[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

re: Verner & Paternoster II



From: Peter Collier

Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:45 PM

 

Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@hidden.email> wrote: 

>>> Shouldn't PATER > Paßer/Passer, like

>>> *water > Wasser? Obviously 'sparrow'

>>> would have to be something other than

>>> PASSER.

 

>> According to my references the intervocalic to

>> shift didn't occur after short /a/ (no idea

>> *why*), so I have for example /fra:ter/ > /Tra:ter/ >

>> /trasser/, but /pater/ > /pa:ter/ (the /a/ > /a:/

>> ultimately arising from the open $)

 

>Wouldn't _wasser_ be a counterexample to that?

 

"No. At least, not as far as I made out from my references at the time - all
of which are currently 5600 km away so I can't check! Assumming my
references are correct (and they are respected works so I hope they are !),
I can only summise the /a/ in WGmc was long (I believe it still is in Dutch
and low Saxon?) and so the /t/ changed to /ss/ and the presence of the
double consonant later worked its magic and the original /a:/ became /a/ in
high German dialects."

 

The stressed vowel in WGmc *watar was short. Length in English, Dutch and
Low Saxon is owing to different developments of lengthening.

Dan   

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]