preterite (nasi- dedum from nasjan 'to save') have often been treated since they appear to be the best support for its periphrastic origin (§1.3 above); the verb 'to do' does not exist as a separate verb in Gothic, cf. van Hamel (1931:§145, Anm. 2), Mastrelli (1967:§62.2). Opponents of the composition-theory, like formerly H. Collitz, K. Brugmann, sug- gest as a source single forms with a dental: e.g. the 2nd pers.sing. of an IE medial aorist *thes (Krause 1968:§214a) or other formations with a i-suffix (Kieckers 1928: 253). — Gothic word-formation is treated in the handbooks and in special studies, e'.g. by Benveniste (1960) on abstract nouns in -ti-, and by Grewolds (1932) on com- pounds.

2.4 Syntax

The necessity of evaluating all Gothic syntactical features against the background of a Greek original which has to be partly reconstructed has made their study more difficult. The description implies also an analysis of Wulfila's technique of ('Übersetzungstechnik', the term of Hans Stolzenburg and J. M. N. Kapteijn). Gothic syntax is treated from the comparative point of view in Otto Behaghel's 'Deutsche Syntax' (§7.7 below) and by Hirt (1934, §1.7 above). Kauffmann's articles (1920) that followed similar publications between 1897 and 1911 by him, contain valuable material which was called 'noch nicht ausgeschöpft' by Stutz (1966:59). Friedrichsen's textual studies (1926, 1939) comparing Gothic variants and Greek (or Latin) presumable Vorlagen, and Hansen's (1961) investigation of 'rhythm' in the Codex argenteus pro- OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1245 vided many additional data. Friedrichsen (1961, 1962) also studied syntax and voca- bulary of the Skeireins; Hofmann (1960) preceded him. As to specific problems, word-order has been described by Cuendet (1929) and Fourquet (1938, §1.7), the use of the passive by Mittner (1939) and by Schröder (1957, 1958), the use of the article by Sauvageot (1929). Particular attention has been devoted to the alleged presence of aspect in Gothic. Streitberg (1920: §§290ff.), who was the first to write in 1891 on 'Perfective und imperfective Actionsart im Germanischen', contributed to this discussion, also Krause (1968 :§§ 203-6), who distinguishes Aktions- art linked to the lexical meaning of a verb and Aspekt, its use; see also Marache (1960). The data point to lexical and word-formational distinction (e.g. perfective gahausjan, durative hausjan) but do not support the assumption of a special grammatical category.

2.5 Vocabulary

There is still no modern dictionary that, based on up-to-date , lists all occur- rences of Gothic words, thus improving on Ernst Schulze's Gothisches Glossar of 1847 and the dictionary part of volume 2 of H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe's of 1843-46. Streitberg's (1919) glossary entries are satisfactory for reference. Beside one of Holthausen's (1934) brief we have Feist's (1939) detailed with ample bibliography, registers, and references. Jellinek (1926) discussed in chapter 9 (§§240if.) Latin and Greek loans in Gothic; de Vries (1956) compared the vocabulary of Gothic to that of North and West Germanic. Gothic loans in the are treated in Meyer-Liibke's (1935) etymo- logical dictionary and by Gamillscheg (1932; also 1934, §1.7 above). Place- and personal names in Romance countries were described by Sachs (1932), Battisti (1956), and Piel (1936-45).

2.6

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, as Emperor Ferdinand I's envoy around 1560 in Con- stantinople, recorded a list of 89 words and short phrases which was published in 'Busbequii legationis turcicae epistolae quatuor' in 1589 in Paris. This is the corpus of the so-called Crimean Gothic. It has been repeatedly studied ever since its pre- sumably unauthorized first publication: cf. vandeVelde (1966). Edward Schroder clarified the textual tradition in 1910. The character of the vocabulary, which Busbecq called 'germanica' and compared to his own native , was identified by R. Loewe in 1896 as the dialect of the Herules between West and North Germanic, also Arntz (1934:63) called it 'eine Mischung'. Streitberg (1920:§17), van Hamel (1931: §10), and Krahe (1948:24f.) considered it East Germanic, in 1951 Schwarz (162-75; §1.7 above) North Germanic and close to Wulfila's Gothic, others, e.g. Krause (1968: §22), a Gothic subdialect. A brief comparative treatment of the phonology was pro- 1246 HERBERT PENZL vided by Jellinek (1926: §§77, 109). The presence of the four short vowel /e/ /i/ and /o/ /u/ in reghen 'pluvia', schuuester, sevene, rinck 'anulus', fisct 'piscis', goltz 'aurum', boga 'arcus', brimna 'fons', thurn 'porta' was recognized as a decisive difference from Wulfila's Gothic with /I/ /u/: rign, swistar, sibun, gulp. /I/ and /ü/ in mine 'luna', schlipen 'dormire', mycha 'ensis', plut 'sanguis', bruder corresponding to Gothic ë and ö {mena, slepan, meki, bloß, bropar) were compared to a parallel Ostro- gothic development, d in ada 'ovum' corresponding to Gothic ddj (< *jj) provides a striking isogloss. Höfler's (1957, §7.7 below) interpretation of p in plut, t in tag as evidence of a Crimean Gothic sound shift of lenis to fortis was rejected by van de Velde (1964:109, 117f.). He rightly advocates caution in evaluating material derived from a French printer's publication of the casual and isolated recording by a linguistic dilettante using essentially one non-native (Greek) informant. There has, incidentally, not been any systematic treatment of informant distortion and 'fieldworker's bias' in the Crimean Gothic corpus. Busbecq apparently heard /\>/ partly as /ts/ : goltz, statz 'terra', tzo 'tu'. The word list provided hardly any morphemic or syntactical data. The only text quoted is the ten-word, three-line beginning of a song ('cantilena') which was identi- fied as Turkish but has also been reclaimed as possibly Gothic, cf. the analysis by J. Dirichs (1951), Scardigli (1964:296-9). The of the individual words has been dealt with in some detail by Loewe in 1896 and 1902 (IF vol. 13). The words are all special entries in Feist's (1939) etymological dictionary.

2.7 Bibliography

ANNERHOLM, HJALMAR. 1956. Studier över de inkoativa verben pâ na(n) i Gotiskan och de nordiska fornspràken. (Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology, 14.) Lund, C. Blom. ARNTZ, HELMUT. 1934. Urgermanisch, Gotisch und Nordisch. Germanische Philo- logie, ed. by A. Götze et al. (§1.7 above), 29-74. BATTISTI, CARLO. 1956. L'elemento gotico nella toponomastica e nel lessico italiano. I Goti in Occidente, pp. 621-49. Spoleto, Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo. BENVENISTE, ÉMILE. 1960. Les noms abstraits en -ti- du gotique. Sprache 6.166-71. BOÜÜAERT, JOSEPH. 1950. Oorsprong en vorming van het gotisch alphabet. RBPh 28.423-37. BRAUNE, WILHELM, and ERNST A. EBBINGHAUS. 1966. Gotische Grammatik. 17thed. Tübingen, Niemeyer. COETSEM, FRANS VAN. 1949. Le renforcement des semivoyelles intervocaliques en germanique (j/jj > gotique ddj, etc.). LB 39.41-78. CUENDET, G. 1929. L'ordre des mots dans le texte grec et dans les versions gotique, arménienne et vieux slave des Évangiles. Paris, Champion. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1247

DAL, INGERID. 1952. Über die germanische Entsprechung von altind. th. NTS 16. 328-33. DIRICHS, J. 1951. Die einzigen gotischen Verse. Nph 35.145-51. FEIST, SIGMUND. 1939. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache mit Ein- schluß des Krimgotischen und sonstiger verstreuter Überreste des Gotischen. 3. Aufl. Leiden, Brill. FRIEDRICHSEN, G.W.S. 1926. The Gothic version of the . A study of its style and textual history. Oxford, Clarendon Press. . 1927. Notes on the Gothic calendar (cod. Ambros. A.). MLR 22.90-3. . 1939. The Gothic version of the . A study of its style and textual history. , Milford. . 1961. The Gothic Skeireins in the Greek original. Studies 8.43-56. . 1962. Notes on the Gothic . New Testament Studies 9.39-55. FRIESEN, OTTO VON, and ANDERS GRAPE, eds. 1927. Codez argenteus Upsaliensis jussu senatus universitatis phototypice editus. Uppsala. GAMILLSCHEG, ERNST. 1932. Historia lingüistica de los Visigodos. RFE 19.117-50, 229-50. GREWOLDS, HEINRICH. 1932. Die gotischen Komposita in ihrem Verhältnis zu denen der griechischen Vorlage. KZ 60.1-53, 61.145-79. GUTENBRUNNER, SIEGFRIED. 1950. Über den Ursprung des gotischen . PBB 72.500-8. . 1964. Die Pietroassa-Inschrift und der gotische Kalender. ZDPh 83.257-66. HAMEL, A. G. VAN. 1931. Gotisch Handboek. 2nd ed. 1st ed. 1923. (Oudger- maansche Handboeken, 3.) Haarlem, Tjeenk Willink. HANSEN, THOROLF. 1961. Über gewisse rhythmische Tendenzen im Codex Argenteus. (Acta Univ. Bergensis. Ser. , litt. 1961, 3.) & , Norw. Univer- sity Press. HEMPEL, HEINRICH. 1966. Gotisches Elementarbuch. (Sammlung Göschen 79/79a). 4th ed. Berlin, de Gruyter. HOFMANN, ERICH. 1960. Zum Gebrauch der Partizipien in der Skeireins. Indo- germanica (Festschrift W. Krause), 24-30. Heidelberg, Winter. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. 1934. Gotisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. (Germa- nische Bibliothek 4/8.) Heidelberg, Winter. HÖST, GERD. 1954. An archaic feature of the . NTS 17.441-53. ISBAJESCU, MIHAI. 1960. Der goldene Halsring von Pietroassa und seine runische Inschrift. PBB(H) 82.333-58, 359-63. (Zusatz by Gertraud Müller.) JELLINEK, MAX HERMANN. 1926. Geschichte der gotischen Sprache. (Grundriß der germ. Philologie 1/1.) Berlin, de Gruyter. KAUFFMANN, FRIEDRICH. 1920. Der Stil der gotischen Bibel. ZDPh 48.7-80, 165- 235, 349-88; 49.11-57. 1248 HERBERT PENZL

KIECKERS, ERNST. 1928. Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik. 2. Aufl. 1960. München, Hueber. KRÄHE, HANS. 1948. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Gotischen. Zugleich eine Einführung in die germanische Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd ed. 1967 by Elmar Seebold. Heidelberg, Winter. KRAUS, CARL VON. 1929. Gotica Veronensia. ZDA 66.209-13. KRAUSE, WOLFGANG. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd ed. München, Beck. LEE, A. VAN DER. 1962. Zur Aussprache der gotischen Digraphen ai und au. Fest- gabe für L.L. Hammerich, 125-52. Copenhagen, Naturmetodens Sproginstitut. LINDEMAN, OTTO. 1962. LA'Verschärfung'germanique. SL 16.1-23. LOEWE, RICHARD. 1922. Der gotische Kalender. ZDA 59.245-90. MANGANELLA, GEMMA. 1958. IL valore fonetico di her nei dialetti antico-germanici. AION-G 1.139-51. MARACHE, MAURICE. 1960. Die gotischen verbalen ga-Komposita im Lichte einer neuen Kategorie der Aktionsart. ZDA 90.1-35. MASTRELLI, CARLO ALBERTO. 1967. Grammatica gotica. (Collana di filologia ger- manica, 3.) Milano, Edizioni Mursia. MATZEL, KLAUS. 1962. Anlautend pi- und fl- im Gotischen. Sprache 8.220-37. MEYER-LÜBKE, W. 1935. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3rded. Heidel- berg, Winter. MITTNER, LADISLAUS. 1939. Sein und Werden in der Gotenbibel. Eine semantische Untersuchung. WuS 20.66-85, 193-215. MORGENROTH, WOLFGANG. 1965. Der Genitiv pluralis im Gotischen. PBB(H) 87. 328-36. MOSSÉ, FERNAND. 1942,1956. Manuel de la langue gotique. (Bibliothèque de Philo- logie germanique, 2.) 2nd ed. 1956. Paris, Aubier. . 1950. Bibliographia Gotica. A bibliography of writings on the Gothic lan- guage to the end of 1949. MS 12.237-324. . 1953. First Supplement, corrections, and to the middle of 1953. MS 15.169-83. , and J.W. MARCHAND. 1957. Second Supplement, corrections and additions to the middle of 1957. MS 19.174-96. PIEL, JOSEPH M. 1936-45. Os nomes germánicos na toponimia portuguesa. Lisboa, Imprensa nacional. PISANI, VITTORE. 1930. Ein Kapitel der gotischen Auslautsgesetze. IF 48.67-71. RAMAT, P. 1963. IL gotico manna e i suoi composti. Sprache 9.23-34. SACHS, GEORG. 1932. Die germanischen Ortsnamen in Spanien und . Jena- Leipzig, Gronau. SAUVAGEOT, AURÉLIEN. 1929. L'emploi de l'article en gotique. Paris, Champion. SCARDIGLI, PIERGIUSEPPE. 1964. Lingua e storia dei Goti. (Manuali di filologia e storia.) Firenze, Sansoni. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1249

SCHRÖDER, WERNER. 1957. Die Gliederung des gotischen Passivs. PBB(H) 79.1-105. . 1958. 'Germanisches' werden-Passiv und 'christliches' sein-Passiv bei Wulfila? ZDA 88.101-15. STANG, CHRISTIAN. 1949. Ä quoi correspond en germanique le th sanscrit? NTS 15.335-42. STREITBERG, WILHELM. 1919. Die gotische Bibel. Erster Teil: Der gotische Text und seine griechische Vorlage. 2. Aufl. Zweiter Teil: Gotisch-griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. 2. Aufl. 1928. (Germanische Bibliothek 1/2.) Heidelberg, Winter. ——. 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5. und 6. Aufl. (Germanische Bibliothek II/3.) Heidelberg, Winter. STUTZ, ELFRIEDE. 1966. Gotische Literaturdenkmäler. , Metzler. SZEMER£NYI, OSWALD. 1960. Gothic auhuma and the so-called comparatives in -uma. PBB(T) 82.1-30. VELDE, R.G. VAN DE. 1964. Het Krimgotisch. Berichtgeving en problematiek. LB 53.102-19. . 1966. De Studie van het Gotisch in de Nederlanden. Bijdrage tot een status quaestionis over de Studie van het Gotisch en het Krimgotisch. Gent, Secreta- riaat Kon. Vlaamse Acad. voor taal- en letterkunde. VRIES, JAN DE. 1930. De uitspraak der Gotische h. TsNTL 49.199-215. . 1936. Wulfilae codices Ambrosiani rescripti epistularum evangelicarum textum goticum exhibentes phototypice editi. Torino, Molfese. ——. 1956. De Gotische woordenschat vergeleken met die van het Noord- en West- germaans. LB 46.5-39. WREDE, FERDINAND. 1920. Stamm-Heynes Ulfilas die uns erhaltenen Denk- mäler der gotischen Sprache. 13., 14. Aufl. Paderborn, Schöningh. WRIGHT, JOSEPH. 1954. Grammar of the . 2nd ed. with a supple- ment by O.L. Sayce. Oxford, University Press.

3. OLD NORTH GERMANIC

3.1 General

The North Germanic language corpus begins with Runic inscriptions about 200 A.D. As mentioned above (§1.1), the earliest ones, however, actually show no features that would differentiate them from West Germanic (cf. Schwarz 1951:243, Gutenbrunner 1951:§8, Krause 1966:102). From 500 to the eighth century 'Common Nordic' charac- teristics emerge. The term usually applied to the entire period is 'Proto-Norse' (G. Urnordisch, Sw..Norw. Urnordisk, Du. Oernoorsch), also 'Proto-Scandinavian'. Some dialectal distinction between East Norse (Old Danish, ) and West Norse (, Old Icelandic), and the replacement of the old 24-sign alphabet by a 16-sign Runic alphabet, the so-called '', characterize the 1250 HERBERT PENZL period from 800 up to 1100. Origin and development of the Runic alphabet have been a topic of controversy (Arntz 1944, Krause 1966:6-8). Most scholars believe in the derivation from a North Italic alphabet (Müsset 1965: §§15-20), as first proposed by Marstrander (1928) and supported by Hammarström (1929), rather than in von Friesen's (1932) theory of a Greek origin among the , Ludvig F.A. Wimmer's 'Lateinthese' (Pedersen 1920-25), or E. Moltke's theory of a Danish origin (Diiwel 1968:90-3). The frequent philological interpretations of some of the more important Runic inscriptions, such as Tune (400), Stentofta (650), Eggjum (about 700) (Krause 1966: 162-7, 209-14, 227-35), and Rök, invariably contain some linguistic analysis as well, which may even predominate, e.g. Host's (1954) study of the Törvik (before 500) inscription (Krause 1966:140-2). In treatments of classical Old Norse and Old Icelandic centered on the period of 1250, which is characterized by the Latin alphabet and by manuscripts, and in of the Scandinavian languages the Runic period is included: e.g. in the of Boer (1920), Noreen (1923), Jónsson (1925), Gutenbrunner (1951), Andersen (1954), Iversen (1955), Heusler (1967), Gordon (1957), in the diachronic accounts by Brendum-Nielsen (1928-32), Seip (1955), Wessén (1958), and in the brief survey by Skard (1962). Krause (1937:656-69) provided a brief 'Grammatische Übersicht' for the pre-Viking material. A descriptive treatment of 'Proto-Norse' phonology and morphology is found in Jóhannesson's (1923) study; the accounts of the phonology by Pipping (1922) and Harding (1932) stress the com- parative aspect.

3.2 Phonology

Not only phonemic changes, but also the change in the Runic alphabet after 700, great- ly stimulated the interpretation of the Old North Germanic sound-system, sound- values, and their relation to the orthography. (1961) called it a 'code-shift'. Loman (1965) investigated the of Rök as a graphemic system. Necessary addi- tional data for phonological analysis were provided by reflexes in later periods, also rimes and of contemporary skaldic poets transmitted in thirteenth century manuscripts, the descriptions of the First Grammatical Treatise of 1150, to a lesser degree the shape of names recorded by classical writers, and the representation in Irish, English, Lapp, and Finnish loans. Some important sound-changes within the Common Nordic period are: /-, «-umlaut (Sw. omljud, Dan.Norw. omlyd); syncopation, i.e. the loss of vowels in unstressed syllables; 'breaking' (G. Brechung, Sw. Norw. brytning, Dan. brydning). ON forms with /-umlaut after long stem-syllables {gestr, Proto-Norse gastiR ; pret. nefnpa from nefna, dempa from doma) contrast with umlautless forms after short stems (stapr, Bratsberg's paliR ; pret. talpa from telia, fluita from flytia). This was inter- preted, e.g. by E. Sievers, as due to a North Germanic earlier loss of umlaut-causing / after short stem-syllables than after long ones, different from the chronology of West OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1251 Germanic. Axel Kock explained it in Umlaut und Brechung im Altschwedischen (1911-16) as due to an umlautless period sandwiched between two other umlaut- periods. Many Scandinavian scholars questioned the probability of these three periods (Streitberg et al. 1936, §1.7 above: 395-9). Hesselman (1945) assumed instead of an umlautless period a kind of 'Riickumlaut' (omljudsvaxling). Umlaut became a topic of lively discussion at the Nordists' meeting in Copenhagen in 1946. Kock's alleged J?-umlaut and i7?-umlaut came under attack as well, e.g. by Diderichsen (1947:75), Benediktsson (1964:64, fn. 2). The term 'umlaut' is misleading if it is used for a sporadic West Norse coalescence of vowels before R with established umlaut- phonemes. Kock's three periods have by no means disappeared from handbooks as the standard view, see e.g. Wessen (1958) and Skard (1962), but their acceptance is steadily decreasing. Many scholars agree now that the development of new umlaut- phonemes out of palatal (or velar) allophones of velar (or palatal) phonemes before i (m) in following syllables was due to the perseverance of the respective sound-values after the conditioning sounds were changed or dropped in the period of syncopation, and that a phonetic (allophonic) period of /-umlaut and «-umlaut preceded the phonemization. The existence of umlautless short stem-forms before i, if not due to analogical transfer, must mean a 'Riickumlaut' of the Germanic allophones in that position, unless circumstances prevailed there that prevented the development of umlaut-allophones before i altogether. But neither Pipping's greater stress on i nor Steblin-Kamenskij's (Arkiv 74) open juncture after short stem-syllables provide a suitable explanation. Nielsen (1962) seems, even in attacking 'Penzls omlydsteori' (Nielsen 1960:15-17), ready to concede that a theoretically and historically correct view of umlaut ('mutation') is more important than an 'explanation' of some umlaut- less forms. Spellings like e in Stentofta's gestumR and u instead of iu in Bjorketorp's bArutR (700) are recognized as umlaut-spellings (Johannesson 1923:9). The inade- quacy of the five vowel-signs of the older Runic alphabet for the writing of the addi- tional new umlaut-phonemes led to the further reduction in the , thus i was written for e i; «for u o. Similarly, the development of new lenis stop and spirant phonemes beside the fortis spirants seems to have led to an abbreviated notation of the consonant system (by b t kfp h signs). R and r coalesced in the eighth century (J6nsson 1925:74, Harding 1932:20). 'Breaking' means the change of the palatal vowel e before the back vowels a and u to a . We find it perhaps in Istaby's hAeru- (seventh century), Bjorketorp's hAerAmA-, Rok's fiakura,fiaru. Svensson (1944) saw in this sound-change a kind of unconditioned diphthongization. His theory led to a spirited discussion at the 1946 meeting in Copenhagen (Svensson 1947). Most of the scholars view breaking as a type of umlaut, see Andersen (1946) and Benediktsson (1963).

3.3 Morphology

Proto-Norse morphology is inadequately attested in Nordic monuments. All descrip- 1252 HERBERT PENZL tive accounts as, e.g., Jöhannesson's (1923), must, therefore, rely heavily on recon- struction. Also Schwarz (1951) offers sets of reconstructed paradigms for a 'Gotho- Nordic' era. Krause (1937:663-8) provides documentation for Runic morphology. The change from -ip in the 3rd pers.sg.indic. to the form of the 2nd pers.sg. is attested in the sources: bAriutip (Stentofta) but bArutR (Björketorp).

3.4 Syntax

The nature of the available sources prevents meaningful syntactical study beyond the most general statements. Krause (1937:668f.) offers some observations on the posi- tion of the verb. Not a single nominal form with postfixed article is found in Runic inscriptions but they occur in works of skaldic poets written after 900 (Skard 1962: 52f.). Also verbal forms with the added (sik>-sk>-s) are attested after 900.

3.5 Vocabulary

Norse loans in Lapp and Finnish have been listed and discussed in studies by Wiklund, Collinder, Fromm (§§1.5, 7 above), and Skold (1961). The etymology of the North Germanic words and names is usually taken up when the individual inscriptions are described, e.g. Krause (1937, 1966). The Proto-Norse forms are entries in the etymo- logical dictionary by de Vries (1961). Ruprecht (1958) dealt also with the attested vocabulary of the inscriptions of the Viking period.

3.6 Bibliography

ANDERSEN, HARRY. 1946. Er Brydningen et Omlydsfaenomen? Arkiv 61.157-70. . 1954. Oldnordisk Grammatik. 3rd ed. Copenhagen, Schultz. ARNTZ, HELMUT. 1944. Handbuch der Runenkunde. (Sammlung kurzer Gramma- tiken germanischer Dialekte. B. Ergänzungsreihe. Nr. 3.) 2. Aufl. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. BENEDIKTSSON, HREINN. 1963. Some aspects of Nordic umlaut and breaking. Lg 39.406-31. . 1964. Old Norse short e: One phoneme or two? Arkiv 79.63-104. BOER, R.C. 1920. Oudnoorsch Handboek. (Oudgermaansche Handboeken, 2.) Haarlem, Tjeenk Willink. BR0NDUM-NIELSEN, JOHANNES. 1928-32. Gammeldansk Grammatik i sproghistorisk Fremstilling. 1st vol. 1928, 2nd vol. 1932. Copenhagen, Schultz. DIDERICHSEN, PAUL. 1947. Maal og Midler i Nutidens Nordiske Filologi. APhS 19.62-96. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1253

DÜWEL, KLAUS. 1968. Runenkunde (Realienbücher für Germanisten Abt. C). Stuttgart, Metzler. FRIESEN, OTTO VON. 1932. Runornas härkomst. Arkiv 47.80-133. GORDON, V. 1957. An introduction to Old Norse. 2nd ed. by A.R.Taylor. 1st ed. 1927. Oxford, Clarendon Press. GUTENBRUNNER, SIEGFRIED. 1951. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Altis- ländischen. Zugleich eine Einführung in das Urnordische. Heidelberg, Winter. HAMMARSTRÖM, MAGNUS. 1929. Om runskriftens härkomst. SNoF 20.1-67. HARDING, ERIK. 1932. Urnordisk Grammatik. Ljudlära. Lund, Gleerup. HESSELMAN, BENGT. 1945. Omljud och brytning i de nordiska sprâken. Förstudier tili en nordisk sprâkhistoria. Stockholm, Geber. HEUSLER, . 1967. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. (Germanische Biblio- thek 1/3.) 6th ed. Heidelberg, Winter. HÖST, GERD. 1954. Om innskriften pâ den yngre runehellen fra Törvika. NTS 17.454-83. IVERSEN, RAGNVALD. 1955. Norron Grammatikk. 5th ed. 6th ed. 1961. Oslo, Aschehoug. JÖHANNESSON, ALEXANDER. 1923. Grammatik der urnordischen Runeninschriften. (Germanische Bibliothek 1/11.) Heidelberg, Winter. JÖNSSON, FINNUR. 1925. Grammatik for det Islandske Oldsprog. Copenhagen, Gads Forlag. KRAUSE, WOLFGANG. 1937. Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswiss. Kl. 13/4.) Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. . 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. I : Text. II : Tafeln. (Abhand- lungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philolog.-histor. Kl.3.F., Nr. 65.) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. LOMAN, BENGT. 1965. Rökrunorna som grafematisk system. Arkiv 80.1-60. MARSTRANDER, CARL. 1928. Om runene og runenavnenes oprindelse. NTS 1.85- 188. (With French summary.) MUSSET, LUCIEN. 1965. Introduction à la runologie. (Bibliothèque de philologie germanique, 20.) Paris, Aubier-Montaigne. NIELSEN, KARL MARTIN. 1960. Til runedanskens ortografi. Arkiv 75.1-78. . 1962. Mutation, breaking, and . APhS 25.97-105. NOREEN, ADOLF. 1923. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik unter Berück- sichtigung des Urnordischen. 4. Aufl. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken ger- manischer Dialekte, 4). Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. PEDERSEN, HOLGER. 1920-25. L'origine des runes. Mém. de la Soc. roy. des Anti- quaires du Nord, 88-136. PIPPING, HUGO. 1922. Inledning tili studiet av de nordiska sprâkens ljudlära. - sinki, Söderström. 1254 HERBERT PENZL

RUPRECHT, ARNDT. 1958. Die ausgehende Wikingerzeit im Lichte der Runeninschrif- ten. (Palästra 224.) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. SCHWARZ, ERNST. 1951. Goten, Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen. Studien zur Aus- gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. Bern, Francke. SEIP, DIDRIK ARUP. 1955. Norsk spräkhistorie til omkring 1370. 2nd ed. 1st ed. 1931. Oslo, Aschehoug. SIGURD, BENGT. 1961. The code shift in Old Norse. SL 15.1-21. SKARD, VEMUND. 1962. Norsk spräkhistorie til 1350. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget. SKÖLD, TRYGGVE. 1961. Die Kriterien der urnordischen Lehnwörter im Lappischen. I. (Skrifter utg. av Inst, för nordiska spräk vid Uppsala universitet, 8.) Uppsala, Almqvist & Wikseil. SVENSSON, JOHN. 1944. Diftongering med palatalt förslag i de nordiska spräken. (Lundastudier i nordisk spräkvetenskap, 2.) Lund, Gleerup. . 1947. De nye omlyds-og brydningsteorier 7-12, 45ff. APhS 19.1-61. VRIES, JAN DE. 1961. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden, Brill. WESSEN, ELIAS. 1958. Svensk spräkhistoria. I. Ljudlära och ordböjningslära. (SSSPh 17.) 5th ed. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell.

4. OLD ENGLISH

4.1 General

The corpus of Old English (OE), formerly often referred to as -Saxon (G. Angelsächsisch), is quite sizable between 700 and 1100, and shows dialectal variation labelled West Saxon; Mercian and Northumbrian (Anglian); and Kentish. Philolo- gical work, centered on editing, glossing, and analyzing OE texts as well as imple- mentation of university instruction in Old English and the history of the , contains important linguistic aspects as well. Language references in the Old English bibliography by Heusinkveld and Bashe (1931) are infrequent; reference is made to Arthur G. Kennedy's bibliography instead. Research in the field of the English language was evaluated by Horn (1924, 1934) and by Funke (1950). The OE Runic inscriptions are listed in Marquardt's (1961) bibliography; Page (1959) dis- cusses their dating. The most complete treatment of OE is Brunner's revision of Sievers' Angelsäch- sische Grammatik (Sievers and Brunner 1951). Other grammars are by Wright and Wright (1925), by Girvan (1931) in Dutch, and by Campbell (1959); briefer descriptive accounts are by Brook (1955), Quirk and Wrenn (1957), and Lehnert (1965). Mosse's (1950) manual in French provides texts, notes, and glossary; in Italy Manganella (1961) described Old English and Old Saxon. The OE period is fully covered in some histories of the English language, e.g. by Brunner (1960-62), Pinsker (1963), Tellier (1962b). The most detailed account of OE OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1255 sound-changes is found in Luick's (1921) historical grammar of the English language; the second chapter of part two, dealing with the consonantal pattern, was posthu- mously edited by Friedrich Wild and Herbert Koziol. Kieckers' (1935) OE grammar is the only one which emphasizes the comparative aspects, i.e. the linguistic prehistory of OE.

4.2 Phonology

The wealth of dialectally and diachronically varying graphic material in Old English has encouraged methodological discussion. Eduard Sievers applied his 'Schallanalyse' (§1.2 above) also to OE material. Horn (1934:274) rather cautiously refrained from fully endorsing Sievers' methods and results in , although he showed himself under the strong influence of Sievers in his linking of most vocalic sound-changes to intonational variation. Horn's (1921) study of linguistic shape and linguistic function introduced the factor of functional into the consideration of linguistic change. Prague phonologists like B. Trnka and J. Vachek pleaded for systematic instead of atomistic treatment of OE sound-changes. Vachek (1933) found Luick's (1921) approach in essential with his principles. Brosnahan (1953) in his description of OE sound changes worked with arguments taken from instru- mental phonetics. Certain changes within OE phonology were more often discussed than others: the development of OE /sk/ to /§/ (Luick 1940:912-6) in studies by Schubel (1942), Flasdieck (1958); the palatalization and split of OE velar stops, e.g. by van Langenhove (1930). West Saxon it (Anglian e) was either derived from West Ger- manic *[a], as suggested, e.g., by Sievers and Brunner (1951:§62, Anm. 1), and with some hesitation by Campbell (1959), or from West Germanic *[ae], according to Fourquet (1959:157f.), Wright and Wright (1925), Sparnaay (§1.7 above: 49). A derivation from a uniform West Gmc. */a/-phoneme makes it easier to explain /ae/ /a/ ¡6/ in West Saxon slxp, slapan, mona parallel to the short vowels in OE dseg, dagas, mon(mari). Phonemic ¿-umlaut as found in OE synn 'sin', Anglian feet, OE 'feet', etc., must have occurred before the earliest texts; thus, unlike other , its orthographic reflexes can be observed. The OE palatalization of velar stops /k/ /g/ and some epenthetic spellings do not suffice to make the old Scherer- Sievers palatalization theory (Luick 1940:§200; see §§1.2, 7.2) more attractive as an 'explanation' of /-umlaut. Quirk and Wrenn (1957:153f.) surprisingly call it 'the generally accepted phonetic explanation'; but see Campbell (1959:§192). Digraph spellings for historical single short vowels before certain consonant clusters (rr, r + consonant, //, I + consonant) and h, as in OE earm 'poor', heorte 'heart', West Saxon, Kentish eald, eahta, Anglian aid, ahta 'old, eight' have led to spirited arguments. The significant fact here, which often has almost been overlooked, is the dialectally restricted graphic coalescence with ea in dead 'death' (< Germ. *au), eo in deor (< Germ. *eu). The digraphs were interpreted as reflexes of a sound-change 1256 HERBERT PENZL called 'breaking' (from G. Brechung) resulting in actual diphthongs with glides (Quirk and Wrenn 1957:§§201f. 'diphthongization before velarized consonants'; Brunner 1960-62:232-4, 239f.); as for consonantal sound-values (Daunt 1939); as spelling of allophones of /a//e/ by R.P. Stockwell and C.W. Barritt in 1951, which was rejected by Kuhn and Quirk (1953); and recently by E.H. Antonsen as graphic transfers because of a of the historical 'long diphthongs'.

4.3 Morphology

OE and their development have been studied in many publications, dealing usually with a specific set of forms. Gutheil (1923) linked frequent loss of distinction among verbal endings to lack of functional importance (cf. Horn 1921) because of the use of pronominal forms. The Anglian 1st pers. present indie, ending -u (bindu) contrasted with West Saxon -e (binde), also the uniform singular ending of the subjunctive. Northumbrian showed -s instead of -d in the 3rd pers., also as uni- form plural ending (bindas besides bindad, see Sievers and Brunner 1951:§§357, 360.1; Luick 1940 :§ 698). This development was interpreted either as a sound-change or as an analogical extension from the 2nd pers.sing., parallel to, or under the influence of Old Norse; cf. Holmqvist (1922), Flasdieck (1934), Ross (1937), Blakeley (1949), Berndt (1958), Bazell (1959), and Brunner (1962:177f.). Syncopated West Saxon verbal endings in -s, -d contrasted with the Anglian full endings -es, -ed (Epinal glossary: -is, -ith)\ cf. Hedberg (1945) and Lofvenberg (1949). Flasdieck published in various studies of OE verbal classes, comparing them to data from other Germanic languages, e.g. on the remnant third class weak verb- forms (Flasdieck 1935), the reduplicating verbs (Flasdieck 1936), the verb will (Flas- dieck 1937), also one on the substantive verb (Flasdieck 1936-38), which had been the topic of an article by Heidemann (1924). Tellier (1962a) wrote on OE preterite- presents and modals, Raith (1931) on 'nasal verbs'. Substantival inflexion was de- scribed by (1938), adjective and adverb forms by Uhler (1926), their by Seelig (1930), who thus supplemented an earlier study by Louise . Feminine suffixes were treated by von Lindheim (1958), the prefix ge- by Samuels (1949) and by Pilch (1953).

4.4 Syntax

Karpf (1932) gave an account of research in syntax between 1922 and 1932. OE syntax, not found in some OE grammars, is taken up in some detail by Mosse (1950), Quirk and Wrenn (1957: §§94-159), also by Brunner (1960-62) who contrasts it with subsequent usage. Visser's (1963) monumental description starts with 'syntactical units with one verb'. OE word-order was studied by Hans Kuhn (1933, §§1.4,7 above), Andrew (1940), and OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1257 Barrett (1953). The use of the subjunctive was described by Glunz (1929), Behre (1934), meaning and syntax of OE modals by Standop (1957), absolute participial constructions by von Schaubert (1954), and passive phrases by Klingebiel (1937). The progressive (periphrastic, expanded) form consisting of the present participle and forms of to be was described for OE and other Germanic languages by Mosse (1938, §1.7 above), the verbal phrase by Bacquet (1962). Latin influence on English syntax was studied by Serensen (1957), and by Scheler (1961) in a dissertation. The spread of the progressive (expanded) form in OE shows Latin influence (Raith 1951, Brunner 1962:366f.). Nickel (1966) analyzed in a detailed study, which includes statistical counts and transformational analysis, the internal OE factors in its development, correcting Mosse's results in many respects. Van Dam (1957) analyzed causal clauses in Early OE prose. The subjects of other syntactical studies are, e.g., the indefinite constructions by Frohlich (1951), and appositional constructions by Peltola (1960).

4.5 Vocabulary

Toller (1921) added a supplement to Bosworth and Toller's Old English dictionary of 1898. 's (1931) dictionary appeared in a revised and enlarged third edition. Years of research are reflected in Holthausen's (1934) etymological dictionary based on Hall's entries. Mertens-Fonck (1960) published a glossary of the verbs of the Vespasian Psalter. Marquardt (1938) wrote a study of the OE . The geographical distribution of OE words was described in a dissertation by Scherer (1928), also by Rauh (1936). Meissners (1934) study of yElfric's vocabulary is called a 'bemerkenswerte Untersuchung' by Horn (1934). Holthausen (1934:xviif.) lists a number of 'Etymologische Spezialuntersuchungen', to which Campbell (1959: 368) can supply some additions. Many of these studies are German Ph.D. disserta- tions which deal either with the connection between 'Wörter und Sachen' or with semantic sections of the OE vocabulary such as, e.g., expressions for work (Szogs 1931), '' and 'man' (Benning 1961), 'superbia' (Schabram 1965), OE dryht (Dick 1965). Other studies include those of verbs of locomotion (Weman 1933), and of verbs of vision (Penttilä 1956). Gneuss's (1955) dissertation was concerned with Latin loan formations in OE, Förster (1921) with its Celtic loans.

4.6 Names

Eighth century names, e.g. those in early manuscripts of 's Historia Ecclesiastica, or in the Liber Vitae Dunelmensis (of the first half of the ninth century) provide wel- come source material, but cannot be easily used as specific sources for the Northum- brian dialect of the writers themselves (Strom 1939). Von Feilitzen (1937) dealt with 1258 HERBERT PENZL OE personal-names of the , Redin (1919) in an Uppsala dissertation with uncompounded names. Other Swedish scholars have dealt with names in Beo- (Björkman 1920), bynames (Tengvik 1938), river-names (Ekwall 1928), place- names (Tengstrand 1940, Forsberg 1950). Boehler (1931) contributed a study of OE female names. Gevenich (1918) used place-names to trace the spread of the OE palatalization of k.

4.7 Bibliography

ANDREW, SAMUEL OGDEN. 1940. Syntax and style in Old English. , University Press. BACQUET, PAUL. 1962. La structure de la phrase verbale à l'époque alfrédienne. (Publ. de la Fac. des Lettres de l'Univ. de Strasbourg, 145.) Paris, Les Belles Lettres. BARRETT, C.R. 1953. Studies in the word-order of jElfric's Catholic Homilies and Lives of the Saints. Cambridge, Dept. of Anglo-Saxon. BAZELL, C.E. 1959. Some problems of Old English morphology. Mélanges F. Mossé, 27-31. Paris, Didier. BEHRE, FRANK. 1934. The subjunctive in Old English . (Göteborgs Högskolas Ârsskrift 40/2.) Göteborg, Elander. BENNING, HELMUT A. 1961. 'Welt' und 'Mensch' in der altenglischen Dichtung. Bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum germanisch-altenglischenWort- schatz. (Beiträge zur engl. Philologie, 44.) Bochum-Langendreer, Pöppinghaus. BERNDT, . 1958. Zum s/ö-Problem in der nordhumbrischen Verbalflexion. ZAA 6.46-50. BJÖRKMAN, ERIK. 1920. Studien über die Eigennamen im . (Studien zur engl. Philologie, 58.) Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. BLAKELEY, L. 1949. The s/ö problem. SNPh 22.15-47. BOEHLER, MARIA. 1931. Die altenglischen Frauennamen. (Germ. Studien, 98.) Berlin, Ebering. BROOK, GEORGE L. 1955. An introduction to Old English. , University Press. BROSNAHAN, LEONARD F. 1953. Some Old English sound changes. An analysis in the light of modern phonetics. Cambridge, Heffer. BRUNNER, KARL. 1960-62. Die englische Sprache. Ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung. 2 vols. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germ. Dialekte B. Nr. 6.) 2. Aufl. Tübingen, Niemeyer. CAMPBELL, A. 1959. Old . Oxford, University Press. DAHL, . 1938. Substantival inflexion in Early Old English ; vocalic stems. (Lund Studies in English, 7.) Lund, Gleerup. DAM, JOHANNES VAN. 1957. The causal clause and causal prepositions in Early Old English prose. Groningen, Wolters. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1259 DAUNT, MARJORIE. 1939. Old English sound changes reconsidered in relation to scribal tradition and practice. TPhS 1939.108-37. DICK, ERNST S. 1965. Ae. dryht und seine . Eine wortkundliche, kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Betrachtung zur altgermanischen Glaubensvorstellung vom wachstümlichen Heil. (Neue Beiträge zur engl. Phil., 3.) Münster, Aschen- dorff. EKWALL, EILERT. 1928. English river-names. Oxford, Clarendon Press. FEILITZEN, VON. 1937. The pre-conquest personal names of Domesday Book. (Nomina germanica, 3.) Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell. FLASDIECK, HERMANN M. 1934. Die zweite Person des Singulars im ae. Verbal- system. Anglia 58.113-21. . 1935. Untersuchungen über die germanischen schwachen Verben III. Klasse (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Altenglischen). Anglia 59.1-192. . 1936. Die reduplizierenden Verben des Germanischen (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Altenglischen). Anglia 60.214-365. . 1936-38. Das altgermanische Verbum substantivum unter besonderer Berück- sichtigung des Altenglischen. Englische Studien 71.321-49, 72.158-60. . 1937. Das Verbum wollen im Altgermanischen (unter besonderer Berücksich- tigung des Altenglischen). Anglia 61.1-42. . 1958. Die Entstehung des englischen Phonems [J]. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Quantität. Anglia 76.339-410. FORSBERG, RUNE. 1950. A contribution to a dictionary of Old English place-names. (Nomina germanica, 9.) Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell. FÖRSTER, MAX. 1921. Keltisches Wortgut im Englischen. Eine sprachliche Unter- suchung. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. FOURQUET, JEAN. 1959. Le système des éléments vocaliques longs en vieil-anglais. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie Fernand Mossé in memoriam, 148-60. Paris, Didier. FRÖHLICH, JÜRG. 1951. Der indefinite Agens im Altenglischen. (Schweizer Angli- stische Arbeiten, 25.) Bern, Francke. FUNKE, OTTO. 1950. Englische Sprachkunde. Ein Überblick ab 1935. Bern, Francke. GEVENICH, OLGA. 1918. Die englische Palatalisierung von k > c im Lichte der eng- lischen Ortsnamen. (Studien zur engl. Philologie, 57.) Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. GIRVAN, RITCHIE. 1931. Angelsaksisch Handboek. (Oudgermaansche Handboeken, 4.) Haarlem, Tjeenk Willink. GLUNZ, HANS. 1929. Die Verwendung des Konjunktivs im Altenglischen. (Beiträge zur englischen Philologie, 11.) Leipzig, Tauchnitz. GNEUSS, HELMUT. 1955. Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen. Diss. Berlin, Freie Univ. 1953. Berlin, E. Schmidt. GUTHEIL, H. 1923. Form und Funktion in der englischen Verbalflexion. Gießener 1260 HERBERT PENZL

Beiträge zur Erforschung der Sprache und Kultur Englands und Nordamerikas 1, 113ff. Gießen, Englisches Seminar. HALL, J.R. CLARK. 1931. A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary. 3rd ed. 4th ed. 1960. Cambridge, University Press. HEDBERG, JOHANNES. 1945. The syncope of the Old English present endings. Lund, Gleerup. HEIDEMANN, G. 1924. Die Flexion des Verbum substantivum im Angelsächsichen. ASNS 147.30-46. HEUSINKVELD,A.H., and E.J.BASHE. 1931. A bibliographical guide to Old English. A selective bibliography of the language, literature, and history of the Anglo- . (University of Iowa Humanistic Studies 4, Nr. 5). HOLMQVIST, ERIK. 1922. On the history of the English present inflections particu- larly -th and -s. Heidelberg, Winter. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. 1934. Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2nd ed. 1963. (Germanische Bibliothek, 4. Reihe, 7.) Heidelberg, Winter. HORN, WILHELM. 1921. Sprachkörper und Sprachfunktion. (Palaestra 135.) Berlin, Mayer & Müller. . 1924. Die englische Sprachwissenschaft. Stand und Aufgaben der Sprach- wissenschaft, 512-84. Heidelberg, Winter. . 1934. Englische Sprachforschung. Germanische Philologie, hg. von A. Götze u.a., 259-90. Heidelberg, Winter. KARPF, FRITZ. 1932. Stand und Aufgaben der englischen Syntaxforschung. GRM 20.277-93. KIECKERS, ERNST. 1935. Altenglische Grammatik. München, Hueber. KLINGEBIEL, J. 1937. Die Passivumschreibungen im Altenglischen. Dissertation Berlin. KUHN, SHERMAN M., and RANDOLPH QUIRK. 1953. Some recent interpretations of Old English digraph spellings. Lg 29.143-56. LANGENHOVE, G. VAN. 1930. The of palatal stops in Old English. A grammatical miscellany offered to , 69-75. Copenhagen, Levin & Munksgaard. LEHNERT, MARTIN. 1965. Altenglisches Elementarbuch (Sammlung Göschen). 6th ed. Berlin, de Gruyter. LINDHEIM, BOGISLAV VON. 1958. Die weiblichen Genussuffixe im Altenglischen. Anglia 76.479-504. LÖFVENBERG, M. T. 1949. On the syncope of the Old English present endings. SNPh 21.231-76. LUICK, KARL. 1921. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. 1 st vol., part I. part II: 1940. Chapter II by Friedrich Wild, Herbert Koziol, eds. Leipzig, Tauchnitz. MANGANELLA, GEMMA. 1961. L'anglosassone e il sassone antico. Naples, Pironti. MARQUARDT, HERTHA. 1938. Die altenglischen Kenningar. Ein Beitrag zur Stil- OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1261 künde altgermanischer Dichtung. (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrt. Ges., Geisteswiss. Klasse, 14/3.) Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. . 1961. Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten. Teil 1. Die Runeninschriften der britischen Inseln. (Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Göttingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse. 3.F., Nr. 48.) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. MEISSNER, P. 1934. Studien zum Wortschatz iElfrics. ASNS 165.11-19; 166.30-9, 205-15. MERTENS-FONCK, PAULE. 1960. A glossary of the Vespasian Psalter and Hymns with a Latin-Mercian index. Part I: the verb. (Bibl. de la Fac. de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Univ. de Liège, 154.) Paris, Les Belles Lettres. MossÉ, FERNAND. 1950. Manuel de l'anglais du moyen âge des origines au XlVe siècle. I: Vieil-Anglais. (Bibliothèque de philologie germanique, 8.) 2nd ed. Paris, Aubier. NICKEL, GERHARD. 1966. Die 'Expanded Form' im Altenglischen. Vorkommen, Funktion und Herkunft der Umschreibung beon/wesan + Partizip Präsens. Neumünster, Wachholtz. PAGE, R.I. 1959. Language and dating of Old English inscriptions. Anglia 77.385- 406. PELTOLA, NIILO. 1960. On appositional constructions in Old English prose. NphM 61.159-203. PENTTILÄ, ERKKI. 1956. The Old of vision. A semantic study. (Mémoires de la Soc. Néophilologique de Helsinki 18/1.) PILCH, HERBERT. 1953. Das ae. Präverb ge-, Anglia 71.129-39. PINSKER, HANS ERNST. 1963. Historische englische Grammatik. Elemente der Laut-, Formen- und Wortbildungslehre. 2nd ed. München, Hueber. QUIRK, RANDOLPH, and C. L. WRENN. 1957. An Old English grammar. London, Methuen. RAITH, JOSEF. 1931. Die englischen Nasalverben. Leipzig, Tauchnitz. . 1951. Untersuchungen zum englischen Aspekt. München. RAUH, HILDEGARD. 1936. Der Wortschatz der altenglischen Übersetzungen des Matthäus-Evangeliums untersucht auf seine dialektische und zeitliche Gebunden- heit. Diss. Berlin. REDIN, MATS. 1919. Studies on uncompounded personal names in Old English. Diss. (UUA, 1919). Ross, ALAN S.C. 1937. Studies in the accidence of the . (Leeds School of English Language, texts and monographs, 2.) SAMUELS, M.L. 1949. The ge- prefix in the Old English to the Lindisfarne Gospels. TPhS 1949.62-116. SCHABRAM, H. 1965. Superbia. Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz. I. Die dialektale und zeitliche Verbreitung des Wortgutes. München, Fink. SCHAUBERT, ELSE VON. 1954. Vorkommen, gebietsmäßige Verbreitung und Her- 1262 HERBERT PENZL

kunft altenglischer absoluter Partizipialkonstruktionen im Nominativ und Akku- sativ. Paderborn, Schöningh. SCHELER, MANFRED. 1961. Altenglische Lehnsyntax. Die syntaktischen Latinismen im Altenglischen. Diss. Berlin, Freie Universität. SCHERER, GÜNTHER. 1928. Zur Geographie und Chronologie des angelsächsischen Wortschatzes im Anschluß an Bischof Waerferth's Ubersetzung der 'Dialoge' Gregors. Diss. Berlin. . SCHUBEL, F. 1942. Die Aussprache des anlautenden ae. sc. SNPh 14.255-76. SEELIG, FRITZ. 1930. Die Komparation der Adjektiva und Adverbien im Alteng- lischen. (Anglistische Forschungen, 70.) Heidelberg, Winter. SIEVERS, EDUARD, and KARL BRUNNER. 1951. Altenglische Grammatik. Nach der Angelsächsischen Grammatik von Sievers neu bearbeitet. 2nd ed. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germ. Dialekte A, Nr. 3.) Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. SORENSEN, KNUD. 1957. Latin influence on English syntax. A survey with a biblio- graphy. TCLC 11.131-55. Copenhagen. STANDOP, EWALD. 1957. Syntax und Semantik der modalen Hilfsverben im Alteng- lischen: magan, motan, sculan, willan. (Beiträge zur englischen Philologie, 38.) Bochum-Langendreer, Pöppinghaus. STRÖM, HILMER. 1939. Old English personal names in Bede's History. (Lund Studies in English, 8.) Lund, Gleerup. SZOGS, ARTHUR. 1931. Die Ausdrücke für Arbeit und Beruf im Altenglischen. (Anglistische Forschungen, 73.) Heidelberg, Winter. TELLIER, ANDRE R. 1962a. Les verbes perfecto-presents et les auxiliaires de mode en anglais ancien (VIHe-XVIe s.). Paris, Klincksieck. . 1962b. Histoire de la langue anglaise. Paris, A. Colin. TENGSTRAND, ERIK. 1940. A contribution to the study of genitival composition in Old English place-names. (Nomina germanica, 7.) Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell. TENGVIK, GÖSTA. 1938. Old English bynames. (Nomina germanica, 4.) Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell. TOLLER, T. NORTHCOTE. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Supplement. Oxford, Clarendon Press. UHLER, KARL. 1926. Die Bedeutungsgleichheit der altenglischen Adjektiva und Adverbia mit und ohne -lie {-lice). Heidelberg, Winter. VACHEK, JOSEF. 1933. Professor Karl Luick and the problems of historical phono- logy. CMF 19.273-92. VISSER, F. TH. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Part I: Syntac- tical units with one verb. Leiden, Brill. WEMAN, BERTIL. 1933. Old English semantic analysis and theory with special refer- ence to verbs denoting locomotion. (Lund Studies in English.) Lund, Lindstedt. WRIGHT, JOSEPH, and ELIZABETH MARY WRIGHT. 1925. Old English grammar. 3rd ed. . OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1263

5. OLD FRISIAN

5.1 General

The corpus of Old Frisian (OFris.) consists almost exclusively of legal prose monu- ments from the East Frisian and West Frisian areas. No is earlier than the thirteenth century; there are no medieval manuscripts from the North Frisian area. For an earlier period, the evidence from some Runic inscriptions, as recently listed by Sipma (1960), and from names (§5.6 below) is scant and not always reliable; see Krogmann (1952:1531-4) and Arntz and Zeiss (1939:106 if.). Within 'West Germanic' (§1.1 above) Old Frisian shares some important features, often called 'Ingvaeonic', with Old Saxon and Old English dialects. It shows some particularly striking phonetic isoglosses with Old English (§5.2 below), which prompt- ed some scholars to derive both languages from 'Anglo-Frisian' (Anglofriesisch), thus postulating a common continental stage and a sub-division contrasting with an 'Urdeutsch'. Most scholars now consider this division quite erroneous, since some of the alleged Anglo-Frisian features are also found in Old Saxon sources, as, e.g. Rooth (1929, 1932, §6.7 below) has shown. Siebs, who wrote the first history of Frisian in 1901 after van Helten's Old East Frisian grammar of 1890, assumed 'eine engere englisch-friesische Sprachgemeinschaft' but rejected 'anglofriesisch' as mis- leading (Siebs 1931:27). As to comprehensive descriptions, Steller (1928) wrote a brief grammar of OFris. with ample comparative data from OE and OS. Recently Ramat (1967) published an introduction to Frisian philology in Italian. Modern Frisian scholarship has provided useful annotated editions of the corpus, often with glossaries in Dutch or Modern Frisian. Sipma (1927-41) included in his publication of Frisian deeds charters up to the sixteenth century. Other editions are by Steller (1926), J.S.H. Boersma, Buma (1961), K. Fokkema, Gerbenzon (1965), G. Gosses, and J. Hoekstra. Sipma (1947) used one OFris. text as an introduction to OFris. for speakers of Modern Frisian. Buma's (1957) edition of Old Frisian wedding-speeches shows Dutch and influence in the fifteenth century orthography.

5.2 Phonology

The isoglosses that link OE dialects and OFris. involve mostly vowels, e.g. the of Gmc. *a, *a, (OFris. ekker 'field, ', slepa 'to sleep'); velar vowels before nasals (O. East Fris. long, OFris. mona, brochte ', brought'); a from Gmc. *ai (OFris. mara 'more'), e as the umlaut of u (OFris. evel '', Kentish 9th century efel). There is palatalization of k before front vowels and (also of *g) after n: OFris. ziurke, OE cirice '', OFris. drentza, OE drencean 'drench' (van Haeringen 1919). Karstien (1929) dealt with Germ. *ai in OFris., Kapteyn (1933) with the OFris. 1264 HERBERT PENZL diphthong iu before -ht, -hs (OFris. riucht 'right', siucht 'sees'). Campbell (1939) com- pared some OFris. and OE sound-changes. Loopstra's (1935) topic is assibilation in

OFris. Hofmann (1964) treated 'Germanic e2' and the long-vowel pattern of OFris. on the basis of modern dialectal evidence. The limitations of the OFris. corpus make, indeed, the study of modern Frisian dialects also important for the comprehension of OFris. phonology. Krogmann (1952:1540), e.g., points to the North Frisian evidence for i from umlauted u. Fokkema (1959) discussed significant modern phonemic and phonetic studies of Frisian.

5.3 Morphology

No comprehensive comparative description of OFris. morphology has yet been published. OFris. shows the Ingvaeonic uniform plural form of the verb (OFris. helpath) but the 2nd pers.sing.pret. ends in -st (OFris. halpst, OE hulpe). Flasdieck (1930) analyzed some OFris. case-endings, also Rosel (1962:129f. §1.7 above:). Evidence from modern dialects can be important for OFris. morphology as well: e.g. the plural ending -r < OFris. -ar, which is like the ON form (Schwarz 1951: 238, §1.7 above). Schwentner (1951) wrote on the abstract suffix -; Ahlsson (1960) on the forma- tion of abstract nouns.

5.4 Syntax

Part of Hanschke's (1929) Kiel dissertation on the use of case-forms was published. 's Szadrowsky (1959) studied style and syntax of the OFris. legal language. His is the first detailed treatment of OFris. syntax.

5.5 Vocabulary

Holthausen's (1925) Old Frisian dictionary contains very few etymological references. He dealt elsewhere with some individual words separately (Holthausen 1934:291). Nauta (1926) published an OFris.-Dutch-Modern West Frisian wordlist. Wadstein (1929) assumed extensive ON borrowing of Frisian words. Editions ol OFris. monu- ments (§5.1) frequently have glossaries. No comprehensive etymological dictionary of OFris. has appeared so far.

5.6 Names

The identification of early Frisian names in Latin sources (Krogmann 1952) yields practically no additional information about the history of the language. Gysseling (1960) showed how scribal rewriting due to German or Dutch bias sometimes makes OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1265 early name material a difficult source for an exact dating of OFris. sound-changes but it offers welcome documentation (Gysseling 1962).

5.7 Bibliography

AHLSSON, LARS-ERIK. 1960. Die altfriesischen Abstraktbildungen. Uppsala, Alm- qvist & Wiksell. ARNTZ, HELMUT, and HANS ZEISS. 1939. Die einheimischen Runendenkmäler des Festlandes. (Gesamtausgabe der älteren Runendenkmäler, 1.) Leipzig, Harras- sowitz. BUMA, W.J. 1957. Aldfryske houlikstaspraken. Assen, van Gorcum. ——. 1961. De eerste Riustringer Codex. (Oudfriese taal- en rechtsbronnen, 11.) The Hague, Nijhoff. CAMPBELL, A. 1939. Some Old Frisian sound-changes. TPhS 1939.78-107. FLASDIECK, HERMANN M. 1930. Zur Geschichte der femininen ö-Flexion im West- germanischen. IF 48.53-66. FOKKEMA, K. 1959. Phonologia Frisica. Phonetica 4.37-42. GERBENZON, P. 1965. Kleine Oudfriese kronieken. (Teksten en documenten uit- gegeven door het Inst, voor middeleeuwse geschiedenis, 4.) Groningen, Wolters. GYSSELING, M. 1960. Chronologie van enkele klankverschijnselen in het oudste Fries. Fryske Studzjes, Oanbean oan Prof. Dr. J. H. Brouwer, 77-80. Assen, van Gorcum. . 1962. Het oudste Fries. It Beaken 24.1-26. HAERINGEN, C. B. VAN. 1919. Zur friesischen Lautgeschichte. PBB 44.27-53. HANSCHKE, HANS. 1929. Der Gebrauch der Kasus im Altostfriesischen (Nominativ und Akkusativ). Dissertation Kiel.

HOFMANN, DIETRICH. 1964. Germanisch e2 im Friesischen. Festschrift für Jost , pp. 160-85. Köln, Bühlau. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. 1925. Altfriesisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg, Winter. . 1934. Friesisch. Germanische Philologie, hg. von A. Götze u.a., 291-5. Heidelberg, Winter. KAPTEYN, J. M. N. 1933. Der altfriesische Brechungsdiphthong iu vor der Konso- nantenverbindung -ht und hs. (Germanistische Abhandlungen 67.) Festschrift für Theodor Siebs, 145-70. Breslau, Marcus. KARSTIEN, CARL. 1929. Germanisches ai im Friesischen. Behrens-Festschrift, 183- 202. Jena-Leipzig, Gronau. KROGMANN, WILLY. 1952. Die friesische Sprache. Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß, hg. von W. Stammler, col. 1523-50. Berlin, Schmidt. LOOPSTRA, J. J. 1935. De assibilatie in de oudfriese oorkonden. Haarlem, Tjeenk Willink. NAUTA, G.A. 1926. Oudfriesche woordenlijst. Haarlem, Tjeenk Willink. 1266 HERBERT PENZL RAMAT, PAOLO. 1967. II Frisone. Introduzione alio studio della filologia frisone. Florence, Sansoni. ROOTH, ERIK. 1929. Nordfriesische Streifzüge. Laut- und wortgeographische Studien mit einem Exkurs über den i-Umlaut der Velarvokale im Germanischen. (LUÄ.N. F. Avd. 1, Bd. 25, Nr. 6.) Lund, Gleerup. SCHWENTNER, ERNST. 1951. Das altfriesische Abstraktsuffix- nisse, -nesse (-ense) mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Altsächsischen und Altniederfränkischen. NJb 74.1-10. SIEBS, THEODOR. 1931. Die Friesen und die nächstverwandten Stämme. Ein Beitrag zur Stammes- und Sprachkunde der Friesen und Engländer. (Mitteilungen der Schles. Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 31/32.) Breslau. SIPMA, P. 1927-41. Oudfriesche Oorkonden I-III. The Hague, Nijhoff. . 1947. Fon alra fresena fridome. In ynlieding yn it Aldfrysk. (Fryske Akademy) Snits. . 1960. Eat oer fryske runen. Fryske Studzjes. Oanbean oan Prof. Brouwer, 67-76. Assen, van Gorcum. STELLER, WALTHER. 1926. Das altwestfriesische Schulzenrecht. (Germanistische Abhandlungen, 57.) Breslau, Marcus. . 1928. Abriß der altfriesischen Grammatik. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. SZADROWSKY, MANFRED. 1959. Stil und Syntax der altfriesischen Rechtssprache. PBB(T) 81.131-60, 83.80-131. WADSTEIN, ELIS. 1929. Frisiska länord. Studier tillägnade Axel Kock, 406-12. (Arkiv 40.) Lund, Gleerup.

6. OLD SAXON AND OLD LOW FRANCONIAN

6.1. General

The position of Old Saxon (OS) within the West Germanic languages has repeatedly been the topic of scholarly discussion. Essentially, this is due to the 'dualistic' character of its main source, the epic Heliand of about 6000 verses with its two some- what diverging main manuscripts C (Cottonianus) and M (Monacensis). Basic Ingvaeonic or 'North-Sea Germanic' (§1.1 above) features of phonology (or ortho- graphy?), morphology, and lexicon are found in the Heliand together with those that agree with Old High . Scholars like Lasch (1925), (1934), Bretschneider (1934), Mitzka (1950), Dal (1954), Rooth (1932, 1934, 1949), Cordes (1953), and Foerste (1953) have interpreted the two layers within the OS corpus in various ways. Rooth (1956:45 f.) calls it a 'geregelte Literatursprache auf echt säch- sischer Grundlage'. Simon (1965) discussed the Sprachmischung. Rösel (1962, §1.7 above) also saw in OS a 'Mischsprache' with a Franconian lower layer. Thus, Heliand and Genesis, as edited by E. Sievers in 1878, and by Behaghel (Behaghel 1967), have OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1267 been repeatedly dealt with, but also other literary and nonliterary parts of the corpus have been described and analyzed: e.g., early (sixth century) runic inscriptions from the lower Weser by Lasch (1931); the sources by Rooth (1932); the OS psalm fragments newly discovered in , by Lasch (1932); the OS baptismal vow by Lasch (1935); 'Old Westphalian' confession and baptismal vow by Foerste (1950). There is agreement, on the whole, that earlier or more archaic sources within OS show a closer agreement with English-Frisian ('North-Sea Germanic'); Arntz (1934:88) assumed the same. The grammar by Holthausen (1921) has remained the only more recent comprehen- sive treatment of Old Saxon after W. Schliiter's and J.H. Gallee's (J. Lochner's) descriptions. Braune and Ebbinghaus (1964) invariably quote OS besides the OHG material in their brief grammar. For Old Low Franconian (OLF), the sister dialect of OS, scholars from Holland and usually prefer the term 'Old Netherlandic', if they do not restrict it to Southwestern data. Old Netherlandic stresses the continuity of the development of the language in the (Cowan 1953). The total OLF textual corpus con- sists of some copied fragments and excerpts of an interlinear psalm translation once owned by Canon Arnoldus Wachtendonck, which was made about 900 A.D. perhaps in the province of near the Middle Franconian area (Cowan 1959, but see Sanders 1968). Cowan (1957b) made the text once more available, improving on W. L. van Helten's edition of 1902 but leaving out the Middle Franconian parts which show the Vorlage.

6.2 Phonology

Old Saxon shows evidence of such 'Anglo-Frisian' (§5.1) or 'Ingvaeonic' features as loss of nasal before f d s (OS fif, 'five', mud 'mouth', us 'us'); occasionally o o instead of a (a) before nasal or former nasal (OS ddar besides adar 'other'); palatalization of initial k g (M's antkiennien, cf. Lasch 1939). Frequent ie uo for Gmc. *e *d, partic- ularly in Heliand Ms. C (hiet, guod), presumably also the poet's spellings, have led Lasch (1925:59) to postulate the southern Eastphalian area, where (MLG) uo-spellings are found, as the poet's home. Rooth (1949, 1956) con- sidered this as well as io (liof) instead of ia ifiaf) just the influence of Franconian orthographic practice, which Cordes (1953) questioned. Foerste (1953) pointed out that thus phonemic distinctions between the two long e and o vowels in M's het: egan (from West Gmc. *ai) and \ Ion (from West Gmc. *au), which did not coalesce in MLG dialects, were expressed by the orthography. He listed (Foerste 1953: col. 1932-4) the various changes between OS and MLG such as completion of umlaut, coalescence of unstressed vowels, and others. Phonetic interpretation of his OLF data are found in Mansion's (1924) onomastic study. Gysseling's (1961-64) account of OLF phonology has a historical slant. On the other hand, Cowan (1957a, 1961) gives a synchronic description of the phonemic 1268 HERBERT PENZL system of the OLF psalms using 'direct' scribal variations, alternations, and minimal pairs to identify the units and to postulate allophones. Obviously, phonemic coales- cence (Cowan's 'neutralisation') of vowels in unstressed syllables has progressed con- siderably ( gihoran, -in, -on, -un). Cowan fails to clearly identify any umlaut allophones or phonemes, although, e.g., modern Limburg dialects show umlauts of West Gmc. *u *u *o *aw, see R.L. Kyes in Lg 43.666-73.

6.3 Morphology

Morphological features of OS were often treated from the comparative point of view in order to establish the position of OS within West Germanic. Rooth (1956:§31) points to such basic 'North-Sea Germanic' features as the uniform plural indicative ending of the verb (pres. -ad, pret. -un), Mess (he, the, mi, thi), the nom. acc.pl. ending of the (OS -os, OE -as), the missing reflexive. Morpho- logical 'dualism' is revealed by the coexistence of two sets of forms for the masc. neuter dative (OS godumu, guodon; imu, im) in the Heliand dialect (Dal 1934), and by conflicting pronominal forms like OS hwi (OE hwl) but thiu (OHG thiu, diu) (Dal 1954). Generally speaking, the Heliand compared to the Westphalian dialects shows more Ingvaeonic characteristics in its morphology (Foerste 1953: col. 1925ff.). Mansion (1924) added some morphological notes, Gysseling (1960) some on word- formation to their onomastic data. Cowan (1961:31-54) offers a very structural and strictly synchronic description of OLF morphology: e.g. ablaut-variants of vowels in the strong verb are called 'infixes' within 'discontinuous allomorphs'.

6.4 Syntax

Holthausen (1921: §§480-546, 'Syntaktisches') takes up syntactical features in his OS grammar. Behaghel, who wrote a dissertation on the moods in the Heliand which was published in 1876, and a 'Syntax des Heliand' published in 1897, incorporated the results of his research in his monumental syntax of German ('Deutsche Syntax', §7.7 below). There is no comprehensive treatment dealing exclusively or predominantly with OS syntax, even studies of specific features are rare. Dal (1959) dealt with phrases like warth kuman which explained as containing an active preterit parti- ciple developed out of an original infinitive by . The nature of the OLF corpus consisting of an interlinear version of a Latin original and names, necessarily limits the possibilities for any syntactical studies.

6.5 Vocabulary

Holthausen's (1967) brief OS dictionary usually contains just the basic entries but OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1269 together with all occurrences are provided in E.H. Sehrt's Vollständiges Wörterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsächsischen Genesis (2nd. ed. 1966). Vocabulary items were used to argue the of the home of the Heliand's author. Krogmann's (1937) use of päscha 'Jewish ' and leia 'rock' to support Westphalian rather than southern Eastphalian origin seemed inconclusive to Bret- schneider (1938) and Cordes (1953: col. 379 f.). Individual word-studies were pub- lished by Ohly-Steimer (1955), Thomas (1960), and by Becker (1964) based on her Hamburg dissertation. Often OS and OHG material is used together, as by Waag (1932). A comprehensive treatment of the OLF lexicon is still lacking. Cowan's edition has a Vocabularium (Cowan 1957b: 46-61) with the respective Vulgate .

6.6 Names

Schlaug published two studies of OS personal names, of those of the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Schlaug 1955) and of those up to the 1000 (Schlaug 1962). Frequently name-material is quoted, e.g. by Rooth (1932) or Schroder (1932), to supplement the documentation for the phonology data derived from the textual sources. Ingvaeonic features can be found there more plentifully. Rooth (1949: 188-91) rejected Bischoff's (1943) inference from onomastic data before 1000 A.D. that an older 'German' substratum was noticeable in the Southeastern area. The great usefulness of name-material for phonology (§6.2 above), particularly when texts are lacking, is shown by the interpretations of Mansion (1924) and Gysse- ling (1961-64). The corpus of names found on Belgian territory in charters written before 1100 was published by Gysseling and Koch (1950), the corpus of areal place- names up to 1226 appeared in a monumental publication by Gysseling (1960).

6.7 Bibliography

ARNTZ, HELMUT. 1934. Deutsche Grammatik. Germanische Philologie, 75-109. Heidelberg, Winter. BECKER, GERTRAUD. 1964. Geist und Seele im Altsächsischen und im Althochdeut- schen. Heidelberg, Winter. BEHAGHEL, OTTO. 1967. Heliand und Genesis. (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 4.) 7th ed. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. BISCHOFF, KARL. 1943. Zur Sprache des Sachsenspiegels des Eike von Repgow. ZMaF 19.1-80. BRAUNE, WILHELM, and ERNST A. EBBINGHAUS. 1964. Abriß der althochdeutschen Grammatik mit Berücksichtigung des Altsächsischen. 12th ed. Tübingen, Niemeyer. 1270 HERBERT PENZL

BRETSCHNEIDER, ANNELIESE. 1934. Die Heliandheimat und ihre sprachgeschichtliche Entwicklung. (Deutsche Dialektgeographie, 30.) Marburg, Elwert. . 1938. Heliandwortschatz und Heliandheimat. ZMaF 14.129-39. CORDES, GERHARD. 1953. Alt- und mittelniederdeutsche Literatur. Deutsche Philo- logie im Aufriß, hg, von W. Stammler. Berlin, Schmidt. COWAN, H.K.J. 1953. Oudoostnederfrankisch of oostelijk Oudnederlands? TsNTL 71.161-82. . 1957a. Opmerkingen over Oudnederfrankische structurele grammatica. TsNTL 75.161-80. . 1957b. De oudnederlandse (oudnederfrankische) psalmenfragmenten. (Textus minores in usum academicum, 23.) Leiden, Brill. . 1959. De localisering van het Oudnederfrankisch der psalmenfragmenten. LB 48.1-47. . 1961. Esquisse d'une grammaire fonctionelle du vieux-néerlandais (vieux bas- francique) d'après le psautier carolingien de Wachtendonck. LB 50.2-54. DAL, INGERID. 1934. Über den altsächsichen Dativ Sg. Mask. und Ntr. der prono- minalen Flexion. NTS 7.142-62. . 1954. Zur Stellung des Altsächsischen und der Heliandsprache. NTS 17.410- 24. . 1959. warth kuman und Ähnliches im Heliand und in der altsächsischen Genesis. NJb 82.31-7. FOERSTE, . 1950. Untersuchungen zur westfälischen Sprache des 9. Jahr- hunderts. (Münstersche Forschungen, 2.) Marburg, Simons. . 1953. Geschichte der niederdeutschen Mundarten. Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß, hg. von W. Stammler. Berlin, Schmidt. GYSSELING, MAURITS. 1960. Toponymisch woordenboek van België, Nederland, Luxemburg, Noord-Frankrijk en West-Duitsland (vöör 1226). 2 vols. Brus- sels, Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek. . 1961-64. Proeve van een Oudnederlandse grammatica. SGGand 3.9-52; 6.9-43. , and A.C.F. KOCH. 1950. Diplomata belgica ante annum millesium centesi- mum scripta. Brüssels, Belgisch Inter-Universitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. 1921. Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. 2nd ed. Heidel- berg, Winter. . 1967. Altsächsisches Wörterbuch. 2nd ed. (Niederdeutsche Studien, 1.) Köln, Böhlau. KROGMANN, WILLY. 1937. Zur Heimatfrage des Heliand im Lichte des Wortschatzes. Wismar, Hinstorff. LASCH, AGATHE. 1925. Vom Werden und Wesen des Mittelniederdeutschen. NJb 51.55-76. . 1931. Voraltsächsische Runeninschriften aus der Unterweser. NJb 57.163-79. . 1932. Die altsächsichen Psalmenfragmente. Niederdeutsche Studien: Fest- OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1271

schrift für Conrad Borchling, 229-72. Neumünster, Wachholtz. . 1935. Das altsächsische Taufgelöbnis. NPhM 36.92-133. . 1939. Palatales k im Altniederdeutschen. NPhM 40.241-318, 387-423. MANSION, JOSEPH. 1924. Oud-Gentsche naamkunde. Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Oud-Nederlandsch. The Hague, Nijhoff. MITZKA, WALTHER. 1950. Die Sprache des Heliand und die altsächsische Standes- gliederung. NJb 71.32-9. OHLY-STEIMER, MARIANNE. 1955. Huldi im Heliand. ZDA 86.81-119. ROOTH, ERIK. 1932. Die Sprachform der Merseburger Quellen. Niederdeutsche Studien: Festschrift für Conrad Borchling, 24-54. Neumünster, Wachholtz. . 1934. Zum Heliandproblem. Studia germanica tillägnade E.A. Kock, 289- 304. Lund, C. Blom. -—. 1949. Saxonica. Beiträge zur niedersächsischen Sprachgeschichte. (Skrifter Hum. Vetenskapssamf. Lund, 44.) Lund, Gleerup. ——. 1956. Über die Heliandsprache. Fragen und Forschungen im Umkreis der germanischen Philologie, Festgabe für Th. Frings, 40-79. Berlin, Akademie- Verlag. SANDERS, WILLY. 1968. Zu den altniederfränkischen Psalmen. ZDA 97.81-107. SCHLAUG, WILHELM. 1955. Studien zu den altsächsischen Personennamen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. (Lunder germanistische Forschungen, 30.) Lund, Gleerup. . 1962. Die altsächsischen Personennamen vor dem Jahre 1000. (Lunder ger- manistische Forschungen, 34.) Lund, Gleerup. SCHRÖDER, EDWARD. 1932. Altpaderbörnisches. Niederdeutsche Studien: Fest- schrift für Conrad Borchling, 14-23. Neumünster, Wachholtz. SIMON, WERNER. 1965. Zur Sprachmischung im Heliand. (Phil. Studien und Quel- len, 27.) Berlin, Schmidt. THOMAS, ELIZABETH J. 1960. Old Saxon 'wurth' and its Germanic cognates. ArchL 12.35-9. WAAG, ANATOL. 1931. Die Bezeichnungen des Geistlichen im Althoch- und Alt- niederdeutschen. Teuthonista 8.1-54. WOLFF, LUDWIG. 1934. Die Stellung des Altsächsischen. ZDA 71.129-54.

7. OLD HIGH GERMAN

7.1 General

The Old High German (OHG) corpus begins with names, isolated glosses, few Runic inscriptions. Only forms that show evidence of the 'High German consonant shift' (§7.2 below) can be called OHG. Since Langobardic appellative nouns (stolesaz, sculdhais, iderzon, zaua, uuifa) and proper names indicate the shift (e.g. z < */), this dialect has been grouped among the OHG dialects, e.g. by Mitzka (Braune and 1272 HERBERT PENZL Mitzka 1967 :§6a). The date of the oldest manuscript of the Edictus Rothari (643) is about 700. The Langobardic words in the Latin text are listed by Schröbler (1962); cf. also Ganz (1957). Within the OHG corpus, glosses have been collected by Steinmeyer and Sievers (1879-1922), the smaller monuments have been made available by E. Steinmeyer in 1916, and in many editions of the reader by Braune, recently revised by Ebbinghaus (Braune and Ebbinghaus 1965). Textual, literary, and linguistic inter- pretations are often closely linked in the treatment of features of such OHG monu- ments as the Abrogans and glosses by Baesecke (1930), Mettke (1957), Daab (1960, 1967); the Lex Salica by Sonderegger (1964), the Georgslied by de Boor (1964) and Oxford's Bostock (1955), the by Krogmann (1959), the Ludwigslied by Schützeichel (1966). Even a history of OHG literature like Ehrismann's (1932) contains analyses of the language of the individual monuments. Comprehensive descriptions of OHG between the eighth century and 1100 usually include phonology (§7.2) and morphology (§7.3) but not word-formation or syntax (§7.4). They deal with both Franconian and Upper German (Alemannic and Bava- rian) dialects. No special, detailed treatments of Alemannic or any subdialects were ever added to the Old Bavarian grammar of Josef Schatz of 1907 and to J. Franck's Altfränkische Grammatik of 1909 and to older studies of the major OHG texts like Isidor, Tatian, Otfrid, Notker. Braune's outstanding OHG grammar, as revised by Karl Helm after 1925 and since 1953 by Mitzka, shows in its various editions since 1885 the results of current research, even if it is not always well integrated with the bulk of the text (Braune and Mitzka 1967). Baesecke's (1918) grammar, hardly an 'introduction', is full of original ideas, Schatz's (1927) abounds in reliable data with a minimum of interpretation. Short grammars by Meisen (1961), Schwarz (1950), Braune and Ebbinghaus (§6.7 above) are intended for use in university instruction. Naumann's short grammar, revised by Betz (Naumann and Betz 1962) as well as the brief book in English by Ellis (1953) are the only treatments essentially more com- parative than descriptive and emphasizing the prehistory of OHG. The OHG period is described in histories of the like Bach's (1965), Eggers' (1963), in Stolte's condensation of Paul's grammar (Stolte and Paul 1962), also in Kranzmayer's important history of Bavarian phonology (Kranzmayer 1956), in the English hand- book by Priebsch and Collinson (1962), and in von Kienle's (1960) account without any bibliographical references.

7.2 Phonology

In the synchronic description of the phonology of the OHG dialects of the various monuments hardly ever involved the recognition of structured sound- systems. J. Fourquet seemed thus unique in his demand for appropriate rewriting of the handbooks, and his student Valentin (1962) equally isolated in the phonemic interpretations of his thesis. Mitzka (Braune and Mitzka 1967:§8a) writes dis- approvingly of 'strukturalistische Konstruktionen'. The influence of dialect geo- OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1273 graphy has been very strong; this resulted also in an interest in specific phonetic identifications. Thus Sievers (1920) applied his 'Schallanalyse' also to OHG material, for which Karg (1924) praised him. The spoken language is the topic of a study by Weithase (1961). Its potential disagreement with a local literary standard was shown by Sonderegger's (1961) comparison of first draft ('Vorakt') and final version in eighth century St. Gallen deeds. Recently some synchronic studies dealt with the phonetic interpretation of the orthography of specific monuments, e.g. of Isidor by Kirschstein (1962) and by Matzel (1966). As part of the immediate prehistory of OHG all aspects of the High German con- sonant shift, such as cause, stages, spread, date, have been intensively studied. The consistent shift of Pre-OHG 'tenues' *p *t *k was usually not separated from the shift of the Pre-OHG 'mediae' *b *d *g. Connection and phonetic similarity between the Germanic (§1.2) and High German consonant shifts were discussed by Brinkmann (1941), Moser (1954), Hammerich (1955), the cause of the latter through a substratum by Heinertz (1925), Hirt (§66, see §1.7 above), and others. Holler's (1957) name- material for a wide-spread 'zweite Lautverschiebung' even in (cf. §2.6) has largely been proven inconclusive (Braune and Mitzka 1967: §83, Anm. 2; Bach 1965:§59d). His brilliant theory of poly genetic origin (Höfler 1955) of the shift, however, has found much greater acceptance. It really agrees with Schützeichel's (1961), even Bruch's (1955), assumption of Franconian, not exclusively Upper Ger- man, i.e. Alemannic or Bavarian or Langobardic, origin of the shift. A common (e.g. *tz) stage preceding the split into affricate (OHG (t)z) and fortis spirant (OHG zz) was usually assumed, e.g. by Steche (1937), but not by Schatz (1927:§140). The customary atomistic treatment of phonemes as inherited from a Neogrammarian tradition as well as the differing dialectal reflexes (Franconian p-, k-; Upper German pf-; kh-, kx-) led to an assumption of separate labial, dental, and velar stages of the shift. The varying, even contradictory representation of Latin consonants according to source and receiving dialects, in loanwords, e.g. Tatian's phorta (Lat. porta), phorzicha (pi.; Lat. porticus) was taken as confirming evidence (Baesecke 1918). Lessiak's (1933:170-82, §1.7 above) and öhmann's (1934) analyses have almost entirely succeeded in getting this error out of the handbooks. The attempts to estab- lish an absolute and regional chronology for the shift by finding early shifted and late unshifted name-forms (§7.6 below) or loans in neighboring languages have been numerous. Handbooks still feature the MHG form Etzel (< Attila) with tz as evidence for lack of completion of the shift in the fifth century, as if it could not simply reflect a Late Latin ts before i or other sound substitutions. Among vocalic changes the ¿-umlaut has received a good deal of attention because it began and ended phonemically within the historical OHG period. The appearance of separate umlaut phonemes in MHG orthography, e.g. x in nxmen from OHG nämin 'nähmen', after the very disappearance or change of the umlaut-causing i seemed paradox. The orthographic coalescence of e in OHG nest, gest- (< *a) and its later phonemic split provided considerable difficulty even to analysts used to struc- 1274 HERBERT PENZL tural techniques, as, e.g., Fourquet (1952). Explanations by palatalization of the consonants preceding i as proposed by the old Scherer-Sievers 'Mouillierungstheorie' postulate, even in the sophisticated versions of Rooth (1929:109-51, §5.7 above), Kranzmayer (1938), an intermediate stage of contrasting palatalized and nonpalata- lized consonants, which, if true, would be more remarkable in Germanic than the whole process of umlaut itself. Dal (1962) emphasized the morphological significance of the OHG phonemization of the umlaut allophones. Sonderegger (1959) reviewed part of the literature on i-umlaut, which was first described by W. F. Twaddell in a pioneering article. Höfler (1955) argued quite persuasively against the monogenetic spread of i-umlaut from the Northwest as assumed by Brinkmann (1931:77-92) and others. Another controversial OHG sound-change has been the so-called 'OHG diphthon- gization': her>hiar, hier 'here'; göt>guat, guot 'good', which was explained, e.g. by Brinkmann (1931:169-89) and Frings (1939), as due to Romance influence. The crucial connection between this diphthongization and the 'OHG monophthongiza- tion', which created long open e (< ai) and ö (> au), was already seen by W. Wil- manns in 1911 (Braune and Mitzka 1967:§35, Anm. 3). Other sound-changes treated are excrescence of vowels (Reutercrona 1920), the change from sk to s (Mayer 1929 and Schulze 1964), from chs>ks, s in the dialects (Wagner 1925). The development of original lenes out of fortes has been described by Lessiak (1933, §1.7 above) as 'binnenhochdeutsche Konsonantenschwächung', for which Mitzka (Braune and Mitzka 1967:§§102a, b) postulated a spread southward from . Steinhauser (1928) maintained the voicing of OHG and MHG spirants. There has been no attempt yet to describe the pertinent facts in terms of pattern contrast nor to link them to the orthographically attested Upper German shifting and 'unshifting' of historical Pre-OHG mediae (e.g. hapet > habet).

7.3 Morphology

Comparative treatments of Germanic morphology included the OHG material (§1.3 above). Special attention was paid to the 1st pers.pl. ending -mes, which Baesecke (1918) derived from an 'adhortative' form. Krahe (1957) saw in e a transfer from the optative ending *-me; cf. also Bech (1962). OHG e beside ä in gen (IE *e), sten (IE *ä) is derived from the optative by Krahe (1967 :§100, §1.7 above). McLintock (1965) wrote on morphological syncretism in OHG. Word-formation in general is the topic of publications by Kluge (1925) and Henzen (1947). Abstract nouns are treated by Gürtler (1923); see also Carr in §1.7 above.

7.4 Syntax

Michels (1924:509) called syntax 'das Schmerzenskind der deutschen Sprachwissen- OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1275 schaft'. In OHG this may be due to the fact that the OHG prose corpus consists primarily of translations from Latin. Comprehensive historical treatments like Behaghel's (1923-32), Wunderlich and Reis's (1924), Ries's (1927-31), even Dai's (1962) brief presentation include early data from the OHG period. Synchronic and diachronic treatments are combined in Dai's (1960) study of the case-system and Saltveit's (1962) of the . The was treated by Bokenkriiger (1924), the passive construction by Schroder (1955), the pronominal subject in a Swiss dissertation by Eggenberger (1961). Miiller and Frings (1959) described the origin of German subordinate ¿toss-clauses. Some syntactical studies are based on specific OHG texts, e.g. the dissertations by Handschuh (1964), Wunder (1965); Willems (1954) described the 'paratactic style' of the Ludwigslied. The material of the OHG dictionary project of the Saxon Academy has not only yielded vocabulary (§7.5 below) but also valuable syntactical studies, e.g. Wolfrum's of bt thiu, Wolfrum and Ulbricht's on the use of avur (Wolfrum and Ulbricht 1959).

7.5 Vocabulary

The Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch with its admirably full documentation had reached the end of the B in its 21st fascicle in 1968 (Karg-Gasterstädt and Frings 1952- 68). Josef Weisweiler (in Maurer and Stroh 1939:51-125, §1.7 above) summarized the vocabulary of the 'Deutsche Frühzeit'. Braune (1918) investigated OHG voca- bulary for evidence of the Anglo-Saxon mission. Switzerland's Kolb (1957) compared Alemannic-North Germanic correspondences. Finland's Alanne (1950) studied OHG viniculture terms. Some vocabulary studies centered on specific OHG monuments, e.g. on the OHG Rule of St. Benedict by Ibach (1960), and by Betz (1965), who investigated loan trans- lations (also Betz 1959). A great number of studies, particularly from within West , involve the OHG lexical expressions for some semantic concept or semantic interpretation of part of the OHG lexicon: see e.g. Bach's bibliographical references (Bach 1965 :§69.5). This wealth of material may be partly due to the continuing influence of Weisgerber and of Trier. Weisgerber advocated lexical studies centered on content and the recognition of content as the ultimate goal of linguistic analysis (Weisgerber 1952). Trier (1931) demonstrated his theory of a structured Sprachfeld with medieval material. Among other pertinent studies we can list, e.g.: Weisweiler's (1924) study of euua, Weissgräber's (1929) of kann, unfavorably reviewed in its 'geistesgeschichtliche Deutung' by Maurer (1934:218); Wesche's (1940) study of words of and prophecy; Wissmann's (1955) Skop; Ruprecht's (1959) study of tristitia, de Smet's (1961) of 'resurrection'. Etymological studies of single words are infrequent: we mention Knobloch (1959) on OHG ostar-, Bech (1964) on dehhein. There is no special etymological dictionary devoted to OHG items only. Recent additions to Kluge-Götze's etymological dictionary (Kluge 1967) show the influence 1276 HERBERT PENZL of dialect geography; no systematic attempt is made to list, e.g., actually attested OHG forms.

7.6 Names

Personal names constitute throughout the eighth century an important part of the corpus for synchronic dialectal studies, as, e.g., for Reichenau by Baesecke (1928), for by Kletschke (1933). They have been used for diachronic phonology by Sonderegger (1961). As the boundary descriptions of Hamelburg and Wiirzburg show, local toponymic terms had to be used even within Latin texts and show correct morphological features if written by local scribes. Attempts at latinization as, e.g. Gregory of Tours' Strateburgum (about 600) and eighth century Bavarian forms like Deorlekingas 'Tyrlaching', Lauppiom 'Laufen' do not prove the existence of unshifted name-forms in contemporary speech (§7.2 above), as Schwarz (1927) and others assumed. Schatz (1935) studied the phonology of OHG personal names; Kaufmann (1965) published a study dealing with them. Von Polenz's (1961) topic is areal names in early medieval Germany, Zinsli's (1965) early Alemannic place-names in Switzer- . Sonderegger (1965) stated and summarized the future tasks and problems of OHG onomastics; see also Bach (1952-56, §1.7 above).

7.7 Bibliography

ALANNE, EERO. 1950. Die deutsche Weinbauterminologie in althochdeutscher und mittelhochdeutscher Zeit. Helsinki. BACH, ADOLF. 1965. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 8th ed. Heidelberg, Quelle & Meyer. BAESECKE, GEORG. 1918. Einführung in das Althochdeutsche. Laut-und Flexions- lehre. München, Beck. -——. 1928. Das Althochdeutsche von Reichenau nach den Namen seiner Mönchs- listen. PBB 52.92-148. . 1930. Der deutsche Abrogans und die Herkunft des deutschen Schrifttums. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. BECH, GUNNAR. 1962. Die Entstehung der ahd. Verbalendung -mes. SNPh 34. 195-211. . 1964. Zur Etymologie des ahd. Pron. dehhein. SNPh 36.211-16. BEHAGHEL, OTTO. 1923-32. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. 4. vols. Heidelberg, Winter. BETZ, WERNER. 1959. Lehnwörter und Lehnprägungen im Vor- und Frühdeutschen. Deutsche Wortgeschichte, ed. by F. Maurer and F. Stroh, 127-47. 2nd ed. vol. 1. Berlin, de Gruyter. . 1965. Deutsch and Lateinisch. Die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel. 2nd ed. Bonn, Bouvier. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1277

BÖKENKRÜGER, W. 1924. Das reflexive Verb im Althochdeutschen. (Giessener Bei- träge 13.) Gießen, O. Kindt. BOOR, HELMUT DE. 1964. Eine unerklärte Stelle des ahd. Georgsliedes nebst Bemer- kungen zu seiner Orthographie und Heimat. Festschrift Josef Quint, 69-81. Bonn, Semmel. BOSTOCK, J. . 1955. A handbook on Old High German literature. Oxford, Clarendon Press. BRAUNE, WILHELM. 1918. Althochdeutsch und Angelsächsisch. PBB 43.361-445. , and ERNST A. EBBINGHAUS. 1965. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 14th ed. Tübingen, Niemeyer. , and WALTHER MITZKA. 1967. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 12th ed. Tübin- gen, Niemeyer. BRINKMANN, HENNIG. 1931. Sprachwandel und Sprachbewegungen in althoch- deutscher Zeit. (Jenaer germanistische Forschungen, 18.) Jena, Frommann. . 1941. Der lautliche Vorgang der germanischen und der hochdeutschen Laut- verschiebung. Archiv für vergleichende Phonetik 5.10-20. BRUCH, . 1955. Die Lautverschiebung bei den Westfranken. ZMaF 23. 129-47. DAAB, URSULA. 1960. Die Affatimglossen des Glossars Je und der deutsche Abro- gans. PBB(T) 82.275-317. . 1967. Zur ahd. Glossierung des Abrogans (ab^. PBB(T) 88.1-27. DAL, INGERID. 1960. Entwicklungstendenzen im germanischen Kasussystem. SG- Gand 2.125-37. . 1962. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germ. Dialekte, B. 7.) 2nd ed. Tübingen, Niemeyer. -—. 1967. Über den /-Umlaut im Deutschen. NPhM 68.47-64. EGGENBERGER, JAKOB. 1961. Das Subjektpronomen im Althochdeutschen. Ein syntaktischer Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des deutschen Schrifttums. Diss. . Chur, Sulser. EGGERS, HANS. 1963. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, I: Das Althochdeutsche. (Ro- wohlts deutsche Enzyklopädie.) Reinbek, Rowohlt. EHRISMANN, GUSTAV. 1932. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters. Erster Teil: Die althochdeutsche Literatur. München, Beck. ELLIS, JEFFREY. 1953. An elementary Old High . London, Oxford University Press. FOURQUET, JEAN. 1952. The two e's of . A diachronic - mic approach. Word 8.122-35. FRINGS, THEODOR. 1939. Germanisch ö und e. PBB 63.1-116. GANZ, PETER F. 1957. Langobardische Miszellen. ZDA 87.244-53. GÜRTLER, HANS. 1923. Die Abstraktbildungen des Althochdeutschen. NPhM 24. 105-9. 1278 HERBERT PENZL

HAMMERICH, L.L. 1955. Die germanische und die hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung. II. Worin besteht die hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung? PBB(T) 77.165-203. HANDSCHUH, DORIS. 1964. Konjunktionen in Notkers -Übersetzung. Diss. Zürich. Zürich, Juris-Verlag. HEINERTZ, N. OTTO. 1925. Eine Lautverschiebungstheorie. (LUÄ N.F. Avd. 1, 20, Nr. 7.) HENZEN, WALTER. 1947. Deutsche Wortbildung. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germ. Dialekte, 5.) Heidelberg, Winter. HÖFLER, OTTO. 1955. Stammbaumtheorie, Wellentheorie, Entfaltungstheorie. PBB (T) 77.30-66, 424-76; 78.1-44. . 1957. Die zweite Lautverschiebung bei Ostgermanen und Westgermanen. PBB(T) 79.161-350. IBACH, HELMUT. 1959. Zu Wortschatz und Begriffswelt der althochdeutschen Bene- diktinerregel. PBB(H) 81.123-73; 82.371-473. KARG, FRITZ. 1924. Sprachwissenschaft und Schallanalyse. Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaft, 112-23. Heidelberg, Winter. KARG-GASTERSTÄDT, ELISABETH, and TH. FRINGS. 1952-68. Althochdeutsches Wör- terbuch. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag. KAUFMANN, HENNING. 1965. Untersuchungen zu altdeutschen Rufnamen. (Grund- fragen der Namenkunde, 3.) München, Fink. KIENLE, RICHARD VON. 1960. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germ. Dialekte A. 11.) Tübingen, Niemeyer. KIRSCHSTEIN, BETTINA. 1962. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der alt- hochdeutschen Isidorübersetzung, insbesondere zur Murbacher These. PBB(T) 84.5-122. KLETSCHKE, HANS. 1933. Die Sprache der Mainzer Kanzlei nach den Namen der Fuldaer Urkunden. (Hermaea, 29.) Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. KLUGE, FRIEDRICH. 1925. Abriß der deutschen Wortbildungslehre. 2. Aufl. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. . 1967. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 20th ed. by Walther Mitzka. Berlin, de Gruyter. KNOBLOCH, JOHANN. 1959. Der Ursprung von ahd. Ostern, engl, easter. Sprache 5.27-45. KOLB, EDUARD. 1957. Alemannisches-nordgermanisches Wortgut. Frauenfeld, Huber. KRÄHE, HANS. 1957. Die althochdeutsche Personalendung -mes. IF 63.55-60. KRANZMAYER, EBERHARD. 1938. Die Geschichte des Umlautes im Südbairischen. Ein Beitrag zur oberdeutschen Lautgeschichte. ZMaF 14.73-100. . 1956. Historische Lautgeographie des gesamtbairischen Dialektraumes. (österr. Akademie der Wissenschaften.) Graz-Köln, Böhlau. KROGMANN, WILLY. 1959. Das Hildebrandslied. In die langobardische Urfassung hergestellt. (Philol. Studien und Quellen.) Berlin, Schmidt. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1279

MATZEL, KLAUS. 1966. Ein althochdeutscher Grammatiker. Sprache 12.144-81. MAURER, FRIEDRICH. 1934. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Germanische Philo- logie: Ergebnisse und Aufgaben, 201-28. Heidelberg, Winter. MAYER, ANTON. 1929. Zum Alter des Übergangs von sk zu s. PBB 53.286-90. MCLINTOCK, D. R. 1965. Morphological syncretism in Old High German. TPhS 1965.1-14. MEISEN, KARL. 1961. Altdeutsche Grammatik. I: Lautlehre. II: Formenlehre. Stutt- gart, Metzler. METTKE, HEINZ. 1957. Aldhelmglossen. Jena, Fischer. MICHELS, VICTOR. 1924. Deutsch. Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaft, 463-511. Heidelberg, Winter. MOSER, HUGO. 1954. Zu den beiden Lautverschiebungen und ihrer methodischen Behandlung. DU 6/4.56-81. MÜLLER, GERTRAUD, and THEODOR FRINGS. 1959. Die Entstehung der deutschen iftm-Sätze. (BVSAW 103/6.) Berlin. NAUMANN, HANS, and . 1962. Althochdeutsches Elementarbuch. Grammatik und Text. (Sammlung Göschen.) 3rd ed. Berlin, de Gruyter. ÖHMANN, EMIL. 1934. Zur inneren Chronologie der hochdeutschen Tenuisverschie- bung. AASF 30.443-63. POLENZ, PETER VON. 1961. Landschafts- und Bezirksnamen im frühmittelalterlichen Deutschland. Untersuchungen zur sprachlichen Raumerschließung. Marburg, Elwert. PRIEBSCH, ROBERT, and W. E. COLLINSON. 1962. The German language. 5th ed. London, Faber & Faber. REUTERCRONA, HANS. 1920. Svarabhakti und Erleichterungsvokal im Althoch- deutschen bis ca. 1250. Heidelberg, Winter. RIES, JOHN. 1927-31. Beiträge zur Grundlegung der Syntax. Prag, Taussig. RUPRECHT, DIETRICH. 1959. Tristitia. Wortschatz und Vorstellung in den althoch- deutschen Sprachdenkmälern. (Palaestra 227.) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. SALTVEIT, LAURITS. 1962. Studien zum deutschen Futur. (Árbok for Univ. i Bergen, Humanistisk serie 1961, 2.) Bergen & Oslo, Norw. Universities Press. SCHATZ, JOSEF. 1927. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. . 1935. Über die Lautform althochdeutscher Personennamen. ZDA 72.129 ff. SCHRÖBLER, . 1962. Langobardisch-deutsches Glossar. Leges Langobar- dorum, bearbeitet von Franz Beyerle, 217-28. 2nd ed. Witzenhausen, Deutsch- rechtlicher Instituts-Verlag. SCHRÖDER, WERNER. 1955. Zur Passivbildung im Althochdeutschen. PBB(H) 77. 1-76. SCHULZE, URSULA. 1964. Bemerkungen zur Orthographie von diutisch in den 1280 HERBERT PENZL deutschsprachigen Urkunden des 13. Jahrhunderts und zum Übergang der Laut- gruppe sk > sch. PBB(T) 86.301-21. SCHÜTZEICHEL, RUDOLF. 1961. Die Grundlagen des westlichen Mitteldeutschen. Studien zur historischen Sprachgeographie. (Hermaea N.F. 10.) Tübingen, Niemeyer. . 1966. Das Ludwigslied und die Erforschung des Westfränkischen. RhVJ 31.291-306. SCHWARZ, ERNST. 1927. Die althochdeutsche Lautverschiebung im Altbairischen (mit besonderer Heranziehung der Salzburger Güterverzeichnisse). PBB 50. 242-87. . 1950. Kurze althochdeutsche Grammatik. /M, Lutzeyer. SIEVERS, EDUARD. 1920. Steigton und Fallton im Althochdeutschen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Otfrids Evangelienbuch. Aufsätze zur Sprach- und Litera- turgeschichte, Festgabe für W. Braune, 148-98. Dortmund, Ruhfus. SMET, GILBERT DE. 1961. Auferstehen und Auferstehung im Altdeutschen. Sonder- band E. Karg-Gasterstädt. PBB(H) 82.175-98. SONDEREGGER, STEFAN. 1959. Die Umlautfrage in den germanischen Sprachen. Kratylos 4.1-12. . 1961. Das Althochdeutsche der Vorakte der älteren St. Galler Urkunden. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Urkundensprache in althochdeutscher Zeit. ZMaF 28.251-86. . 1964. Die althochdeutsche Lex-Salica-Ubersetzung. Festgabe für W. Jungan- dreas. (Schriftenreihe zur trierischen Landesgeschichte und Volkskunde 13.) Trier, Neu. . 1965. Aufgaben und Probleme der althochdeutschen Namenkunde. Namen- forschung, ed. by R. Schützeichel and M. Zender, 55-96. Heidelberg, Winter. STECHE, THEODOR. 1937. Zeit und Ursachen der hochdeutschen Lautverschiebung. ZDPh 62.1-56. STEINHAUSER, WALTER. 1928. Eintritt der Stimmhaftigkeit bei den westgermanischen Reibelauten f p s x. Festschrift Max H. Jellinek, 139-66. Wien, Bundesverlag. STEINMEYER, ELIAS VON, and EDUARD SIEVERS. 1879-1922. Die althochdeutschen Glossen gesammelt und bearbeitet. 5 vols. Berlin, Weidmann. STOLTE, HEINZ, and HERMANN PAUL. 1962. Kurze deutsche Grammatik. Auf Grund der fünfbändigen Deutschen Grammatik von Hermann Paul eingerichtet. 3rd ed. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germ. Dialekte A.10.) Tübingen, Niemeyer. TRIER, JOST. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. Band I: Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg, Winter. VALENTIN, PAUL. 1962. Althochdeutsche Phonemsysteme (Isidor, Tatian, Otfrid, Notker). ZMaF 29.341-56. OLD GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1281

WAGNER, KURT. 1925. Die Geschichte eines Lautwandels < chs > s. Teuthonista 2.30-46; 9.33-47 (1933). WEISGERBER, LEO. 1952. Sprachwissenschaftliche Methodenlehre. Deutsche Philo- logie im Aufriss, ed. by W. Stammler, 1-38. Berlin, Schmidt. WEISSGRÄBER, KURT. 1929. Der Bedeutungswandel des Präterito-Präsens 'kann' vom Urgermanisch-Gotischen bis zum Althochdeutsch-Frühmittelhochdeut- schen. (Königsberger deutsche Forschungen, 4.) Königsberg, Gräfe & Unzer. WEISWEILER, JOSEF. 1924. Bedeutungsgeschichte, Linguistik und Philologie. Ge- schichte des ahd. Wortes euua. Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaft, 419-62. WEITHASE, IRMGARD. 1961. Zur Geschichte der gesprochenen deutschen Sprache. Tübingen, Niemeyer. WESCHE, HEINRICH. 1940. Der althochdeutsche Wortschatz im Gebiet des Zaubers und der Weissagung. Halle (Saale), Niemeyer. WILLEMS, F. 1954. Der parataktische Satzstil im Ludwigslied. ZDA 85.18-35. WISSMANN, WILHELM. 1955. Skop. (SbDAW, Klasse für Sprachen 1954, 2.) Berlin. WOLFRUM, GERHARD. 1960. Aus der Werkstatt des Althochdeutschen Wörterbuches. 31. Syntaktische Studien zu ahd. bi thiu. PBB(H) 82.226-41. , and ELFRIEDE ULBRICHT. 1959. Syntaktische Studien zu ahd. avur. PBB(H) 81.215-41. WUNDER, DIETER. 1965. Der Nebensatz bei Otfrid. Untersuchungen zur Syntax des deutschen Nebensatzes. (Germanische Bibliothek, Reihe 3.) Heidelberg, Winter. WUNDERLICH, HERMANN, and HANS REIS. 1924. Der deutsche Satzbau. 3rd ed. Stuttgart, Cotta. ZINSLI, PAUL. 1965. Das Berner Oberland frühe alemannische Siedlungsstaffel im westlichen schweizerdeutschen Sprachgrenzraum. Nach dem Zeugnis von Streuung und Lautstand der Ortsnamen. Namenforschung, ed. by R. Schütz- eichel and M. Zender, pp. 330-58. Heidelberg, Winter.