User:Alcaios/Germanic languages

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Proto-Germanic

Main article: Proto-Germanic language

All

Germanic verb system (notably in strong verbs), or the merger of the vowels a and o qualities (ə, a, o > a; ā, ō > ō).[4] During the Pre-Germanic linguistic period (2500–500 BCE), the proto-language has almost certainly been influenced by linguistic substrates still noticeable in the Germanic phonology and lexicon.[5][a] Shared grammatical innovations suggest also very early contacts between Germanic and the Indo-European Baltic languages.[8] The leading theory, suggested by archaeological and genetic evidence,[9] postulates a diffusion of Indo-European languages from the Pontic–Caspian steppe towards Northern Europe during the third millennium BCE, via linguistic contacts and migrations from the Corded Ware culture towards modern-day Denmark, resulting in cultural mixing with the indigenous Funnelbeaker culture.[10][b]

Between around 500 BCE and the beginning of the

Urheimat ('original homeland') of the Proto-Germanic language, the ancestral idiom of all attested Germanic dialects, was primarily situated in the southern Jutland peninsula, from which Proto-Germanic speakers migrated towards bordering parts of Germany and along the sea-shores of the Baltic and the North Sea, an area corresponding to the extent of the late Jastorf culture.[11][c] One piece of evidence is the presence of early Germanic loanwords in the Finnic and Sámi languages (e.g. Finnic kuningas, from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz 'king'; rengas, from *hringaz 'ring'; etc.),[12] with the older loan layers possibly dating back to an earlier period of intense contacts between pre-Germanic and Finno-Permic (i.e. Finno-Samic) speakers.[13] There is also a great deal of influence in vocabulary from the Celtic languages, but most of this appears to be much later,[14] with most loanwords occurring either before or during the sound shift described by Grimm's Law.[15] Germanic also shows some similarities in vocabulary to the Italic languages, similarities which are often shared with Celtic.[8] An archeological continuity can also be demonstrated between the Jastof culture and populations defined as Germanic by Roman sources.[16]

Although Proto-Germanic is reconstructed without dialects via the comparative method, it is almost certain that it never was a uniform proto-language.[17] The late Jastorf culture occupied so much territory that it is unlikely that Germanic populations spoke a single dialect, and traces of early linguistic varieties have been highlighted by scholars.[18] Sister dialects of Proto-Germanic itself certainly existed, as evidenced by the absence of the First Germanic Sound Shift (Grimm's law) in some "Para-Germanic" recorded proper names, and the reconstructed Proto-Germanic language was only one among several dialects spoken at that time by peoples identified as "Germanic" by Roman sources or archeological data.[16] Although Roman sources name various Germanic tribes such as Suevi, Alemanni, Bauivari, etc., it is unlikely that the members of these tribes all spoke the same dialect.[19]

Early attestations

Definite and comprehensive evidence of Germanic lexical units only occurred after Caesar's conquest of Gaul in the 1st century BCE, after which contacts with Proto-Germanic speakers began to intensify. The Alcis, a pair of brother gods worshipped by the Nahanarvali, are given by Tacitus as a Latinized form of *alhiz (a kind of 'stag'), and the word sapo ('hair dye') is certainly borrowed from Proto-Germanic *saipwōn- (English soap), as evidenced by the parallel Finnish loanword saipio.[20] The name of the framea, described by Tacitus as a short spear carried by Germanic warriors, most likely derives from the compound *fram-ij-an- ('forward-going one'), as suggested by comparable semantical structures found in early runes (e.g., raun-ij-az 'tester', on a lancehead) and linguistic cognates attested in the later Old Norse, Old Saxon and Old High German languages: fremja, fremmian and fremmen all mean 'to carry out'.[21]

Negau helmet B, carved in the Etruscan alphabet during the 3rd–2nd c. BCE, is generally regarded as Proto-Germanic.[22]

In the absence of evidence earlier than the 2nd century CE, it must be assumed that Proto-Germanic speakers living in Germania were members of preliterate societies.

Negau helmet in the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE, possibly by a Germanic-speaking warrior involved in combat in northern Italy, has been interpreted by some scholars as Harigasti Teiwǣ (*harja-gastiz 'army-guest' + *teiwaz 'god, deity'), which could be an invocation to a war-god or a mark of ownership engraved by its possessor.[22] The inscription Fariarix (*farjōn- 'ferry' + *rīk- 'ruler') carved on tetradrachms found in Bratislava (mid-1st c. BCE) may indicate the Germanic name of a Celtic ruler.[24]

The earliest attested runic inscriptions (

Proto-Norse, or similar terms, and still very close to Proto-Germanic, has been interpreted as a northern variant of the Northwest Germanic dialects and the ancestor of the Old Norse language of the Viking Age (8th–11th c. CE).[26] Based upon its dialect-free character and shared features with West Germanic languages, some scholars have contended that it served as a kind of koiné language in (parts of) the Northwest Germanic area.[27] However, the merging of unstressed Proto-Germanic vowels, attested in runic inscriptions from the 4th and 5th centuries CE, also suggests that Primitive Norse could not have been a direct predecessor of West Germanic dialects.[28]

Longer texts in Germanic languages post-date the Proto-Germanic period. They begin with the Gothic Bible, written in the Gothic alphabet in the 6th century, and then with texts in the Latin alphabet beginning in the 8th century in modern England and shortly thereafter in modern Germany.[29]

Linguistic disintegration

By the time Germanic speakers entered written history, their linguistic territory had stretched farther south, since a Germanic dialect continuum (where neighbouring language varieties diverged only slightly between each other, but remote dialects were not necessarily mutually intelligible due to accumulated differences over the distance) covered a region roughly located between the Rhine, the Vistula, the Danube, and southern Scandinavia during the first two centuries of the Common Era.[30] East Germanic speakers dwelled on the Baltic sea coasts and islands, while speakers of the Northwestern dialects occupied territories in present-day Denmark and bordering parts of Germany at the earliest date when they can be identified.[31]

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, migrations of East Germanic gentes from the Baltic Sea coast southeastwards into the hinterland led to their separation from the dialect continuum.[32] By the late 3rd century CE, linguistic divergences like the West Germanic loss of the final consonant -z had already occurred within the "residual" Northwest dialect continuum.[28] The latter definitely ended after the 5th- and 6th-century migrations of Angles, Jutes and part of the Saxon tribes towards modern-day England.[33] In view of the later linguistic situation of modern-day Denmark, populated by North Germanic-speakers, it is assumed that the original dialects of Jutland were assimilated by speakers of a more northerly dialect (Danes) after the Anglo-Saxon migrations, breaking the continuum between Scandinavia and the more southerly Germanic-speaking regions; however, this cannot be shown in the archaeological or historical record.[34][35]

Classification

Replica of an altar for the Matrons of Vacallina (Matronae Vacallinehae) from Mechernich-Weyer, Germany

Although they have certainly influenced academic views on ancient Germanic languages up until the 20th century, the traditional groupings given by contemporary authors like Pliny and Tacitus are no longer regarded as reliable by modern linguists, who base their reasoning on the attested sound changes and shared mutations which occurred in geographically distant groups of dialects.[36] The Germanic languages are traditionally divided between East, North and West Germanic branches.[37] The modern prevailing view is that North and West Germanic were also encompassed in a larger subgroup called Northwest Germanic.[38]

  • Northwest Germanic: mainly characterized by the i-umlaut, and the shift of the long vowel *ē towards a long *ā in accented syllables;[39] it remained a dialect continuum following the migration of East Germanic speakers in the 2nd–3rd century CE;[40]
    • Primitive Norse: initially characterized by the monophthongization of the sound ai to ā (attested from ca. 400 BCE);[41] a uniform northern dialect or koiné attested in runic inscriptions from the 2nd century CE onward,[42] it remained practically unchanged until a transitional period that started in the late 5th century;[43] and Old Norse, a language attested by runic inscriptions written in the Younger Fuþark from the beginning of the Viking Age (8th–9th centuries CE);[44]
    • West Germanic: including Old Saxon (attested from the 5th c. CE), Old English (late 5th c.), Old Frisian (6th c.), Frankish (6th c.), Old High German (6th c.), and possibly Langobardic (6th c.), which is only scarcely attested;[45] they are mainly characterized by the loss of the final consonant -z (attested from the late 3rd century),[46] and by the j-consonant gemination (attested from ca. 400 BCE);[27] early inscriptions from the West Germanic areas found on altars where votive offerings were made to the Matronae Vacallinehae (Matrons of Vacallina) in the Rhineland dated to ca. 160−260 CE; West Germanic remained a "residual" dialect continuum until the Anglo-Saxon migrations in the 5th–6th centuries CE;[33]
  • East Germanic, of which only Gothic is attested by both runic inscriptions (from the 3rd c. CE) and textual evidence (principally Wulfila's Bible; ca. 350−380). It became extinct after the fall of the Visigothic Kingdom in the early 8th century.[32] The inclusion of the Burgundian and Vandalic languages within the East Germanic group, while plausible, is still uncertain due to their scarce attestation.[47] The latest attested East Germanic language, Crimean Gothic, has been partially recorded in the 16th century.[48]

Further internal classifications are still debated among scholars, as it is unclear whether the internal features shared by several branches are due to early common innovations or to the later diffusion of local dialectal innovations.[49][d] The West Germanic group remains somewhat problematic linguistically, and appears more diverse in the early period than North or East Germanic.[50] Seebold Elmar proposes the existence of an English, Frisian, and Continental group within West Germanic.[51] According to Ludwig Rübekeil, if Old English and Old Frisian certainly share distinctive characteristics such as the Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law, attested by the 6th century in inscriptions on both sides of the North Sea, and the use of the fuþorc system with additional runes to convey innovative and shared sound changes, it is unclear whether those common features are really inherited or have rather emerged by connections over the North Sea.[52]

The linguist

Oder-Vistula Germanic (East Germanic), and North Germanic. Although influential, Maurer's thesis failed to replace the older model.[53] Aside from "North Sea Germanic", Maurer's groupings within West Germanic ("Rhine-Weser" "Elbe Germanic") do not hold up to linguistic scrutiny.[54]

Notes

  1. Proto-Germanic origin, attested in Old High German since the 8th c., which have found so far no competing Indo-European etymologies, however unlikely: e.g., Adel 'aristocratic lineage'; Asch 'barge'; Beute 'board'; Loch 'lock'; Säule 'pillar'; etc.[7]
  2. ^ Iversen & Kroonen 2017, p. 521: "In the more than 250 years (ca. 2850–2600 B.C.E.) when late Funnel Beaker farmers coexisted with the new Single Grave culture communities within a relatively small area of present-day Denmark, processes of cultural and linguistic exchange were almost inevitable—if not widespread."
  3. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 85: "Early Jastorf, at the end of the 7th century BCE, is almost certainly too early for the last common ancestor of the attested languages; but later Jastorf culture and its successors occupy so much territory that their populations are most unlikely to have spoken a single dialect, even granting that the expansion of the culture was relatively rapid. It follows that our reconstructed PGmc was only one of the dialects spoken by peoples identified archeologically, or by the Romans, as 'Germans'; the remaining Germanic peoples spoke sister dialects of PGmc." Polomé 1992, p. 51: "...if the Jastorf culture and, probably, the neighboring Harpstedt culture to the west constitute the Germanic homeland (Mallory 1989: 87), a spread of Proto-Germanic northwards and eastwards would have to be assumed, which might explain both the archaisms and the innovative features of North Germanic and East Germanic, and would fit nicely with recent views locating the homeland of the Goths in Poland."
  4. ^ Rübekeil 2017, pp. 996–997: West Germanic: "There seems to be a principal distinction between the northern and the southern part of this group; the demarcation between both parts, however, is a matter of controversy. The northern part, North Sea Gmc or Ingvaeonic, is the larger one, but it is a moot point whether Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian really belong to it, and if yes, to what extent they participate in all its characteristic developments. (...) As a whole, there are arguments for a close relationship between Anglo-Frisian on the one hand and Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian on the other; there are, however, counter-arguments as well. The question as to whether the common features are old and inherited or have emerged by connections over the North Sea is still controversial."

References

  1. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 84; Anthony 2007, pp. 57–58; Iversen & Kroonen 2017, p. 519
  2. ^ Penzl 1972, p. 1232.
  3. ^ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, p. 593.
  4. ^ Stiles 2017, p. 889; Rübekeil 2017, p. 989
  5. ^ Schrijver 2014, p. 197; Seebold 2017, p. 978; Iversen & Kroonen 2017, p. 518
  6. ^ Seebold 2017, pp. 978–979.
  7. ^ Seebold 2017, pp. 979–980.
  8. ^ a b Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 581–582.
  9. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 360; Seebold 2017, p. 978; Heyd 2017, pp. 348–349; Kristiansen et al. 2017, p. 340; Reich 2018, pp. 110–111
  10. ^ Anthony 2007, pp. 360, 367–368; Seebold 2017, p. 978; Kristiansen et al. 2017, p. 340; Iversen & Kroonen 2017, pp. 512–513
  11. ^ Polomé 1992, p. 51; Fortson 2004, p. 338; Ringe 2006, p. 85
  12. ^ Fortson 2004, p. 338; Kroonen 2013, pp. 247, 311; Nedoma 2017, p. 876
  13. ^ Schrijver 2014, p. 197; Nedoma 2017, p. 876
  14. ^ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 579–589.
  15. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 296.
  16. ^ a b Ringe 2006, p. 85.
  17. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 85; Nedoma 2017, p. 875; Seebold 2017, p. 975; Rübekeil 2017, p. 989
  18. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 85; Rübekeil 2017, p. 989
  19. ^ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, p. 595.
  20. ^ Kroonen 2013, p. 422; Rübekeil 2017, p. 990
  21. ^ Rübekeil 2017, p. 990.
  22. ^ a b Todd 1999, p. 13; Green 1998, p. 108; Ringe 2006, p. 152; Sanders 2010, p. 27; Nedoma 2017, p. 875.
  23. ^ Green 1998, p. 13; Nedoma 2017, p. 876
  24. ^ Nedoma 2017, p. 875.
  25. ^ Nedoma 2017, p. 876; Rübekeil 2017, p. 991
  26. ^ Schrijver 2014, p. 183; Rübekeil 2017, p. 992
  27. ^ a b Rübekeil 2017, p. 992.
  28. ^ a b Nedoma 2017, pp. 876–877.
  29. ^ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 602–603.
  30. ^ Fortson 2004, pp. 338–339; Nedoma 2017, p. 876
  31. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 85; Nedoma 2017, p. 879
  32. ^ a b Nedoma 2017, p. 879.
  33. ^ a b Nedoma 2017, p. 881.
  34. ^ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 595–596.
  35. ^ Seebold 2010, p. 1068.
  36. ^ Rübekeil 2017, p. 986.
  37. ^ Fortson 2004, p. 339; Rübekeil 2017, p. 993
  38. ^ Fortson 2004, p. 339; Seebold 2017, p. 976
  39. ^ Stiles 2017, pp. 903–905.
  40. ^ Nedoma 2017, pp. 879, 881; Rübekeil 2017, p. 995
  41. ^ Schrijver 2014, p. 185; Rübekeil 2017, p. 992
  42. ^ Rübekeil 2017, p. 991.
  43. ^ Nedoma 2017, p. 877.
  44. ^ Nedoma 2017, p. 878.
  45. ^ Rübekeil 2017, pp. 987, 991, 997; Nedoma 2017, pp. 881–883
  46. ^ Nedoma 2017, pp. 877, 881.
  47. ^ Rübekeil 2017, pp. 987, 997–998.
  48. ^ Nedoma 2017, p. 880.
  49. ^ Fortson 2004, p. 339.
  50. ^ Seebold 2010, pp. 1068–1069.
  51. ^ Seebold 2010, p. 1069.
  52. ^ Rübekeil 2017, pp. 987, 991, 997.
  53. ^ Beck & Müller 2010, pp. 1064–1065.
  54. ^ Seebold 2010, pp. 1063–1064.

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alcaios/Germanic_languages&oldid=1068357159"