North germanic neuter /t/
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
North germanic neuter /t/
Can anyone explain where the use of /t/ to mark neuter in North Germanic derives from?
German and Dutch don't seem to have a distinction between en/ett, min/mitt, and so on. At least no anymore, as far as I know.
German and Dutch don't seem to have a distinction between en/ett, min/mitt, and so on. At least no anymore, as far as I know.
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Dutch:HinGambleGoth wrote:Can anyone explain where the use of /t/ to mark neuter in North Germanic derives from?
German and Dutch don't seem to have a distinction between en/ett, min/mitt, and so on. At least not anymore, as far as I know.
this: deze/dit; that: die/dat; the: de/het ?
And German /t/ went to /s/: dies/das ?
Doesn't answer your question, though.
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
It has the same origin as English "it", Proto-Germanic *hit "this" in nominative and accusative neuter singular. It became a definite article in Old Norse and suffixed to the noun/adjective/pronoun.
The German and Dutch variants come from PG *þat (nom and acc neut sg), same as English "that" (and "the"), with the same meaning.
The German and Dutch variants come from PG *þat (nom and acc neut sg), same as English "that" (and "the"), with the same meaning.
The whole world is my garden - I have created it and I rule it. The heavens envy me, and the gods stand before me humble.
Hūmantit kuēte esti kirītu-met – ūg apēn harmi samnāntā nu ūg apān ēlhami. Nēbetar mi arsanti nu dēvei istahantar gengei par amāt.
Hūmantit kuēte esti kirītu-met – ūg apēn harmi samnāntā nu ūg apān ēlhami. Nēbetar mi arsanti nu dēvei istahantar gengei par amāt.
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
IMO this neuter /t/ business looks to be an innovation in Eastern and Northern Germanic strong adjectives.
looking at as well, I think North Germanic & patterned their (strong) adjectives closer to the declension of demonstrative & interrogative pronouns.
Cf. this page on Proto-Germanic & PIE Studies
http://www.protogermanic.com/2013/07/pr ... t-iii.html
(*NB: the author switched SG & PL endings for the neuter forms ).
Ironically, in , the neuter interrogative pronoun is ƕa (without final /t/), instead of an expected *ƕata.
Also worth noting, it seems that Gothic neuter strong ADJs exhibit two forms in NOM/ACC.SG, one with the /t/ ending and one without:
E.g. goþ / godata = good-N.NOM|ACC.SG
blind / blindata = blind-N.NOM|ACC.SG
As for where the final /t/ comes from in the demonstratives & interrogatives, well, they go straight on back to PIE /d/.
*kʷid
*kʷód
*tod
looking at as well, I think North Germanic & patterned their (strong) adjectives closer to the declension of demonstrative & interrogative pronouns.
Cf. this page on Proto-Germanic & PIE Studies
http://www.protogermanic.com/2013/07/pr ... t-iii.html
(*NB: the author switched SG & PL endings for the neuter forms ).
Ironically, in , the neuter interrogative pronoun is ƕa (without final /t/), instead of an expected *ƕata.
Also worth noting, it seems that Gothic neuter strong ADJs exhibit two forms in NOM/ACC.SG, one with the /t/ ending and one without:
E.g. goþ / godata = good-N.NOM|ACC.SG
blind / blindata = blind-N.NOM|ACC.SG
As for where the final /t/ comes from in the demonstratives & interrogatives, well, they go straight on back to PIE /d/.
*kʷid
*kʷód
*tod
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Thanks, it was the adjectives and possessives that bugged me, the demonstratives I already knew. I guess the ending -ata existed in proto-Norse and that it was contracted to -tt during the syncope period.Lambuzhao wrote: Also worth noting, it seems that Gothic neuter strong ADJs exhibit two forms in NOM/ACC.SG, one with the /t/ ending and one without:
E.g. goþ / godata = good-N.NOM|ACC.SG
blind / blindata = blind-N.NOM|ACC.SG
Germanic is a messy branch with isoglosses running all over the place
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
This is not just a North and East Germanic thing, the neuter /t/ is attested in older West Germanic as well. The strong adjective declension (including the declension of possessive pronouns) in Germanic is in fact derived from the pronominal declension. This is Germanic innovation (compare Greek and Latin where adjectives generally decline like nouns), but it's found already in Proto-Germanic. This is quite clear if you compare for example the dative singular endings of nouns, pronouns and strong adjectives in more conservative Germanic languages.
So the t of the nom.sg/acc.sg ending of the neuter strong adjectives is derived from the pronominal declension, where PIE already had a *–d not found in nouns and adjectives. It gets slightly more complicated, however. As mentioned above Gothic has two forms, one long with /t/ and one short without (goþ and godata). This variation is found in West Germanic as well, compare Old High German guot and guotaȥ (where OHG ȥ would have yielded modern s). So the long form is found in all branches of Germanic. The short, however, is not found in North Germanic where we only find the long form (Old Norse gott).
The short forms are easy to reconstruct for PG. Gothic goþ and OHG guot goes back to PG *gōda which I believe derive from a Pre-Proto-Germanic *gōdat with the same ending as found on the pronouns (just like for the other endings). But wordfinal *-t of polysyllabic words was lost (remember that stress was on the first syllable). For this reason, monosyllabic pronouns such as *hit kept final *t but adjectives lost it.
The long ending is more problematic. Both Gothic godata and OHG guotaȥ can derive from PG **gōdatō. But reconstructing this ending does not work for ON as it would have triggered u-umlaut (final *ō > ū > u > 0) which it does not. PG **gōdata works for OHG and ON but it would have yielded gothic godat. It's possible that the long endings are actually parallel innovations in East Germanic and Northwest Germanic. Northern and Western Germanic likely just restored the *t from the pronominal declension (**gōda > **gōdat). Eastern Germanic extended this *t with a vowel (which in Gothic is also found in the demonstrative *þata where it is not original).
PG *ainaz > *ainaʀ > *ainʀ > *ainn > ON einn (Swedish en)
PG *ainat (?) > *ainat > *aint > *aitt > ON eitt (Swedish ett)
PG *mīnaz > *mīnaʀ > *mīnʀ > *mīnn > ON minn (Swedish min)
PG *mīnat (?) > *mīnat > *mīnt > *mītt > ON mitt (Swedish mitt)
Proto-Norse *(h)inaʀ > *(h)inʀ > ON hinn, ON fiskr=inn (Swedish fisken)
Proto-Norse *(h)inat > *(h)int > ON hitt, ON hús=it (Swedish huset)
So the t of the nom.sg/acc.sg ending of the neuter strong adjectives is derived from the pronominal declension, where PIE already had a *–d not found in nouns and adjectives. It gets slightly more complicated, however. As mentioned above Gothic has two forms, one long with /t/ and one short without (goþ and godata). This variation is found in West Germanic as well, compare Old High German guot and guotaȥ (where OHG ȥ would have yielded modern s). So the long form is found in all branches of Germanic. The short, however, is not found in North Germanic where we only find the long form (Old Norse gott).
The short forms are easy to reconstruct for PG. Gothic goþ and OHG guot goes back to PG *gōda which I believe derive from a Pre-Proto-Germanic *gōdat with the same ending as found on the pronouns (just like for the other endings). But wordfinal *-t of polysyllabic words was lost (remember that stress was on the first syllable). For this reason, monosyllabic pronouns such as *hit kept final *t but adjectives lost it.
The long ending is more problematic. Both Gothic godata and OHG guotaȥ can derive from PG **gōdatō. But reconstructing this ending does not work for ON as it would have triggered u-umlaut (final *ō > ū > u > 0) which it does not. PG **gōdata works for OHG and ON but it would have yielded gothic godat. It's possible that the long endings are actually parallel innovations in East Germanic and Northwest Germanic. Northern and Western Germanic likely just restored the *t from the pronominal declension (**gōda > **gōdat). Eastern Germanic extended this *t with a vowel (which in Gothic is also found in the demonstrative *þata where it is not original).
The ending -tt of Swdish mitt and ett is simply an assimilation of earlier (Pre-Old Norse) *–nt.HinGambleGoth wrote:Thanks, it was the adjectives and possessives that bugged me, the demonstratives I already knew. I guess the ending -ata existed in proto-Norse and that it was contracted to -tt during the syncope period.
PG *ainaz > *ainaʀ > *ainʀ > *ainn > ON einn (Swedish en)
PG *ainat (?) > *ainat > *aint > *aitt > ON eitt (Swedish ett)
PG *mīnaz > *mīnaʀ > *mīnʀ > *mīnn > ON minn (Swedish min)
PG *mīnat (?) > *mīnat > *mīnt > *mītt > ON mitt (Swedish mitt)
Proto-Norse *(h)inaʀ > *(h)inʀ > ON hinn, ON fiskr=inn (Swedish fisken)
Proto-Norse *(h)inat > *(h)int > ON hitt, ON hús=it (Swedish huset)
Last edited by Ephraim on 12 Sep 2014 13:33, edited 2 times in total.
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Just a bit off-topc
Since these were overlong syllables, they were shortened in the late middle ages, yielding different results in different dialects. Some have /ɛn:/ (standard) other have the opposite /e:n/, this applies to many more words, Oswe dōttir became dotter (standard) or doter (some dialects). Another example is the swedish name Sven from Swēnn <= *Swainaʀ.
The loss of "free" quantity seems to be a pretty dramatic difference comparing medieval and modern Germanic languages, AFIAK only a handful dialects, like Finland Swedish and Dalcarlian retain medieval Germanic quantity, whilst all large/standard languages have developed fixed/allophonic length.
BTW, does anyone know why Old east Norse has -in for 2nd-person plural? all the other old Germanic languages seem to have a dental,compare Oswe īr havin with Oic ér hafið OE gē habbaþ
Oswe ēnn/ētt,Ephraim wrote: PG *ainaz > *ainaʀ > *ainʀ > *ainn > ON einn (Swedish en)
Since these were overlong syllables, they were shortened in the late middle ages, yielding different results in different dialects. Some have /ɛn:/ (standard) other have the opposite /e:n/, this applies to many more words, Oswe dōttir became dotter (standard) or doter (some dialects). Another example is the swedish name Sven from Swēnn <= *Swainaʀ.
The loss of "free" quantity seems to be a pretty dramatic difference comparing medieval and modern Germanic languages, AFIAK only a handful dialects, like Finland Swedish and Dalcarlian retain medieval Germanic quantity, whilst all large/standard languages have developed fixed/allophonic length.
BTW, does anyone know why Old east Norse has -in for 2nd-person plural? all the other old Germanic languages seem to have a dental,compare Oswe īr havin with Oic ér hafið OE gē habbaþ
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Not sure if the answer you're looking for is in there, but here's a nice pdf for you to peruse.
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Not at all an expert on Swedish, but looking at Old Swedish verb paradigms, it is possible, however unlikely, that it begins in the Conjunctive Present tense, where there's overlap in the 2PL and 3PL forms. somehow, this influenced the Indicative Present & Past 2PL , maybe
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Refreshing my OE, also remember that all STRONG verb PLURALS were leveled to final /n/ in the Preterite Indicative, Present and Past Subjunctive , and Preterite-Present Verbs (can, dare, will, etc)...except for the contemnible horde of weak verbs.HinGambleGoth wrote:
OE gē habbaþ
Of course, OE prolly had next to no influence on OSwe, but good to just keep in mind for comparison's sake.
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
It is the other way around you know, but the English did give us most of our Christian loanwords, since it was mostly English and Saxons that were missionaries in Scandinavia.Lambuzhao wrote:
Of course, OE prolly had next to no influence on OSwe, but good to just keep in mind for comparison's sake.
- DrGeoffStandish
- banned
- Posts: 581
- Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Should be noted though that western dialects were to a higher degree infleunced by English terminology and that the eastern dialects were to a higher degree influenced by Low German terminology.HinGambleGoth wrote:It is the other way around you know, but the English did give us most of our Christian loanwords, since it was mostly English and Saxons that were missionaries in Scandinavia.
Speaking about Christian loanwords, does anyone know hy there were two words for 'church' with only the stem vowel differing, kirkja and kyrkja? SAOB on the etymology on Swedish kyrka 'church':
- fsv. kyrkia, kirkia, motsv. fd. kirk(i)æ, kyrk(i)æ, d. kirke, isl. kirkia, fnor. kyrkia; av feng. cirice, cyrice (eng. church), motsv. fsax. kirika, fht. kiricha (t. kirche); ytterst av gr. κυϱιακόν, κυϱικόν (eg. adj. n. sg. till κύϱιος, herre), hörande till Herren, användt substantiverat med underförstått δῶμα, hus l. dyl., i bet.: Herrens hus.
- Alle mæn som tetta bref kan foræ koma høra heller see helsom
wi olaf pædirsson ok andirs pædirsson kierlika medh gudh. kienn-
oms wi ok fullelikæ til standom medh tesse vpno breffue ad wi
vpburidh hafum af joon i lansemnæ xvjj/-j/ jæmpska mærk til takka
ok fulo nøgyo foræ tridiungen i lanzemnæ liggiendis i sundasy(o) sokn
ok vplatum vi joon fornemdha jordh medh godum vilia ok beradnæ
modhæ foræ fornemdhæ xvjj/-j/ jæ(m)psca mark. Ty skal han vara ok
hans eftherkomandhæ quith ok akæræløøs fore aas ok varum arfuum
epterkomandum fore alle ytermere epter talan. War tetta giorth
ok stadfesth vidh sunda syo kirkio sunadagin nesth epter passka
dagh ta som lidith var fraa byrdh vars herra jesu christi tusandha
vetra fyra hundhradha vetra firtighi vettra ok v vetra hia varandha
ma(n)gom godum manum ok vitnath vndir atta fasta fiørsth erik
i anuik lafrens i lokom nisse i marsæther nigils torkilson simon i
lostum sten pædirsson, joon benzson jænis i hakas hengiæ jænis
i brata by vitnis men seuasth i tafla nes jap i sauik /l-/til mera visso/-l/
Til mera visso bidiom vi olaf pædirsson ok andirs pædirsson be-
sskiedelika men biørn i grimenes ok kiætil i *i døuingh om teres
jnstiglæ for tetta breff medan vi ey sielfue instiglæ hafuum
Source.
- Alle mæn som tetta bref kan foræ koma høra heller see helsom
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
At a guess, it could be that the Swedish variant is an etymological spelling based on the Greek word, while the other North Germanic languages kept the spelling based on their English and Low German origins.DrGeoffStandish wrote:Speaking about Christian loanwords, does anyone know hy there were two words for 'church' with only the stem vowel differing, kirkja and kyrkja? SAOB on the etymology on Swedish kyrka 'church':
- fsv. kyrkia, kirkia, motsv. fd. kirk(i)æ, kyrk(i)æ, d. kirke, isl. kirkia, fnor. kyrkia; av feng. cirice, cyrice (eng. church), motsv. fsax. kirika, fht. kiricha (t. kirche); ytterst av gr. κυϱιακόν, κυϱικόν (eg. adj. n. sg. till κύϱιος, herre), hörande till Herren, användt substantiverat med underförstått δῶμα, hus l. dyl., i bet.: Herrens hus.
Do all Swedish speakers pronounce kyrka as if it were spelt with a y or do some, despite the spelling, pronounce it as if it were spelt with i? If there are some people with a y spelling but an i pronunciation, could that be evidence that the pronunciation with y was originally a spelling pronunciation?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
- DrGeoffStandish
- banned
- Posts: 581
- Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
I think Nynorsk Norwegian has y too so it's not only Swedish. It seems a bit far fetched that someone living when the word was introduced would use an etymological Greek spelling, I doubt spelling conventions was of any use when Latin script wasn't even in use. There probably was no y phoneme either even though the exact timing is difficult to pinpoint. There could be another explanation, maybe it wasn't borrowed only from Old English but also directly from Greek? Remember that Scandinavia had close contacts with the Byzantine Empire which I guess was Greek speaking.sangi39 wrote:At a guess, it could be that the Swedish variant is an etymological spelling based on the Greek word, while the other North Germanic languages kept the spelling based on their English and Low German origins.
I think only dialects with a generally delabialized y would have i here. In any case, I don't think one necessarily have to consider only Swedish dialects with i, the fact that there are North Germanic dialects at all with i would be just as much a support.sangi39 wrote:Do all Swedish speakers pronounce kyrka as if it were spelt with a y or do some, despite the spelling, pronounce it as if it were spelt with i? If there are some people with a y spelling but an i pronunciation, could that be evidence that the pronunciation with y was originally a spelling pronunciation?
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Old English had palatalized the Greek loanword, this makes me think a little.
If the English missionaries showed up and say /ˈtʃiritʃe/ to the heathen northerners, why is it that that they end up pronouncing it "etymological"? with /k/? Low german lacks palatalization as far as I know. Palatalization was one of the largest differences between OE and ON, Old low German was in many ways closer to ON, particularly East Norse.
Many Scandinavian dialects did undergo the same change as English, but that was much later, Old Norse lacked affricatives and only had the original PG sibilants s/z. Wouldn't the converts end up going to the "syrsa" ?
What is the exact chronology of OE palatalization, the West Saxon spelling doesn't really tell anything since they spelt the palatalized and velar phonemes with the same letters. And Christian loanwords underwent the change, this, along with "hard" forms in northern dialects (can be blamed to the danes) seems to show that it happened after the settlement in Britain, and that its not a common shift with Frisian.
If the English missionaries showed up and say /ˈtʃiritʃe/ to the heathen northerners, why is it that that they end up pronouncing it "etymological"? with /k/? Low german lacks palatalization as far as I know. Palatalization was one of the largest differences between OE and ON, Old low German was in many ways closer to ON, particularly East Norse.
Many Scandinavian dialects did undergo the same change as English, but that was much later, Old Norse lacked affricatives and only had the original PG sibilants s/z. Wouldn't the converts end up going to the "syrsa" ?
What is the exact chronology of OE palatalization, the West Saxon spelling doesn't really tell anything since they spelt the palatalized and velar phonemes with the same letters. And Christian loanwords underwent the change, this, along with "hard" forms in northern dialects (can be blamed to the danes) seems to show that it happened after the settlement in Britain, and that its not a common shift with Frisian.
- DrGeoffStandish
- banned
- Posts: 581
- Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Maybe [tʃ] would be interpreted as being merely a weird form of [k] by the norse? How do the Finnish speaking people approximate the Finland Swedish phoneme [tʃ] (⇔ Sweden Swedish [ɕ] which Sweden finns approximate asHinGambleGoth wrote:If the English missionaries showed up and say /ˈtʃiritʃe/ to the heathen northerners, why is it that that they end up pronouncing it "etymological"? with /k/?
-
- greek
- Posts: 541
- Joined: 15 Aug 2010 15:48
- Contact:
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
DrGeoffStandish wrote:Maybe [tʃ] would be interpreted as being merely a weird form of [k] by the norse? How do the Finnish speaking people approximate the Finland Swedish phoneme [tʃ] (⇔ Sweden Swedish [ɕ] which Sweden finns approximate asHinGambleGoth wrote:If the English missionaries showed up and say /ˈtʃiritʃe/ to the heathen northerners, why is it that that they end up pronouncing it "etymological"? with /k/?)? For example, how is FinSwe kyrka [ˈtʃʏr.kɑ] 'church' pronounced?
Hm. That's a pretty difficult question to answer really. Most are taught at school to emulate the pronunciation in Sweden. Some never learn well enough and go for orthographical variations ([kyrkkA], but you can also probably find šyrkka, syrkka as well as tsyrkka - Finns vary very much with regards to their ability to produce sounds in that region.) Then again, I have lived close to Pargas for too long, and there the word is genuinely /kyrka/
However, did the missionaries really have tS at that time? (Think of the Scottish kirk)
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Ooh, sounds like we're veering into Varangian/Kievan Rus/OSC territory:Systemzwang wrote: and go for orthographical variations ([kyrkkA], but you can also probably find šyrkka, syrkka as well as tsyrkka -
via Old High German chirihha (compare Old Church Slavonic црькꙑ (crĭky), Bulgarian църква (cǎrkva), Russian церковь (cerkovʹ)).
BTW, West Frisian has tsjerke (!)
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Frisian, english's redneck brother.Lambuzhao wrote: BTW, West Frisian has tsjerke (!)
Re: North germanic neuter /t/
Systemzwang wrote:DrGeoffStandish wrote:Maybe [tʃ] would be interpreted as being merely a weird form of [k] by the norse? How do the Finnish speaking people approximate the Finland Swedish phoneme [tʃ] (⇔ Sweden Swedish [ɕ] which Sweden finns approximate asHinGambleGoth wrote:If the English missionaries showed up and say /ˈtʃiritʃe/ to the heathen northerners, why is it that that they end up pronouncing it "etymological"? with /k/?)? For example, how is FinSwe kyrka [ˈtʃʏr.kɑ] 'church' pronounced?
Hm. That's a pretty difficult question to answer really. Most are taught at school to emulate the pronunciation in Sweden.
We are? That's news to me - although it has been twenty years since I started learning Swedish, so maybe things have changed since then... But the way I was taught, it's [ˈtʃyrk:ɑ̈]. Some who can't manage [tʃ] would probably approximate with [ts], while others who can't grasp the idea of pronouncing <k> as anything but [k] would use [k].
Anyway, FWIW, Etymonline gives the word going all the way back to Proto-Germanic as *kirika. Which would explain the initial consonant, but not the /y/ (although that obviously would have been present in the Greek original).