Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:32:37.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PGmc. : A response to Barrack

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Robert W. Murray
Robert W. Murray
Affiliation:
Department of LinguisticsThe University of Calgary, Calgary AlbertaCanadaT2N IN4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barrack (1991) argues against the reconstruction of PGmc. syllable structure proposed in Murray and Vennemann (1983), namely, . According to Murray and Vennemann, this reconstruction is compatible with characteristics of early Germanic verse as well as Gothic word divisions and provides a basis for a coherent interpretation of major phonological changes in early Germanic; namely Sievers's Law, West Germanic gemination, North Germanic resyllabication, and glide strengthening in Gothic. Focusing on these same points, Barrack attempts to reinterpret them as providing evidence for . In this response, I demonstrate that Barrack fails on all counts. Most importantly, he fails to provide a coherent, well-motivated interpretation of the pertinent phonological changes on the basis of his assumed .

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

WORKS CITED

Bailey, Charles-James N. 1978. Gradience in English syllabization and a revised concept of unmarked syllabization. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Barrack, Charles M. 1989. “Keyser, Kiparsky, O'Neil and Postal versus Sievers.” Lingua 77:223–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrack, Charles M. 1991. “PGmc. revisited.” American journal of Germanic linguistics and literatures 3:119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1962. Old English grammar. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan and Aditi, Lahiri. 1991. “The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English.” Linguistic inquiry 22:251–286.Google Scholar
Frey, Evelyn. 1989. “Worttrennung und Silbenstruktur des Gotischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Skeireins.” Indogermanische Forschungen 94:272–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Eduard. 1978. Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den andern indogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Rpt. of 1st ed., Göttingen, 1923 = Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf den Gebieten der indogermanischen Sprachen: Ergänzungsheft 2.Google Scholar
Heusler, Andreas. 1931. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. 3rd ed.Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Liberman, Anatoly. 1990a. “The phonetic organization of early Germanic.” American journal of Germanic linguistics and literatures 2:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Anatoly. 1990b. “Some debatable questions of Germanic prosody.” American journal of Germanic linguistics and literatures 2:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1986. “The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts.” English studies 67:193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1991. Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonantenveränderungen in der Geschichte des Englischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogk, E. 1910. “Die Halbvokale and in der isländischen Literaturspiache.” Indogermanische Forschungen 26:209–221.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. 1982. “Consonant cluster devevelopment in Pāli.” Folia linguistica historica 3:163–184.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. 1986. “Urgermanische Silbenstruktur und die west-germanische Konsonantengemination.” Beiträge zur Ge-schichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 108:333–356.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. 1987. “Preference laws and gradient change: Selected developments in Romance.” Canadian journal of linguistics 32:115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Robert W. 1988. Phonological strength and Early Germanic syllable structure. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. 1991. “Early Germanic syllable structure revisited.” Diachronica 8:201–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Robert W. In press. “Phonological drift in Early English.” Indo-germanische Forschungen.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. and Vennemann, Theo. 1983. “Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology.” Language 59:514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1949. Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten. Vol. 1. Bern: A. Francke.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joe. 1990. “Accent and syllabification in Early Germanic: A response to Liberman.” American journal of Germanic linguistics and literatures 2:137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1892. “Zur westgermanischen Gemination.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 16:262–265.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Seiichi. 1989. “On determining the sonority value of /w/ relative to /r/ and /l/ in Early West Germanic.” Folia linguistica historica 10:21–34.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1985. “Phonologically conditioned morphological change. Exceptions to Sievers' Law in Gothic.” In Gussmann, Edmund, ed. Phono-morphology: Studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Universytety Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1987. “Muta cum liquida: Worttrennung und Syllabierung im Gotischen. Mit einem Anhang zur Worttrennung in der Pariser Handschrift der althochdeutschen Isidor-über-setzung.” Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 116:165–204.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change (with special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wetzel, Claus-Dieter. 1981. Die Worttrennung am Zeilenende in altenglischen Handschriften. Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter D. Lang.Google Scholar