Nov. 30th, 2010 03:58 pm
Öbbis isch mia efange klor!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muckefuckOne thing that never quite made sense to me about Alemannic is that High German /a:/ corresponds to (Breisgauer) Alemannic /o:/...except when it doesn't. So on the one hand, Mohlzit for Mahlzeit, but on the other mahle for mahlen. Looking at a short list of such words today, it struck me: Could there be a connection to the vowel length in earlier German?
You see, Proto-Germanic allowed every possible combination of vowel length and consonant length. (I'll illustrate the possibilities with nonsense words since I'm too lazy to find real examples.) So you could have a short vowel followed by a short consonant (e.g. *mak), a short vowel followed by a long consonant (*maks), a long vowel followed by a short consonant (*māk), and a long vowel followed by a long consonant (*māks). All the surviving Germanic languages simplified this system, but naturally they did so in different ways.
In Standard German, we see a broad division into open syllables (those ending in a vowel) and closed syllables (those ending in a consonant). Broadly speaking, short vowels in stressed open syllables are lengthened and long vowels in closed syllables are shortened. It's a bit more complicated than that because of the effects of analogy. So, for instance, MHG tac should've given StG /tak/, with /a/. But the plural was tage with two open syllables (i.e. /ta.ge/) and so the /a/ is lengthened to /a:/ (i.e. /ta:ge/). Rather than preserve this alternation, speakers simplified it in favour of the long vowel.
Middle Alemannic must've undergone a shift in the quality of /a:/ almost precisely parallel to that which had already occurred in (Southern) English, i.e. /a:/ > /ɔ:/ > to /o:/. Compare the various descendants of Latin pālus "stake". Old English pál came to be pronounced ['pɔ:l] in the dialects of the Southeast sometime before 1400, ultimately continuing on to ['po:l] before dipthongising at some point in the early modern period. Similarly, MHG phâl yields Pfohl in the dialect of Breisgau, whereas there is no change to the Standard German, Pfahl. (For a British parallel, compare Scottish paul "pole", pronounced ['pʰa:ɫ].)
As a result, Alemannic ends up with minimal pairs where Standard German has homophones, such as mahle "grind" (OHG malan > StG mahlen) vs. mole "paint" (OHG mâlôn > StG malen). On the other hand, of course, you have a merger of /a:/ with /o:/ that Standard German avoided, e.g. Droht "wire" and droht "threatens" vs. StG Draht, droht.
You see, Proto-Germanic allowed every possible combination of vowel length and consonant length. (I'll illustrate the possibilities with nonsense words since I'm too lazy to find real examples.) So you could have a short vowel followed by a short consonant (e.g. *mak), a short vowel followed by a long consonant (*maks), a long vowel followed by a short consonant (*māk), and a long vowel followed by a long consonant (*māks). All the surviving Germanic languages simplified this system, but naturally they did so in different ways.
In Standard German, we see a broad division into open syllables (those ending in a vowel) and closed syllables (those ending in a consonant). Broadly speaking, short vowels in stressed open syllables are lengthened and long vowels in closed syllables are shortened. It's a bit more complicated than that because of the effects of analogy. So, for instance, MHG tac should've given StG /tak/, with /a/. But the plural was tage with two open syllables (i.e. /ta.ge/) and so the /a/ is lengthened to /a:/ (i.e. /ta:ge/). Rather than preserve this alternation, speakers simplified it in favour of the long vowel.
Middle Alemannic must've undergone a shift in the quality of /a:/ almost precisely parallel to that which had already occurred in (Southern) English, i.e. /a:/ > /ɔ:/ > to /o:/. Compare the various descendants of Latin pālus "stake". Old English pál came to be pronounced ['pɔ:l] in the dialects of the Southeast sometime before 1400, ultimately continuing on to ['po:l] before dipthongising at some point in the early modern period. Similarly, MHG phâl yields Pfohl in the dialect of Breisgau, whereas there is no change to the Standard German, Pfahl. (For a British parallel, compare Scottish paul "pole", pronounced ['pʰa:ɫ].)
As a result, Alemannic ends up with minimal pairs where Standard German has homophones, such as mahle "grind" (OHG malan > StG mahlen) vs. mole "paint" (OHG mâlôn > StG malen). On the other hand, of course, you have a merger of /a:/ with /o:/ that Standard German avoided, e.g. Droht "wire" and droht "threatens" vs. StG Draht, droht.
Tags: