Verner's law

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Named after its discoverer, the Danish linguist Karl Verner and formulated by him in 1875 , Verner's law (uncommon: according to Duden, “Verner's law, occasionally Verner's law”) describes an effective exception to the first (Germanic) sound shift in ancient Germanic , namely the voicing ( sonorisation ) of the newly created voiceless fricatives * f, * þ, * χ, * χʷ, * s under certain conditions. Jacob Grimm called these exceptions to the first sound shift, which could not be explained in his time, "grammatical changes" . With the newly won explanation, the young grammarians found confirmation of the ( postulated ) exemption of the sound laws that they demanded .

procedure

According to the traditional view, the Indo-European voiceless plosives ( explosiva ) became either voiceless fricatives ( fricatives ) * f , * þ , * χ , * χʷ , or their voiced equivalents * ƀ , * đ , * ǥ , * ǥʷ through the first sound shift ; accordingly, the inherited sibilant * s was replaced by the voiced * z . Verner now found out that the voiced variant always occurred when the voice tone ( accent ) followed the Indo-European closure sound . If he went ahead, it stayed with the voiceless fricative, also at the beginning of the word or in a so-called "covered position" (an s- precedes, a second plosive sound follows).

Here is the standard example : The comparison between Latin frāter and pater and ancient Indian bhrātar- and pitár- shows that the two words brother and father were based on an Indo-European * t .

So how do the different results d and t in New High German come about ? With the rules of the first sound shift, only the form brother could be explained: The Indo-European * t is shifted to * þ , which is regularly converted to d in Old High German .

The t in father couldn't be explained like that - one would expect the form Vader analogous to brother . Only with Verner's knowledge does the process become clear: Since the word in Indo-European was stressed after the t ( * ph₂tér- ), after the first sound shift, Verner's law applies (in the traditional view) and turns * þ into * đ , which (via d ) regularly becomes t in Old High German .

Euler, on the other hand, does not envisage fricatization under Verner's conditions, but rather after softening (Verner’s law) as more natural, simplified * t> * tʰ> * dh> * ð. More in detail in the following paragraphs.

Dating

Traditional view

According to traditional doctrine - also according to the conviction of Karl Verner himself - the changes described with Verner's law followed the first sound shift . It is certain that Verner's law presupposes the old, Indo-European stress ratios. Its validity must therefore have been before the Germanic initial stress (stress on the stem syllable ). This in turn led relatively soon to the weakening of suffixes and secondary syllables and thus to the rapid decline of the morphological systems, which can be observed in the individual Germanic languages ​​since the beginning of their tradition.

The order traditionally adopted - and in many textbooks to this day - was:

  1. The first sound shift ("Grimm's Law") marks the emergence of Germanic
  2. Exception to this ("Verner's Law")
  3. Appearance of the initial emphasis
  4. Weakening of the unstressed syllables
  5. Decay / remodeling of the morphological systems (flexion systems)

New considerations on dating

The traditionally accepted order has been questioned in recent years (since approx. 1998) with the following two main arguments: (1.) Several linguists pointed out that Verner's law may well have been valid before the first phonetic shift. At least there is no positive evidence for the traditionally assumed reverse order.

(2.) The discovery of arguments for dating Grimm's law only to the (outgoing) 1st century BC. Chr. (See primitive Germanic ). In particular, the tribe name Kimbern (> Danish Himmerland ) and the old name of the river Waal ( Vacalus ) indicate the change from initial k to h [χ] only shortly before the turn of the ages (although these examples are by no means conclusive - even if one excludes Celtic mediation, for example, played a role - since a primitive Germanic [h] or [χ] in Latin could only be reproduced as <c>, because according to Meiser, the Latin <h> had been around for a long time falls silent, and for the Germanic sound there was no more precise equivalent in Latin). Conversely, the main argument up to now applies (though by no means the only one, cf. Urm . * Walhaz 'Kelt' from Volcae ) for the early dating of this change to the middle of the 1st millennium BC. BC - namely the change of the Scythian word * kanbā in ancient German * hanapiz (> nhd. Hemp ) - as no longer sustainable and at least by no means mandatory. [Why?]

The assumed late dating of Grimm's law to the late 1st century BC. BC in turn sets - if the above traditional sequence - an enormously rapid change in the late Common Germanic around the turn of the times: within a few decades, the first three of the above five profound changes should have been carried out in quick succession. This is the only way to explain that all Germanic languages ​​show these changes, although the Germanic language unit in the East began to dissolve around the birth of Christ through the replacement of East Germanic. However, such a rapid language change seems less plausible. It would have had the consequence - pointedly - that the grandson would hardly have understood his own grandfather. However, there is evidence of rapid language change; B. in Latin or Early Irish.

Against this background, the thesis that Verner's law could have been valid - possibly long before Grimm's law - has been put forward. Then the following sequence would be assumed:

  1. Verner's law (first possible delimitation Indo-European / Germanic)
  2. Appearance of the initial emphasis (second possible differentiation from Indo-European / Germanic)
  3. Grimm's law / first sound shift in the late 1st century BC BC (it does not mark the origin of Germanic)
  4. Weakening of the unstressed syllables (in German only in the 10th century AD), eventually soon after, if not at the same time
  5. Decay / remodeling of the flexion systems

In German, steps 4 and 5 mark the transition from Old High German to Middle High German .

A phonological argument can be used against this early dating : With the traditional sequence, one can restrict the effect of Verner's Law on a phonetic group of sounds that belong together, namely the voiceless fricatives. If, on the other hand, one wants to apply the first sound shift according to Verner's law, one must assume that it has affected two phonetically completely different groups of sounds, namely the voiceless plosives * p , * t and * k on the one hand and the fricative s on the other.

Consequences of the early dating of Verner's law

The objection that in this hypothetical order the time interval between the appearance of the initial emphasis and steps four and five is too great is refuted by the findings of Icelandic and Valais German . In these Germanic, relatively isolated idioms , vowel secondary syllables and archaic inflection systems with postdetermination exist to this day - over 2000 years after the onset of the initial stress - as historically documented in Old High German , Old English and Gothic . From this factual situation the assumption can be made: If initial emphasis and such morphological systems were demonstrably compatible with one another for 2000 years, they could also have been compatible with one another for 3000 years.

This relative chronology shows the change in the late Common Germanic in the 1st century BC. It is therefore also understandable why all Germanic languages ​​have made changes 1 to 3 in full. In view of the replacement of the East Germans by the entirety of the Germanic peoples as early as the 2nd or 1st century BC, this commonality can hardly be explained with the late dating of Grimm's law, which is largely assumed today. Even with the new relative chronology, the implementation of Grimm's law in all Germanic languages ​​is not very easy to explain. The spread of the first sound shift within the Germanic language area from east to west in the end of the 1st millennium BC seems obvious and, given the empirical findings, very plausible. Chr .: The Waal , whose ancient name, which was later displaced by sound, is important evidence of this late dating, is located in the far west of the Germanic language area at that time.

In any case, Grimm's law no longer marks the beginning of Germanic, but on the contrary one of the last changes made jointly by all Germanic languages. The idiom that has hitherto been referred to as Primordial Germanic or Common Germanic would then be more precisely designated as the latest Common Germanic . The language spoken by the Teutons in the late Bronze Age or Iron Age would then have a much more archaic character and resembled its Indo-European predecessor far more than traditionally assumed .

Acceptance of early dating

The early dating of Verner's law has not yet found general acceptance. Authors of more recent publications (e.g. Schaffner 2001, Stricker 2005) mostly stick to the traditional chronology. A detailed summary of the discussion is contained in the new monograph by Wolfram Euler , who gives further arguments for early dating, quotations: “Early dating [...] implies a more harmonious and simpler sequence of sound changes: the weakening of aspirated tenues to aspirated media in unstressed position is phonological a tiny step that is more natural than the assumption that voiceless fricatives were sonorized in an unstressed position ”. Early dating is therefore also " preferable in terms of scientific theory , because [...] in cases of doubt the hypothesis that makes do with fewer and simpler assumptions is more plausible".

Euler gives two further arguments for early dating: According to the latest research, the first sound shift , at least in the west of the Germanic language area, was even in the 1st century BC. Not finished yet. “If Verner's Law and the accent shift had only happened afterwards, then the Germanic language would have found itself in an almost precipitous process of upheaval in the last decades before the birth of Christ [...] If, on the other hand, one looks from this point into the past, then there is a long period of time available in which the phonological changes can be made in the order represented here. "

Another argument from Euler concerns the connection between the early Germanic change to the initial stress and the spirantization : “The alternative sequence [= early dating] also means that the shift of the accent to the stem syllable can already have taken place when the tenues were not yet spirantized, that is before the first sound shift. [...] The shift in accent may even have been the causa movens for the spiralization, and a spiralization with continuous initial emphasis seems more obvious than a spiralization completely independent of the accent, as the previous order assumes. "

See also

literature

  • Neville E. Collinge: The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam 1985, pp. 203-216.
  • Wolfram Euler , Konrad Badenheuer: Language and origin of the Germanic peoples - demolition of the Proto-Germanic before the first sound shift. London / Hamburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-9812110-1-6 .
  • Stefan Schaffner: Verner's law and the inner-paradigmatic grammatical change of the original Germanic in the nominal area. Innsbruck Contributions to Linguistics 103, Innsbruck 2001
  • Stefanie Stricker: Verner's Law. In: Helmut Glück (Hrsg.): Metzler Lexikon Sprache. 3rd edition Stuttgart 2005.
  • Joseph B. Voyles: Early Germanic Grammar. Pre-, Proto-, and Post-Germanic Languages. Emerald, 2007, ISBN 978-0-12-728270-1 , p. L.
  • Harald Wiese: A journey through time to the origins of our language. How Indo-European Studies explains our words. Logos Verlag Berlin, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3832516017 .
  • Jorma Koivulehto. Theo Vennemann : The Finnish step change and Verner's law . In: Contributions to the history of the German language and literature . No. 118, 1996, pp. 163-182 (esp. 170-174).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Michael Meier-Brügger: Indo-European Linguistics . De Gruyter, Berlin / New York, 2010, 9th edition, L336, L421
  2. ↑ 2009, pp. 54f and 61–64
  3. ↑ 2009: pp. 54f.
  4. ↑ 2009: 62