DON RINGE 2006 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic

366 Pages·2006·3.05 MB·English

A Linguistic History of English

Volume I
From Proto-Indo-European
to Proto-Germanic

for Emma and Lucy

From Proto-Indo-
European to
Proto-Germanic

DON RINGE

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
� Don Ringe 2006
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)

First published 2006

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd. www.biddles.co.uk

ISBN 0–19–928413–x
978–0–19–928413–9
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Contents

List of Abbreviations
vii
Acknowledgements
ix
Note on Transcription
x

1 General introduction
1

2 Proto-Indo-European
4

2.1 Introduction
4
2.2 PIE phonology
6
2.2.1 PIE obstruents
7
2.2.2 PIE sonorants and high vowels
9
2.2.3 PIE nonhigh vowels
10
2.2.4 PIE phonological rules
11
2.2.5 PIE accent
21
2.3 PIE inflectional morphology
22
2.3.1 PIE inflectional categories
22
2.3.2 Formal expression of inflectional categories
26
2.3.3 PIE verb inflection
27
2.3.4 PIE noun inflection
41
2.3.5 PIE adjective inflection
50
2.3.6 The inflection of other PIE nominals
52
2.4 PIE derivational morphology
58
2.4.1 Compounding
58
2.4.2 PIE derivational suffixes
60
2.5 PIE syntax
64
2.6 The PIE lexicon
65

3 The development of Proto-Germanic
67

3.1 Introduction
67
3.2 Regular sound changes
68
3.2.1 The elimination of laryngeals,
and related developments of vowels
68
3.2.2 Changes affecting sonorants
81
3.2.3 Changes affecting obstruents
87
3.2.4 Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law
93

3.2.5 Sievers’ Law and non-initial syllables
116
3.2.6 Loss of *j, *w, and *@; miscellaneous
consonant changes
128
3.2.7 Other changes of vowels
145
3.2.8 Chronological overview
150
3.3 Restructurings of the inflectional morphology
151
3.3.1 The restructuring of the verb system
151
3.3.2 The double paradigm of adjectives
169
3.4 The development of inflectional morphology in detail
170
3.4.1 Changes in inflectional categories
171
3.4.2 Changes in the formal expression
of inflectional categories
172
3.4.3 Changes in verb inflection
174
3.4.4 Changes in noun inflection
196
3.4.5 Changes in the inflection of other nominals
202
3.5 Changes in other components of the grammar
211

4 Proto-Germanic
213

4.1 Introduction
213
4.2 PGmc phonology
214
4.2.1 PGmc consonants
214
4.2.2 PGmc vocalics
220
4.3 PGmc inflectional morphology
233
4.3.1 Inflectional categories of PGmc
233
4.3.2 The formal expression of PGmc
inflectional categories
234
4.3.3 PGmc verb inflection
235
4.3.4 PGmc noun inflection
268
4.3.5 PGmc adjective inflection
281
4.3.6 The inflection of other PGmc nominals
286
4.4 PGmc word formation
291
4.4.1 Compounding
291
4.4.2 PGmc derivational suffixes
291
4.5 PGmc syntax
295
4.6 The PGmc lexicon
295

References
298
Index
307

vi
Contents

Abbreviations

abl.
ablative
acc.
accusative
act.
active
aor.
aorist
Av.
Avestan
CP
COMP phrase
cpd.
compound
dat.
dative
dial.
dialectal
du.
dual
fem.
feminine
fut.
future
gen.
genitive
Gk
Greek
Gmc
Germanic
Goth.
Gothic
Hitt.
Hittite
I
INFL
IE
Indo-European
indic.
indicative
inf.
inWnitive
inst.
instrumental
intr.
intransitive
ipf.
imperfect
iptv.
imperative
Lat.
Latin
Lith.
Lithuanian
loc.
locative
masc.
masculine
ME
Middle English
MHG
Middle High German
MIr.
Middle Irish
ModHG
Modern High German
mp.
mediopassive
N
noun
neut.
neuter

nom.
nominative
NP
noun phrase
NWGmc
Northwest Germanic
O
object
obl.
oblique
OCS
Old Church Slavonic
OE
Old English
OF
Old Frisian
OHG
Old High German
OIr.
Old Irish
ON
Old Norse
opt.
optative
OS
Old Saxon
pass.
passive
pf.
perfect
PGmc
Proto-Germanic
PIE
Proto-Indo-European
pl.
plural
PNWGmc
Proto-Northwest Germanic
prep.
preposition
pres.
present
pret.
preterite
ptc.
participle
PWGmc
Proto-West Germanic
S
subject
sg.
singular
Skt
Sanskrit
subj.
subjunctive
Toch.
Tocharian
V
verb
Ved.
Vedic
voc.
vocative
WGmc
West Germanic
1, 2, 3
1st, 2nd, 3rd person
1ary
primary
2ary
secondary

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following colleagues and students for helpful
criticism of this work: the graduate and undergraduate students in a course
on the history of English at the University of Pennsylvania, handouts for
which constituted the first draft of the book; Anthony Kroch, who co-taught
that course; Tom McFadden; and especially Alfred Bammesberger, Patrick
Stiles, and Ronald Kim who read the manuscript, made many helpful sugges-
tions, alerted me to several references, and corrected a number of errors. I am
also grateful to my editor, John Davey, and an anonymous reviewer for
further helpful suggestions, and to the editorial staff of Oxford University
Press, especially Chloe Plummer, Sylvia Jaffrey, and Kim Allen. Remaining
flaws and errors are, of course, my own.

Note on Transcription

Forms of attested languages are given in the system of spelling or transcrip-
tion which is usual for each; the standard grammars should be consulted on
particular points. For (Ancient) Greek, which Indo-Europeanists do not
customarily transliterate, I also give a phonemic representation, which is
accurate for the Attic dialect c.500 bc and a close approximation for the
other dialects cited. In my phonemicization of Greek the colon indicates
length of the preceding vowel, and lower mid vowels are marked with a
subscript hook.
On the spelling of PIE forms see 2.2; on the spelling of PGmc forms see 4.2.
In the latter language a subscript hook indicates nasalization of the vowel, and
vowels marked with two macrons are trimoric or ‘overlong’ (see the discus-
sion in 3.2.1 (ii)).
In statements of linguistic change, < and > indicate sound changes (i.e.
spontaneous phonological changes); and ! indicate changes of all other
kinds. Shafted arrows are also used in statements of synchronic derivation.

1

General introduction

This volume began as part of a set of handouts for a course in the linguistic
history of English at the University of Pennsylvania. It occurred to me that
they contained much information considered standard among ‘‘hard-core’’
Indo-Europeanists but largely unknown to colleagues in other subdisciplines,
and that they might therefore be made the basis of a useful book. Most of the
first draft was written during the academic year 2002–3, when I chaired the
School of Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee at Penn, to relax and
unwind.
I emphasize that this is not intended to be a traditional handbook in which
the focus is always on attested languages. Instead I have tried to give a
coherent description of various stages in the prehistory of English and of
the changes that transformed one stage into the next. I also wish to emphasize
that this book is not intended primarily for traditional ‘philologists’, though it
seems likely that they will find it useful. My intended readership includes
especially those who have not undertaken serious study of Indo-European or
comparative Germanic linguistics, nor of the history of English, but want
reliable information on what specialists in those disciplines have collectively
learned over the past century and a half. In attempting to make this infor-
mation available I have modelled Chapters 2 and 4 in part on the ‘grammat-
ical sketches’ of unfamiliar languages which were produced in abundance in
the middle of the twentieth century, and I have tried to employ terminology
that a modern theoretical linguist might be expected to understand. I foresee
that my colleagues in historical linguistics will find both tactics disconcerting;
but the volume is not primarily intended for them.
Since I have tried to present a coherent account of material that is generally
agreed on, the overall picture of the grammar of Proto-Indo-European and
the development of Proto-Germanic presented in this volume is relatively
conservative. I have included innovative suggestions on a small scale when
they seemed necessary, giving references to earlier publications; I hope that
I have not forgotten to reference any distinctive views of previous researchers
that I have accepted. Conclusions that are almost universally accepted in

the field (such as the reconstruction of three ‘laryngeal’ consonants for PIE,
or—most obviously—sound changes such as Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law)
have not been referenced. Since this is intended to be a handbook, I have often
omitted discussion of alternative opinions.
Though I hope that this volume will prove useful to students and interested
non-linguists as well, it seems only fair to warn the reader that I have had to
presuppose a considerable amount of prior knowledge in order to keep the
work within reasonable bounds. In the following paragraphs I will try to spell
out the background that I take for granted.
I expect readers to have acquired a basic grounding in modern linguistics,
without necessarily being familiar with the details of any one theory. In
phonology I presuppose an understanding of the principle of phonemic
contrast, familiarity with systems of ordered rules, and an understanding of
how surface filters differ from the latter (but not, for example, familiarity with
Optimality Theory). In morphology I presuppose a general understanding of
case, tense, aspect, mood, and the other traditional inflectional categories,
as well as the concepts of productivity and defaults. Though I have little to
say about syntax in this volume, what I do say presupposes some version of
(post-)Chomskyan syntax.
I also expect readers to have a basic familiarity with the principles of
language change. Since this entire volume deals with the undocumented
past, the principles and methods of traditional historical linguistics, which
were devised to investigate such cases, should be adequate for an understand-
ing of what I say. Like all reputable historical linguists, I subscribe to the
uniformitarian principle; in addition, I define ‘linguistic descent’ as an un-
broken series of instances of first-language acquisition by children, and I hold
that apparent cases of linguistic descent in the undocumented past should be
taken at face value unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary (see e.g.
Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor 2002: 60–5). Note especially that I take the
regularity of sound change seriously; since investigation of historically docu-
mented languages shows that sound change is overwhelmingly regular in
statistical terms, it is a serious breach of the uniformitarian principle not to
assume the same for prehistory. (Sociolinguistic studies have not altered this
picture; see e.g. Labov 1994: 419–543.) Readers who want to understand the
consequences of the regularity of sound change are urged to read Hoenigs-
wald 1960, the classic exposition of that subject.
Limitations of space do not permit me to cite full evidence for the standard
reconstructions offered here; I often cite only those cognates that support a
particular reconstruction most clearly. Examples have also been chosen to
illustrate particular points clearly with a minimum of explanation, even

2
General Introduction

though that limits the range of examples that can be used. But I wish to
emphasize that everything said in this volume rests on scientific reconstruc-
tion from attested languages using the ‘comparative method’. In other words,
these conclusions are based on observation and logical inference (mathemat-
ical inference, in the case of phonology), not on speculation. Readers who
find a scientific approach uncongenial must unfortunately be advised to avoid
linguistics altogether.
Finally, though I hope that a knowledge of some ancient (or at least
archaic) IE language will not be necessary to make this volume intelligible,
there is no denying that it would be helpful. On a technical level, it is
impossible, strictly speaking, to judge the correctness of the reconstructions
proposed and the developments posited unless one actually knows all
the relevant evidence and has memorized the regular sound changes that
occurred in the development of numerous IE languages; thus everyone but
hard-core specialists must be asked to take at least some of what I say on trust.
But even leaving that problem aside, readers who are familiar with any of the
older IE languages commonly taught in colleges and universities—Sanskrit,
Ancient Greek, Latin, Old English—will naturally find the discussion easier to
follow. Even a knowledge of modern German will make the system of nominal
cases less mysterious, and a knowledge of Russian will make the concept of
aspect more easily intelligible. As a practical matter, studying the structure or
history of any language in isolation makes it much harder than it needs to be;
human language is a single phenomenon, and an understanding of one
instantiation is automatically a partial understanding of every other.

General Introduction
3

2

Proto-Indo-European

2.1 Introduction

The earliest ancestor of English that is reconstructable by scientiWcally accept-
able methods is Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the Indo-European
languages. As is usual with protolanguages of the distant past, we can’t say
with certainty where and when PIE was spoken; a reasonable guess would
be the river valleys of Ukraine in the centuries around 4000 bc, though one
can’t absolutely exclude a somewhat earlier date, nor a place somewhat
further east. The best discussion of the ‘IE homeland problem’ is still Mallory
1989; it is cautious and not fully conclusive, as is reasonable under the
circumstances.
Though there continue to be gaps in our knowledge of PIE, an astonishing
proportion of its grammar and vocabulary are securely reconstructable by the
comparative method. As might be expected from the way the method works,
the phonology of the language is relatively certain. Though syntactic recon-
struction is in its infancy, PIE syntax is also relatively uncontroversial because
the earliest-attested daughter languages agree so well. Nominal morphology is
also fairly robustly reconstructable, with the exception of the pronouns,
which continue to pose interesting problems. Only the inXection of the
verb causes serious diYculties for Indo-Europeanists, for the following
reason.
From the well-attested subfamilies of IE which were known at the end of
the nineteenth century—Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Italic,
Celtic, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic—a coherent ancestral verb system can be
reconstructed. The general outlines of the system are already visible in Karl
Brugmann’s classic Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogerma-
nischen Sprachen (2nd edn., 1897–1916); in recent decades Helmut Rix and
Warren Cowgill codiWed and systematized that reconstruction along more
modern lines, and the ‘Cowgill–Rix verb’ is perhaps the standard reconstruc-
tion among more conservative Indo-Europeanists. Various versions of the
Cowgill–Rix reconstruction can be found in Rix 1976a: 190 V.; Sihler 1995: