Jump to content

User:Austronesier/sandbox5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continental West Germanic dialect continuum

[edit]

The continental West Germanic dialect continuum emcompasses all West Germanic varieties that are spoken on mainland Europe, with the exception of the Frisian languages.[1][2][3]

These West Germanic dialects are traditionally discussed as dialects of Dutch and German depending on the literary language of the area where they are spoken, but they actually form an unbroken dialect continuum: while neighboring varieties are usually mutually intelligible, mutual intelligibility decreases with growing distance.[4]

In spite of its nature as a dialect continuum, the distribution of characteristic innovations allows for a division into distinct dialect groups. On the highest level, three groups can be distinguished: Low Franconian, Low Saxon/Low German and High German. These three groups cut across the boundaries set by modern literary languages: while the great majority of High German dialects are spoken in the region where Standard German serves as literary language, both Low Saxon and Low Franconian are distributed over the German and Dutch literary domains.

Classification

[edit]
The Benrath and Speyer lines delineating the High German dialect area with Central German (light blue) and Upper German (green). The yellow area was not affected by the High German consonant shift and comprises Low German, Low Franconian, and Frisian varieties.
The Einheitsplural line (red), dividing Low Saxon (orange) from Low Franconian (yellow).

The major divide between High German dialects and the remaining part of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum is defined by the High German consonant shift. In all High German dialects, *t shifted to /ts/ or /s/, while *p and *k became /f/ and /x/ when following a vowel. The northern border of the area where this sound shift occurs is known as the "Benrath line". Reflexes of *p and *k in other positions vary, with the most thorough application of the shift to /pf ~ f/ and /kx ~ x/ occurring in the southern part of the High German dialect area. The scope of the shift of geminate *pp to /pf/ is used in German dialectology to divide the Upper German subgroup from the Central German subgroup; the border between Upper and Central German is called "Speyer line".[5][6]

The West Germanic varieties to the north of the Benrath line that were not affected by the High German consonant shift are divided into Low Saxon (usually called Niederdeutsch 'Low German' or Plattdeutsch in Germany) and Low Franconian based on the occurrence of the "unitary plural" (German: Einheitsplural, Dutch: eenheidspluralis) in the former.[a] While Proto-Germanic had distinct verb endings for all three persons in the plural, Low Saxon dialects have a uniform ending for all three persons. Low Franconian dialects only have conflated the first and third person plural endings (-en), but retain a distinct ending for the second person plural (-t).[8][9][10][b] This change in turn connects Low German with the non-continental Anglo-Frisian languages in the broader Ingvaeonic grouping of West Germanic languages.[12]

Additionally, these three groups can be also distinguished by characteristic developments of long vowels and diphthongs:[13]

  • Low Franconian and High German share the shift of the Proto-West Germanic mid long vowels *ē2 and *ō to falling diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/ (often simplified to /iː/ and /uː/, as in standard Dutch and German). Low Saxon varieties mostly retain the mid monophthongs (although secondary diphthongization occurs in some areas).
  • The rising diphthongs *au and *ai underwent a split in High German: they were retained as diphthongs in most environments, but became mid long monophthongs before certain consonants: *ai appears as /eː/ before in r, w and h, while *au became /oː/ before h and dental consonants. This split extends to the north beyond the Benrath line into the southeastern part of the Low Franconian area and is one of the features that defines the South Low Franconian dialect group.[c] These splits did not occur in Low Saxon and the northern and western part of Low Franconian; instead, *ai and *au generally appear as monophthongs /eː/ and /oː/ independent of the following consonant. However, in both Low Saxon and Low Franconian (except South Low Franconian), reflexes of *ai before *i and *j differ from the ones in non-umlauting environments and are mostly represented by a diphthong /ei/, e.g. Dutch steen 'stone' < Proto-Germanic *stainaz vs. rein 'clean' < *hrainiz.

These dialect groups are not to be understood in a rigid manner, since each in turn displays a high degree of internal diversification, while dialects spoken in the vicinty, but on opposite sides of the main dividing lines between the major groups are often mutually intelligible. For instance, one can follow a continuous north-to-south sequence of mutually intelligible dialects from Zeelandic (Low Franconian), Brabantian (Low Franconian), Limburgish (Low Franconian), Ripuarian (Central German), Moselle Franconian (Central German), South Franconian (Upper German) to Swabian (Upper German); speakers of each dialect can understand the dialect of their respective immediate neighbors, but will experience difficulties to comprehend more distant dialects. As a result, the choice of larger dialect divisions with sharp borders often becomes arbitrary; only the differences between varieties spoken at the most extremes (e.g. Zeelandic and Tyrolian) intuitively suggest that these varieties must belong to different diasystems (i.e. dialect groups or languages).[15]

Relation to Anglo-Frisian

[edit]

The Anglo-Frisian languages form a separate branch within the West Germanic languages. The terms "Ingvaeonic" or "North Sea Germanic" are used to emphasize the connections between innovations found in Anglo-Frisian and the continental Germanic Low German varieties.[16] However, Low German shares a number of features with Low Franconian that are not shared by Anglo-Frisian.[17] Additionally, both Low Franconian and Low Saxon have a mixture of Ingvaeonic features ("Ingvaeonisms") and non-Ingvaeonic features; while a majority of scholars count Low German as part of North Sea Germanic, others dispute its membership. At least at least some of this mixture comes from early and pervasive influence from High German dialects, probably beginning around 700 CE.[18][19] Within Low Franconian, Ingvaeonisms can be further divided into older Ingvaeonisms, which are found through Low Franconian, and younger Ingvaeonisms, which are only found in the coastal areas.[20]

"Ingvaeonisms"

[edit]

Loss of nasal consonants before spirants

[edit]

In North Sea Germanic, a nasal followed by a fricative is lost after a short vowel, resulting in compensatory lengthening of that vowel.[21] This feature is found consistently in the Old Saxon stage of Low German and sometimes in Low Franconian.[22]

Middle Low German dialects restore many nasal consonants lost through the spirant law, giving forms such as ander rather than Old Saxon othar ("other"). In some words, the presence or absence of the nasal fluctuates by dialect, with western dialects using us ("us") while eastern dialects use uns. Some of these changes may be due to leveling of forms with and without the nasal, while others point to High German influence. High German influence on Low Saxon vocabulary is already visible in the Old Saxon period, as Old Saxon attests words such as kind and urkundeo that do not follow the nasal spirant law.[23][24]

Low Franconian shows show cases of the nasal spirant law through its whole dialect area, such as vijf ("five" cf. High German fünf), whereas others are restricted to coastal dialects, such as mui(den), used for river mouths in place names and cognate with standard Dutch mond "mouth".[20]

r-metathesis

[edit]

Metathesis of vowel sequences and r has traditionally been considered to be a North Sea Germanic trait, being found commonly in Frisian, slightly less commonly in English. It is a common feature of Northern continental West Germanic dialects, and is found in standard Dutch, but almost entirely absent in standard High German.[25][26] Both Middle Dutch and Middle Low German are securely attested as metathesizing sequences of -rV- (where V = any short vowel) to -Vr- before t, d, s, n in a closed syllable. This creates a contrast with High German words: Dutch borst vs. High German Brust, and in place names, between -born and -bronn/-brunn.[27][28] However, it now appears that metathesis in both languages represents an independent development, with Low German perhaps connected to Frisian, but Dutch developing metathesis first in an unconnected geographic area.[29] Arjen Versloot and Elżbieta Adamczyk argue that metathesis is a common enough linguistic process that it is not a useful diagnostic for Old Saxon's membership in North Sea Germanic.[30]

Metathesis of r clusters is attested in Old Saxon from the 9th century onward, when a Westphalian manuscript attests hers "horse" (cf. High German Ross); however, it is possible that this form is a loanword from Frisian.[28] Other infrequent cases of metathesis have been argued to exist from then onward, especially in forms of names ending in -berht;[31] metathesized forms of the word for "horse" are found in three of the four attested Old Saxon dialects (the fourth does not attest the word), with Westphalian showing a mix of metathesized and non-metathesized forms.[32] From Westphalia, metathesis also spread into the High German Ripuarian and Middle Franconian dialects, and eventually reaching Upper German Lower Alemannic dialects on the Upper Rhine. Metathesis initially follows the same rules as in Westphalian, but it became more infrequent and phonetically restricted as the change moved southward.[33] The metathesized form that has spread the farthest to the south is bersten ("burst"), which has replaced earlier bresten in standard German.[28]

For Dutch, metathesis of the same type as Low German is first attested between 1050 and 1150 in Flanders. The number of words affected decreases as one travels East from Flanders; Flemish also has metathesis in some open syllables, such as verde vs. standard Dutch vrede ("peace"). Additionally, the sequence -vR- metathesized if followed by -xt, giving forms such as vrucht rather than High German Furcht ("fright"). This change is found in most Franconian dialects besides Limburgian by the early Middle Dutch period.[27][34]

Palatalization of velars

[edit]

The Ingvaeonic languages have a tendency to palatalize the velar consonants /k/ and /ɡ/ before the front vowels /i/ and /e/.[19][35] Scholars disagree whether this feature occurred in a common proto-language stage or developed later, with Old Saxon evidence perhaps suggesting the former.[36]

In Old and Middle Saxon, palatalized forms of /k/ and /ɡ/ (=[ɣ] in most positions) are common, with palatalized /k/ indicated in the orthography by <ki> (e.g. kiennen, cf. High German kennen) or in some cases by <z> (e.g. zind, cf. High German Kind), while palatalized /g/ was indicated by <i> or sometimes <gi> (e.g. ielden, cf. High German gelten).[37] The palatalization of /k/ probably occurred over a wide area and to differing amounts in different dialects; in modern Low German, it has in most but not all cases been reversed to /k/.[38] Outside of many place names, one modern survival is the word sever ("beetle"), still used many Low German dialects and equivalent to High German Käfer.[39] Earlier /ɡ/, on the other hand, often alternates with /j/ or is a palatal fricative in modern Low German German dialects, often including in the environment of back vowels.[40]

Dutch and German may also show some evidence for far less widespread palatalization of /ɡ/, with older texts showing variation between <g> and <i/j>. However, palatalization is dismissed as a cause by most authorities.[41][42][43]

Fronting of *a

[edit]

The fronting of *a is found consistently in Old English and Old Frisian (e.g. Old English dæg vs. Old High German tac "day"), but took place only partially in Low Saxon and Low Franconian, producing doublets of words with a/e in Old Saxon. In Middle Low German, most of these doublets were eliminated in favor of the a version: of the Old Saxon variants glas and gles only glas is found in Middle Low German.[22][44]

-s plural

[edit]

The Dutch and Low German -s plural is sometimes considered an Ingvaeonism; in English it is the almost exclusive ending, whereas it is not native to High German. For Germanic a-stems, Old English has -ās as the sole pluralization strategy, whereas Old Saxon allows both -ās and -a.[45] Middle Low German continues this development, with modern Low German using -s with nouns ending in -er, -el, -en, as well as sometimes pleonastically with the plural ending -en (giving a double ending -ens).[46]

In modern Dutch, -s plural is one of two main pluralization strategies, besides -en.[20] Old Low Franconian attests plural masculine nominative and accusative plural -ās in the word nestās ("nests"); while the rise of this plural may be due to outside influence on Dutch from Old Saxon and English, it is more likely that this plural is a native, inherited feature. It is most common and productive in Flemish, and is also common in Northeastern Low Franconian, where it is commonly used for monosyllabic nouns and nouns ending in -er.[47]

In Old and Middle High German, no plural forms in -s are attested, but -s plurals have become common in High German since the Early New High German period through mostly the influence of Low German, English, Dutch, and French.[48][46] In modern colloquial and dialectal German they are frequently used for words that do not have a distinct plural, such as die Kumpels "the buddies" (rather than prescribed die Kumpel).[49]

Sound changes

[edit]

Next to the High Germanic consonant shift and the charateristic changes involving Proto-Germamic diphthongs and long mid vowels, several sound changes have affected to various degrees the varieties of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum across the borders between Low Franconian, Low Saxon and High German.

Vowels

[edit]

Umlaut

[edit]

i-Umlaut, a process of vowel raising and/or fronting of vowels when i/j occurred later in the word, was a sound change that spread throughout all West Germanic languages as a wave, occurring after the development of recognizable West Germanic languages.[50] Umlaut processes can be divided into three categories: "primary umlaut", that is, the raising of short /a/ to /e/ when followed later in the word by /i/ or /j/, "secondary umlaut", the raising of /a:/ to /æ:/ before /i-j/, and then "general umlaut", the fronting of /u(:)/ and /o(:)/ to /y(:)/ and /ø(:)/.[51] While all West Germanic dialects are affected by "primary umlaut", not all are affected by "secondary" or "general umlaut".[52] I-umlaut appears to have begun among the North Sea Germanic languages and spread from them to other West Germanic dialects; in the earliest attested forms of High German, Old Low Franconian, and Old Saxon, only "primary umlaut" is marked in writing.[53] Among the modern dialects, the two areas lacking some umlaut, namely Low Franconian and Upper German, are on opposite sides of the West Germanic dialect continuum.[54]

In Low Franconian, "secondary" and "general" umlaut are confined to eastern dialects.[55] As one travels eastward from the coast, one encounters progressively more umlaut effects, with first /a:/ and then /o:/ also being affected.[56] Coastal Western Flemish varieties lack "secondary umlaut" of /a:/, a feature shared with the dialects of North and South Holland. Other southern varieties of Flemish Dutch do have "secondary umlaut."[57] Additionally, Low Franconian varieties block primary umlaut in cases where /x/ and a consonant intervene between the /a/ and /i-j/: thus standard Dutch machtig vs. standard German mächtig).[56] "General umlaut" of West Germanic /*o:/ and /*au/ are only found in eastern dialects, with the exception of the area around Utrecht.[58] Most Low Franconian dialects, as well as Standard Dutch, completely lack the umlaut of long vowels (/a:/, /o:/, /u:/).[56][d] The more limited application of umlaut in Dutch results in contrasts between standard Dutch and standard German such as kaas vs. Käse, horen vs. hören, and groeten vs. grüßen.[59]

The southern High German dialects Bavarian and Alemannic show more umlaut than Low Franconian, but also have a number of umlautless forms.[58] In these dialects, umlaut of /u/ is most often missing when formerly geminated /kk/ or /xx/ intervene between it and /i-j/: southern Upper German muck, ʃduk, khuxɘ, lu:ge vs. standard German Mücke, Stück, Küche, Lüge.[59][56] In the Appenzeller dialect, umlaut of /u/ also fails before geminate /mm/,[60] while Alemannic also sometimes blocks umlaut of /u/ before intervening /pf/, /kx/, and /ts/.[61] Modern standard German has adopted some forms featuring umlaut-blocking, including suchen (cf. Low German sööken) and um (from Old High German umbi, cf. Low German öm).[62]

Unrounding and secondary rounding

[edit]

The majority of High German dialects have experienced the unrounding of the front rounded vowels /y/ (written <ü>) and /ø/ (written <ö>) to their unrounded counterparts /i/ and /e/ respectively.[63] The change probably began in the 13th century in Bavarian at the latest and then spread throughout the early modern period. Today, it includes all High German dialects except for Ripuarian, East Franconian, and High Alemannic.[64][e] Unrounded pronunciations of umlauted vowels were also formerly encountered as part of the High German standard until the 19th century, but are today considered nonstandard.[66][67]

Most Low German and Low Franconian dialects did not experience unrounding. It is found in Low German dialects from around Bremen and was previously present in some East Low German varieties spoken in what is now Poland and Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast.[68][f] In Low Franconian, systematic unrounding is mainly found in the southern part of the Brabantian area around Leuven and in some Central and West Limburgian varieties of South Low Franconian.[70][71][g]

There was also an opposite process, "secondary rounding," in which the front unrounded vowels /i/ and /e/ were rounded /y/ and /ø/ respectively. Secondary rounding is a fairly irregular process, usually occurring around /w/, /ʃ/, and especially before /r/ and /l/.[74] It occurred very frequently in Low German dialects.[66] In the High German dialect area, it seems to have begun in the 13th century in the High Alemannic area, then spread to Swabian and East Franconian.[75] Today it is also especially common in Central German dialects such as Thuringian.[76]

Spontaneous palatalization of rounded back vowels and diphthongs

[edit]

A common sound shift that is usually tied to the unrounding of historical front rounded vowels is the spontaneous fronting of the rounded back vowels/diphthongs /o(ː), u(ː), ou, au, ua, uə/ in some High German and Low Fraconian dialects. Unlike i-umlaut, this fronting is not conditioned by the phonological environment. Spontaneous fronting can result in partially fronted rounded central vowels (e.g. /ʉ/, /ɤ/ etc.), or in fully fronted rounded vowels (/y/, /ø/ etc.). In the latter case, the resulting vowels re-occupy the place of the historical rounded front vowels that have undergone unrounding, which can be analysed as a chain shift, e.g. /uː/ > /yː/ > /iː/.[77][72] Spontaneous fronting rarely affects all rounded back vowels/diphthongs to the same degree. As a rule, /uː/, /ou/ and /uə/ are more prone to spontaneous fronting than /oː/ and short back vowels.[78][h]

Most Low Franconian dialects except for some in the Southeast have experienced an unconditioned shift of /u:/ to /y:/ in all cases (and thus merged it with original /y:/ that arose from the early West Germanic dipthong /iu/)[80], as shown by the change of earlier hūs to huis (/hyːs/ in Middle Dutch, diphthongized to /hœys/ in Modern Dutch). This palatalization also spread (often paired with shortening to /y/) to some Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands.[81] Spontaneous palatalization did not occur in South Low Franconian (except in the westernmost part) and in the northeastern part of the Brabantian dialect area.[82][83]

Monophthongization of *au and *ai

[edit]

Proto-Germanic *au is monophthongized at an early date in all three North Sea Germanic varieties, yielding Old Frisian /ā/, Old English /ēa/ (with breaking), and Old Saxon /ō/.[19]

Most dialects of Old Low Franconian shows a parallel development to Old Saxon, with *au becoming /ō/ except when *au was followed by *w, in which case /ou/ was produced (e.g. houwen "to hew"); this change probably dates to the beginning of the 8th century.[84] Old High German, on the other hand, retains a diphthong in most cases, shifting *au to /ou/ except when *au occurred before /x/ or a dental consonant, in which case it also become /ō/.[85]

Development of Proto-West Germanic *ē² and *ō

[edit]

Early West Germanic had two long mid vowels, *ē² and *ō. While *ō was a straightforward continuation of the Proto-Germanic vowel, *ē² had developed from various sources the details of which are disputed, while Proto-Germanic *ē had shifted to *æ in Northwest Germanic and is represented as *ā in Continental West Germanic (except for isolated Ingvaeonisms in Low Saxon and Low Franconian).[86]

In Old Low Franconian and Old High German, *ē² and *ō became falling diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/.[86] These are generally retained as falling diphthongs in Alemannic and Bavarian dialects, while they became high monophthongs /iː/ and /uː/ in East Franconian, most Low Franconian and many Central German dialects (including standard Dutch and standard German). In Moselle Fraconian, Ripuarian Fraconian and South Low Franconian, the most common reflexes are /eː/ and /oː/.[i] In North Bavarian, Central Hessian and some Moselle Franconian dialects, the rising diphthongs[j] /ei/ and /ou/ appear.[87][88]

In Low Saxon, the long mid vowels appear unchanged in the early literary record of Old Saxon.[86] In Middle Low German, they are also generally written as mid monophthongs wihouth being distingsuished from mid monophthongs from other sources. In academic descriptions of Middle Low German, the reflexes of *ē² and *ō are conventionally transcribed as ē⁴ and ō¹, based on the various realizations of these mid monophthongs in modern Low Saxon dialects. They appear as /eː/ and /oː/ in northern Low Saxon dialects, but became diphthongs in large parts of Westphalian and Eastphalian, e.g. kō¹ken > /kaukən/ 'cake', flē²gen > /flaigən/ 'fly (v.)' in southern Westphalian.[89][90]. In Low Saxon varieties spoken on both sides close to the Dutch–German border, the monophthongs are raised to near-high /ɪː/ and /ʊː/, while they have become high vowels /iː/ and /uː/ in most Dutch Low Saxon dialects spoken further west.[k][91][92]

Developed of West Germanic *eu

[edit]

The Proto-West Germanic diphthong *eu develops in different ways in the different dialects. Most dialects of High German, Low Franconian, and Low Saxon follow the "Franconian rule," according to which *eu lowered to /io/ before a low vowel in the next syllable except before /w/, and became /iu/ elsewhere: *beuda > OHG biotan. In Bavarian and Alemannic, however *eu was only lowered to /io/ if not before a labial or velar consonant except h, otherwise it became /iu/, regardless of the following vowel: *beuda > biutan.[93][94]

In all dialects, /io/ merged with reflexes of Proto-West Germanic *ē². Most upper German dialects have retained earlier /iu/ as a separate diphthong until the present. Other dialects have instead merged it with /yː/ or /uː/ in the High Middle Ages.[93][94][95] In southern Low Franconian dialects, the reflexes of earlier /io/ and /iu/ have both merged to /ie/, something also found in more northern Low Franconian dialects before /r/.[96]

Diphthonization of high vowels

[edit]

The high vowels *iː and *uː (and also umlauted *yː) independently became diphthongs in two large disjunct areas of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum (and also in the West Germanic Anglic varieties on the British Isles): in the southeastern part having radiated out from the Bavarian to much of the High German area; and in large parts the Low Franconian area in the northwest, with the Brabantian dialect as a historical starting point. Both standard Dutch and standard German are based on varieties that have undergone the diphthonization of high vowels.[97]

Among High German dialects, diphthongization is first documented in Bavarian dialects in Carinthia and Tyrol starting from the 12th century. By the 15th century, it had reached its current extent.[98] The diphthongization area covers all of Bavarian, East Franconian, most of Rhine Franconian, Moselle Franconian and East Central German, and the Swabian branch of the Alemannic dialect group. The high vowels remained unchanged in almost all Alemannic varieties spoken to the west and south of Swabian (with small isolated pockets of diphthongizing dialects in the High Alemannic and Highest Alemannic areas), in adjacent Rhine Franconian and Moselle Franconian dialects spoken in Lorraine, in the Moselle Franconian dialects of the Siegerland, in Ripuarian, and in a contiguous area formed by Hessian and Thuringian dialects spoken on both sides of the divide between West and East Central German.[99]

In the Low Franconian area, the diphthongization started in the early Modern Dutch period (i.e. the 1500s) in the Brabantian and East Flemish areas, and from there spread to the north to Holland and Utrecht.[100] The old long high vowels were retained in the southwest in West Flemish and Zeelandic,[100] and in Kleverlandish and most of South Low Franconian in the east (except for much of West Limburgish).[101][102]

In Low Saxon, long high vowels remained for the most part unchanged. Diphthonization only occurred (independent of the Low Franconian and High German vowel shifts) in a limited area comprising eastern Westphalian dialects and neighboring dialects of the Eastphalian group.[103][104]

The common West Germanic drift towards diphthonization of high vowels can be explained by assuming that *iː and *uː where phonetically [ij] and [uw] in the entire West Germanic area and thus inherently prone to diphthongization. This is corroborated by the fact that in Ripuarian and in the non-dipthongizing varieties of South Low Franconian, high long vowels behave like rising diphthongs (and also like combinations of short vowels with syllable-closing sonorants /l, r, m, n/) in respect to their tone accent properties.[97]

Unstressed vowel reduction, syncope and apocope

[edit]

All the continental West Germanic languages have greatly simplified the vowel and syllable structure of Proto-West Germanic. The tendency of Germanic languages to reduce vowels in unstressed syllables in Germanic languages has commonly been attributed to Germanic's strong word-initial or root syllable stress. This has resulted in most unstressed vowels becoming schwa [ə] over time.[105][l]

The earliest recorded stages of West Germanic languages all contain a variety of full vowels in unstressed syllables. The change from the old to the middle stage of High and Low German and Dutch was marked by the widespread replacement of vowels in unstressed syllables with schwa, resulting in simplifications of the morphology as endings become indistinct. However, some endings with secondary stress maintained full vowels, such as -bar, -dom, and -unge.[106][107] Additionally, unstressed medial syllables could be lost entirely through syncope: hêriro > hêrre (modern German Herr).[108] The process began in unstressed prefixes before progressing to medial and then to final syllables. Old Low Franconian in the 9th and 10th centuries appears to have experienced far greater reduction than contemporary Old High German or Old Saxon.[109] Among High German dialects, Central German and East Franconian show evidence of reduction earliest, in the 9th century, with Bavarian and Alemannic only following later. Alemannic appears to have been particularly conservative.[110][m]

The loss of final unstressed vowels (usually schwa [ə]) forms a significant isogloss within West Germanic dialects. The so-called "Early New High German apocope" was a general loss of final /-e/ in all instances, which appeared first in Bavarian in the 13th century and came to encompass most Alemannic and West Central German, but not East Central German, which retained many instances of final schwa.[112] A similar change is independently attested in Hollandic Low Franconian, also in the 13th century; however, schwa was retained on some categories of words.[113] Apocope is not attested in Low German until the 16th century.[114] Among the modern dialects, final schwa is retained in a continuous belt that comprises Low Saxon and High German dialects on both sides of the Benrath line and extends into the Dutch Low Saxon area, additionally in a relic area within Low Franconian in the southwest (West Flemish, Zeelandic, parts of East Flemish). It was lost to the north and south of this belt: in the northern part of Low Saxon, in much of West Central German and almost all of Upper German.[115][116][n]

Most High German dialects and standard German have syncopated many unstressed vowels in final syllables, depending on the surrounding consonants, effecting most notably the verb ending -et and Template:-est.[118][119] Franconian and Bavarian also syncopate many instances of unstressed prefixes such as ge-, giving forms such as gsagt, gnommn. The least prefix syncopation occurs in the north, with it progressively increasingly to cover more consonant combinations as one moves south.[120]

Vowel insertion (epenthesis)

[edit]

Open syllable lengthening and closed syllable shortening

[edit]

Open syllable lengthening refers to the change of short vowels to long vowels in stressed open syllables. It is first attested in Low Franconian around 1200, and is theorized to have spread from there.[121][122] It is also possible that it began in different times in different regions, as there is some early evidence from Bavarian.[123] Open syllable lengthening did not affect many middle and southern Alemannic dialects, and there are isolated pockets in southern Bavarian, including the Cimbrian language island, which never acquired the feature.[124]

In early Middle Dutch, open syllable lengthening lengthened /e a o/ in open syllables but lowered /i u/ to /e o/. In standard Dutch, these vowels have merged with /e: o:/, but Eastern Dutch dialects continue to distinguish between them.[125] Alterations in vowel length between different forms of the same word are mostly leveled out, with verbs and adjectives taking the short form, while nouns might take either. Several nouns have maintained the alteration between a short vowel in the singular and a long one in the plural: wĕg, plural we:gen, schĭp, plural sche:pen.[126] With the exception of Westphalian, where diphthongization had previously taken place in open syllables, Low German follows the same pattern as Low Franconian, with Eastphalian keeping old and new long vowels distinct.[127][o]

In most German dialects stressed short vowels in open syllables were lengthened in a more regular way than Dutch or Low German, without affecting the quality of the vowel: năme > Na:me, sĭgen > siegen (<ie> = [i:]); .[p] Unlike in Dutch or Low German, in cases where a noun paradigm would thereby have different vowel lengths, typically the long vowel was chosen: thus We:g "way" with a long vowel because of the plural We:ge, but the adverb is wěg (away) with a short vowel.[130][131][q] Several Bavarian dialects lack the feature of leveling the paradigm, instead retaining short vowels in words like Weg, as do some High Alemannic dialects.[134]

A similar process, closed syllable shortening, in which long vowels in closed syllables were shortened, occurred in Central German dialects in the 12th century. Bavarian shows only a few examples and Alemannic mostly lacks the shortening. Additionally, it was not as consistent as open syllable lengthening, affecting especially vowels before /xt/ (e.g. gebra:ht > gebrǎcht), /rC/ (C=any consonant), before geminate or formerly consonants (MHG geno:z) {<geno:zz} > Genǒsse), and also in unstressed endings with long vowels like MHG -lich (modern standard German -lĭch).[135][136]

Consonants

[edit]

Development of Proto-Germanic /β ð ɣ/

[edit]

In early West Germanic, the Proto-Germanic voiced obstruents /β ð ɣ/ had the following realizations:[137][138]

  • /ð/ shifted to a voiced stop /d/ in all positions.
  • /β/ became /b/ in intitial position, in the cluster /-mb-/ and when geminated /-bb-/. Elsewhere, it remained /β/.
  • The realization of /ɣ/ is less clear, since the grapheme ⟨g⟩ was used for voiced stops and fricatives alike. A stop realization can safely assumed only following a nasal and under gemination (/-ng-/, /-gg-/), while it most likely remained a fricative in all other positions.[r]

The different dialects show further developments, which generally divide Low German and Low Franconian from High German. In Old Saxon, /β/ appears to have become a stop in the same pattern as described above, however, /ɣ/ appears to have remained a voiced fricative except when following a nasal, based on the evidence of modern dialects.[140] Low Franconian also shifts /β/ as described above, but the status of /ɣ/ in Old Low Franconian is disputed: it was either a voiced fricative in most positions as in Old Saxon, or it had become a stop in initial position and when geminated, only later to spirantized to /ɣ/ again.[141][139] Both Low Saxon and Low German also display final devoicing of the voiced fricatives at the end of words: Old Saxon gaf (from Proto-West Germanic *ɣaβ) and burch (cf. High German Burg).[142][143]

In Old High German, all dialects except Middle Franconian instead are argued to have shifted /β ɣ/ shifted to the stops /b g/ in all positions; Middle Franconian instead shows the same pattern as Old Saxon.[144] Some scholars have argued that /β ɣ/ remained fricatives word internally, on the basis of their status as fricatives in some German dialects. However, this is probably a later development, given the fact that these dialects devoice final /b/ and /g/ to /p/ and /k/; the change in Bavarian is also securely dated to after a period in which /β ɣ/ had shifted to /b g/ in all positions.[145]

Voicing of initial and medieval voiceless fricatives

[edit]

The Proto-Germanic fricatives /s f þ x/ have historically voiced word internally in all continental Germanic languages, as well as initially in both Low Franconian and High German dialects; /þ/ eventually became a stop d in all positions (see below) and initial and medial /x/ became /h/.[146][147]

In Low Franconian, initial and medial voicing appears to have occurred by the 9th, 10th, or 11th century: a change of /f/ to /v/ is clearly attested by spelling, and a parallel change of /s/ to /z/ can be posited.[148] Middle Dutch continues to show voicing of initial /f/ to /v/, and reflects the voiceless of /s/ to /z/ in spelling (while retaining /s/ in initial consonant clusters such as slapen). It has also been adopted into modern standard Dutch, but in Northern and Western Low Franconian dialects, the initial fricatives are voiceless.[149] While initial voicing is not generally posited for Old Saxon or Middle Low German, both, as well as modern Low German dialects, have medial voicing.[150]

Old High German shows a shift of initial and medieval /f/ to /v/ in the 9th century (fater > vater); evidence of a parallel shift of /s/ to /z/ can be posited from early loanwords in Slavic languages.[147][151] In the late Middle High German period, /v/ merges with /f/ in many dialects, thereby becoming devoiced, although the spelling with <v> continues to be used in standard High German in initial position (Vater, pronounced [faːtɐ]).[152][153] /s/ continues to be voiced as [z] in initial and medial position, but has undergone a number of other changes over the Middle High German period.[154] Conservative Upper German dialects today continue to have distinct lenis consonants /v̥ z̥/ where formerly voiced /z/ and /v/ were present.[147]

Proto-Germanic *þ (/θ/) > /d/

[edit]

In all varieties of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum, the Proto-Germamic voiceless dental fricative *þ (/θ/) shifted to /d/ (not counting subsequent sound changes such as final devoicing, rhotacism or complete loss in intervocalic position) during the Old High German, Middle Dutch and Middle Low German periods. After going through an intermediate stage as a voiced dental fricative /ð/, the shift to plosive /d/ started as early as the 6th century in Bavarian. From there, it radiated to neighboring Alemannic (8th century) and East Franconian (9th century), subsequently to Central German (10th–11th century), Low Franconian (12th century) and Low Saxon (12th–14 century).[155][156]

The other West Germanic varieties on the continent, viz. the Frisian languages, were not affected by this change, but eventually lost the dental fricative by different pathways. In West Frisian, it generally became /t/ in initial position and /d/ in other positions by the 15th century. For North Frisian and the Wangerooge dialect of East Frisian, a fricative articluation is still reported in the 19th century, but eventually gave way to a plosive realization in the 20th century in all dialects (except for Amrum North Frisian, which has *þ > /s, z/ in many instances).[157] While not directly related to the sound change in the continental West Germanic dialect continuum, loss of /θ/ in Frisian languages was most probably triggered by contact with West Germanic prestige varieties (Dutch, Low Saxon and standard German) and long periods of bilingualism.[158]

Developments of sibilants and sibilant clusters

[edit]

West Germanic originally contained a consonant cluster /*sk/ in all positions of the word; continental West Germanic varieties have shifted this cluster in all or some of these positions. In High German dialects, /*sk/ shifted to /ʃ/ in High German dialects, probably via an intermediate stage of /sx/; this is usually dated to the 11th century.[159] The situation is more complicated in other West Germanic dialects, which treated /*sk/ differently depending on its position in the word.[160] In Low Franconian, /*sk/ shifted to /sx/ in initial position but simplified to /s/ in medial and final position; most scholars believe this change occurred in the Middle Dutch period (1150-1500).[161] Low German dialects vary in how they shifted /*sk/. East Low German and Eastphalian show /ʃ/ in all positions like High German, whereas Westphalian and North Low German show a variety of outcomes, shown on the table below.[162] The Low German changes probably postdate the shift in High German.[163]

Outcomes of West Germanic /*sk/ in the continental West Germanic languages, divided by dialect and position in word, accordinding to Hall 2021
Dialect group Initial /*sk/ Medial /*sk/ Final /*sk/
High German /ʃ/ /ʃ/ /ʃ/
South Low Franconian /ʃ/ /ʃ/ /ʃ/
East Low German /ʃ/ /ʃ/ /ʃ/
Eastphalian Low German /ʃ/ /ʃ/ /ʃ/
North Low German and Westphalian /ʃ/ /sk/ /sk/
/ʃ/ /s/ /s/
/ʃx/ /sk/ /sk/
/ʃx/ /ʃk/ /ʃx/
/ʃx/ /ʃk/ /s/
/sx/, /sç/ /sk/ /sk/
Most Low Franconian /sx/ /s/ /s/

With the emergence of this new /ʃ/-sound, the old sibilant phoneme /s/ (which probably had a retracted [ʃ]-like articulation in Old and Middle High German, as still witnessed by modern Dutch) merged with /ʃ/ in word-initial position before a consonant (e.g. slange > Schlange /ʃlaŋə/ 'snake', stein > Stein /ʃtai̯n/ 'stone') in all High German dialects, and also in some Low Saxon and South Low Franconian dialects. The shift of /rs/ to /rʃ/ is common in most High German dialects, but only sporadically found its way into standard High German (e.g. ars > Arsch 'arse'). In Alemannic and adjacent Upper Franconian, Rhine Franocnian and Moselle Franconian dialects, /sp/ and /st/ became /ʃp/ and /ʃt/ also in non-initial position (e.g. fest > fescht 'tight').[s] In the southmost part of Alemannic and Bavarian Upper German, /s/ could even become /ʃ/ when not appearing before a consonant (e.g. > /ʃiː/ 'she' in the Wallis dialect of Visp).[165][166]

Development of West Germanic /*xs/

[edit]

The West Germanic consonant cluster /*xs/ does not remain in any continental West Germanic language. It develops in two ways: simplification to /s/ or the change of the velar fricative /x/ to a velar stop /k/ (giving /ks/). Generally speaking, all Low German and Low Franconian dialects have simplified /*xs/ to /s/ (e.g. Low German ses, Dutch zes = six).[167] This simplification occurred as early as the 9th century in Low Franconian, from there spreading eastward before the Middle Low German period.[168][169][170] Various Central and Upper German dialects, including several that do not directly border each other, show the same simplification.[171]

In those High German dialects that don't simplify /*xs/ to /s/, /*xs/ instead becomes /ks/ (e.g. seks = six). This change appears to have begun in Bavarian in late Middle High German. However, modern standard German continues to write <chs> although the pronunciation has changed (sechs, pronounced [zɛks], = "six").[172][171]

/ft/ > /xt/

[edit]

Various dialects of Low Franconian, Low German, and West Central German dialects share a shift of /f/ to /x/ when preceding /t/ and following a short vowel. Generally, these dialects are found on the Western edge of the West Germanic continuum.[173]

The earliest evidence for the shift comes from Middle Franconian from the 9th century, this suggests a spread from Central Germany; from there the change spread north and east, growing weaker as it goes.[174] It is attested in Low Saxon in the 10th and Low Franconian in the 12th centuries.[175] Among the Low Franconian dialects, North Hollandic was excluded from the change, and relicts of /ft/ can be found in Northern Brabantine as late as the fifteenth century.[168] Within Low German, the shift is most prevalent in Westphalian. While some shifted words are found throughout the Low German area, such as lucht (High German Luft "air"), most dialects of Low German retain /ft/ in most words.[176]

Inner-German lenition

[edit]

Franconian tone accent

[edit]

In the western part of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum, three dialect groups, viz. South Low Franconian, Ripuarian and Moselle Franconian, have developed contrastive tone accent on stressed long vowels, diphthongs and short vowels followed by a sonorant (i.e. /r, l, m, n, ŋ/). Two types of tone are distinguished which are conventionally called Stoßton/stoottoon ('thrusting tone') or simply tone accent 1 (TA 1) and Schleifton/sleeptoon ('slurring tone') or tone accent 2 (TA 2). While indivdual dialects may differ in detail, TA 1 is for the most part realized (in declarative sentences) as a strong pitch drop (= falling tone) within the syllable, while TA 2 is usually realized as a level high tone or a high falling tone with only a slight pitch drop.[177][178]

While the phonetic driving force that caused the development of tone accent and its geographicial origin are still a matter of debate, the historical phonological conditions of it are well understood. The tone accent of a syllable in modern dialects depends on the original quantity and quality of the stressed vowel in Middle High German and Middle Limburgian (= Middle East Low Franconian):

  • Most Ripuarian and Moselle Franconian follow the so-called "Rule A". Under Rule A, originally long mid and low vowels (i.e. /eː, ɛː, oː, ɔː, aː/) and falling diphthongs (/ie, uo/) always produced TA 1 (e.g. skaːf > Ripuarian ʃɔː¹f 'sheep'). High long vowels (/iː, uː/), rising diphthongs (/ei, ou/) and originally short vowels that underwent open-syllable lengthening mostly received TA 2 (e.g. muːs > muː²s 'mouse'; maxən > maː²xə 'make'); however, in the special case when these vowels/diphthongs were followed by an unstressed syllable that started in a voiced consonant, they developed TA 1 (e.g. bliːbən > bliː¹və 'stay').[179][180]
  • South Low Franconian mostly follow "Rule A2", which is largely identical to Rule A but additionally requires that the unstressed vowel following a voiced consonant undergoes apocope in order to trigger TA 1 for high long vowels, rising diphthongs, and lengthened short vowels. For instance, the Sittard dialect has banə > baː¹n 'road' where unstressed /ə/ underwent apocope.[181][182] The difference between Rule A and Rule A2 is only visible when unstressed /ə/ following a voiced consonant did not undergo apocope: TA 1 with high vowels and rising diphthongs is then triggered only in Rule A dialects, but not in Rule A2 dialects. For instance, skriːbən becomes ʃriː¹və in Kölsch (Ripuarian, Rule A), but ʃriː²və in the Central Limburgian dialect of Maasbracht (South Low Franconian, Rule A2).[183]
  • Finally, "Rule B" is observed in the southeastern part of the Moselle Franconian dialect area. Rule B largely operates as a mirror image of Rule A, with high long vowels and rising diphthongs receiving TA 1, while long non-high vowels and falling diphthongs have TA 2.[181][182]

Northern Low German has developed a phonologically similar feature, known as Knick ("bend").[184]

Grammar

[edit]

Pronouns

[edit]

With the exception of the High German dialects, all continental West Germanic dialects share the innovation of using a 3rd person masculine nominative/subject pronoun ("he") beginning with h- (Dutch hij, Low German he vs. High German er).[185] h- forms are also found in the Central German Rhineland dialects; there is also a transition zone with a mixed form her.[186]

Low German, in common with English and Frisian, has lost the distinction between the accusative and dative singular pronouns (e.g. Old English , Old Frisian , Old Saxon vs. Old High German mih [acc.] mir [dat.]).[187]

Low German and Low Franconian had originally lost their third person reflexive pronouns (that is, there was no special word for himself as opposed to him), a feature shared with the North Sea Germanic languages English and Frisian.[188] More recently, the High German reflexive pronoun sich has been imported into both Low German and standard Dutch.[189] Southwestern, Northwestern, and most Eastern Low Franconian dialects continue to use the same pronoun for both "him" and "himself;" eastern dialects near the German border also use the forms zik, zich, or zich.[190]

Einheitsplural

[edit]

Changes to the case system

[edit]

Loss of the preterite

[edit]

ge- prefix

[edit]

During the course of the Middle Ages, a prefix ge- comes to be associated with past participles in West Germanic; originally, the prefix seems to have had perfective meaning and its usage in the medieval period varied.[191]

In the Middle High German period, there remained a class of verbs that were felt to be inherently perfective and thus lacked the ge- prefix for their participles, such as gehen, komen, and vinden. Many modern Central and Upper German dialects have retained this distinction, not adding ge- to these verbs but retaining it for other verbs.[192] In certain Upper German dialects of Bavarian, Alemmanic, and East Franconian, the vowel of the prefix is syncopated in front of certain consonants such as sibilants, giving g-. Moreover, many Upper German dialects delete ge- completely on verbs with stems beginning with g- or k-.[193]

Northern Dutch dialects lack the ge-prefix, while some more southerly ones reduced it to e-; far southern dialects and standard Dutch both retain ge- and it has been reintroduced further north at least partially through the influence of standard Dutch.[190] West Low German dialects show a similar development. The ge-prefix is lost in most of Westphalia and North Low German, but is retained in Eastphalian as e-.[194] Among East Low German dialects, Brandenburgian and Middle Pomeranian, northern dialects lack the prefix, central ones have e-, and southern ones have je-.[195] The largely extinct Low Prussian likewise had je-.[196]

Diminutive formation

[edit]

The most common form of the diminutive suffix is divided between the north and the south of the West Germanic dialect continuum, between suffixes derived from an earlier -lîn (southern) or an earlier -kîn (northern).[197]

Upper German dialects, along with southern East Central German, generally show a suffix contain an -l (e.g. standard German -lein, Swabian -le, Bavarian -(e)l).[198] Northern dialects instead form their diminutive with a velar or palatal consonant. The standard Dutch diminutive -tje has come from a palatalization of an earlier -kijn, whereas the standard German -chen derives from central German dialects in which -ken underwent the High German consonant shift. Many Low German dialects have -ke(n), but Low German dialects around Hamburg have lost their diminutive suffix, whereas some dialects have developed new suffixes.[197][199]

Historical records indicate that Central German originally used an -l based suffix and adopted a -k based suffix from further north after the Old High German period.[200] In modern standard German, it is no longer possible to determine whether a speaker/writer is from the north or south based on diminutive use, as certain rules now determine which diminutive is used with which words.[201] Moreover, over the course of the Early New High German period, there is a marked shift for writers in all areas to use the -chen suffix as the default in most situations.[202]

Literary languages

[edit]

At the earliest stage of attestation in the Early Middle Ages, continental West Germanic dialects are documented in manifold regional scribal varieties, mostly linked to monasteries. Based on their broad lingustic properties, they can be assigned to three major groups (Old High German, Old Saxon and Old Dutch) that correspond to the three contemporary dialect groups.[203]. The coexistence of locally competing regional literary traditions continued into the Late Middle Ages, but for each of the three groups, supra-regional standardized varieties started to emerge. In the Dutch and High German areas, these were mostly linked to the production of literary works, while in the Low Saxon area, the Middle Low German standard language that florished from the 14th to the 16th century was tied to the influence of the Hanseatic League.[203][204] With the decline of the Hanseatic League and the emergence of the High German-based modern standard German language, the latter has become the literary language not only for the High German dialects, but also for much of the Low Saxon dialect area.[205] For Low Franconian, the transition from Middle Dutch to Modern Dutch went along with a regional shift from Branbantian-based standard Middle Dutch to Hollandic-based standard Modern Dutch.[206]

Until the 20th century, standard Dutch and standard German were the only standardized literary languages in the continental West Germanic continuum. In the late 20th century, Luxembourgish emerged as a literary standard based on the local Moselle Franconian variety of Luxembourg. In the Netherlands, Limburgish (i.e. the Low Franconian dialects of Dutch Limburg that mostly belong to the South Low Franconian group) gained offcial recognition as a regional language.[207]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The unshifted West Germanic varieties are sometimes collectively called "Low German" in a broad sense in traditional German dialectology. Since it is only defined by the lack of a sound shift that also did not occur in all other Germanic languages, it cannot serve as a criterion for classification.[7]
  2. ^ In many Low Franconian varieties (including standard Dutch), the historical second person plural form has acquired a singular function (e.g. standard Dutch jij maakt 'you (sg.) make'). A new second person plural pronoun has been formed by combining jij with lui (lit. 'you people') and mostly appears with the third person plural ending (e.g. standard Dutch jullie maaken 'you (pl.) make'), thus producing a secondary unitary plural that is historically unrelated to the Low Saxon unitary plural.[11]
  3. ^ The High German split of rising diphthongs is also found in the dialect of Wenden (south of Olpe) that is spoken in a small pocket sandwiched between the Low Saxon and Central German dialect areas, and which has not – like the South Low Franconian dialects – taken part in the High German consonant shift.[14][8]
  4. ^ Due to the fronting of all instances of /*u/ to /y/ in Dutch, it is impossible to tell whether umlaut affected West Germanic /u/.[58]
  5. ^ Unrounding also did not occur in a few isolated areas such as Cimbrian, some Highest Alemannic varieties spoken by Walser colonies, and in a small contiguous pocket of northern Hessian and northern Thuringian dialects spoken close to the High German–Low German dialect boundary.[65]
  6. ^ The Low Prussian dialect still survives as Plautdietsch spoken by the Mennonite diaspora in the Americas.[69]
  7. ^ Evidence from unrounded relic forms in neighboring non-unrounding areas indicates that unrounding must have been more widespread in Belgian Brabant and probably even once formed a single area with Belgian Limburg. The rounded pronunciation was reintroduced for sociolinguistic reasons, having spread from the prestige dialects spoken in Brussels and Antwerp.[72][73]
  8. ^ In dialects that have undergone both unrounding and sponaneous fronting, functional umlaut remains intact, although it is not realized as a back/front-alternation, but rather as a rounded/unrounded-alternation, as in Low Alemannic (Colmar dialect): /lyːs/ 'louse' ~ /liːs/ 'lice' (< /luːs/ 'louse' ~ /lyːsə/), /myətʀ̩/ 'mother' ~ /miətʀ̩/ 'mothers' (< /muətər/ ~ /myətər/).[79]
  9. ^ It is debated whether /eː/ and /oː/ are the result of secondary monophthongization of /ie/ and /uo/, or direct continuations of *ē² and *ō.
  10. ^ Traditionally called "toppled" diphthongs (gestürzte Diphthonge), because of the apparent reversal of the components of the diphthongs /ie/ → /ei/, /uo/ → /ou/.
  11. ^ These long high vowels from ē⁴ and ō¹ are never shortened and thus remain distinct from reflexes of the historical long high vowels *ī and *ū, which are shortened to /i/ and /u/ in most environments, e.g. bē⁴den > /biːdn̩/ 'offer' vs. bīten > /bitn̩/ 'bite'.
  12. ^ Baechler
  13. ^ Full vowels survived in isolated pockets among the Highest Alemannic dialects, such as Visperterminen Alemannic, with noun plurals featuring full vowels such as taga, beri, and sachu.[111]
  14. ^ This change has had affects on morphology, as many grammatically significant endings had final schwa. In most instances, schwa syncope has not entered standard German, but it has entered standard Dutch. This leads to the difference between standard Dutch ik neem and standard German ich nehme (both: "I take").[117]
  15. ^ A few dialects in the Netherlands lack open syllable lengthening in part: the Low German around Groningen does not lengthen /i e/ in open syllables, and Low Franconian northern Brabantine does not lengthen vowels in open syllables before -el, -er, -en, -em.[128]
  16. ^ Open Syllable lengthening sometimes fails between t, m, and before the endings -er and -el: hămer > Hămmer, kŏmen > kŏmmen, etc.[129]
  17. ^ There is debate about whether the lengthening of monosyllabic nouns ending in consonants in German is through analogy or a corresponding phonological process, "monosyllabic lengthening."[132] For instance, many High Alemannic dialects lacking open syllable lengthening experience "High Alemannic lengthening," in which closed monosyllabic short vowels are lengthened.[133]
  18. ^ There is disagreement about whether /g/ (/ɣ/) was originally a stop or a fricative; while most scholars argue that it was originally a fricative and progressively became a stop, Theodor Frings [de] argued that it was originally a stop and progressively spirantized in different dialects.[139]
  19. ^ A northern outlier of the shift /st/ > /ʃt/ in non-initial position is found in the dialect of Wenden (Sauerland).[164]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Keel 2020.
  2. ^ Goossens 1970a, p. 113.
  3. ^ Seebold 2013, p. 73.
  4. ^ Goossens, 1970as & 1, p. 112.
  5. ^ Keel 2020, pp. 745–748.
  6. ^ Niebaum & Macha 2014, pp. 250–253.
  7. ^ Sanders 1974, p. 12.
  8. ^ a b Wiesinger 1983a, pp. 824.
  9. ^ Niebaum & Macha 2014, pp. 250.
  10. ^ Marynissen & Janssens 2013, p. 85.
  11. ^ Van Bree 2013, p. 118.
  12. ^ Stiles 2013, pp. 17–18.
  13. ^ Wiesinger 1983a, pp. 820–825.
  14. ^ Arens 1908, pp. 8–11.
  15. ^ Goossens 1970a, p. 112.
  16. ^ Kaiser 2021, p. 34.
  17. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 26.
  18. ^ Stiles 2013, pp. 19–20.
  19. ^ a b c Fulk 2018, p. 18.
  20. ^ a b c Van Bree 2013, p. 105.
  21. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 72.
  22. ^ a b Rübekeil 2017, p. 997.
  23. ^ Stiles 2013, p. 20.
  24. ^ Krogmann 1970, p. 236.
  25. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 145.
  26. ^ van Loon 2003, p. 141.
  27. ^ a b de Vaan 2017, p. 108.
  28. ^ a b c van Loon 2003, p. 145.
  29. ^ van Loon 2003, p. 166.
  30. ^ Versloot & Adamczyk 2017, p. 142.
  31. ^ Gallée 1993, pp. 153–154.
  32. ^ Versloot & Adamczyk 2017, p. 133.
  33. ^ van Loon 2003, pp. 147–148, 150–159.
  34. ^ van Loon 2003, pp. 159–166.
  35. ^ Stiles 2013, p. 18.
  36. ^ Fulk 2018, pp. 130–131.
  37. ^ Krogmann 1970, pp. 239–240.
  38. ^ Lasch 1974, p. 178.
  39. ^ Krogmann 1970, p. 240.
  40. ^ Lasch 1974, pp. 180–184.
  41. ^ van der Hoek 2010.
  42. ^ Braune & Reiffenstein 2004, p. 56, 114.
  43. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, pp. 141–142.
  44. ^ Krogmann 1970, p. 237.
  45. ^ Voyles 1971, p. 143.
  46. ^ a b Fischer 2024, p. 261.
  47. ^ de Vaan 2017, pp. 30, 83–84.
  48. ^ Salmons 2018, pp. 300–301.
  49. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 323.
  50. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 2.
  51. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 130.
  52. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 132.
  53. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 62.
  54. ^ Howell & Salmons 1997, p. 92.
  55. ^ Van Bree 2013, p. 106.
  56. ^ a b c d Salmons 2017, p. 1008.
  57. ^ Howell & Salmons 1997, pp. 92–93.
  58. ^ a b c Howell & Salmons 1997, p. 93.
  59. ^ a b Salmons 2018, p. 131.
  60. ^ Howell & Salmons 1997, p. 97.
  61. ^ Howell & Salmons 1997, p. 98.
  62. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 207.
  63. ^ Wiesinger 1970a, p. 36.
  64. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 78.
  65. ^ Wiesinger 1970a, pp. 37–38.
  66. ^ a b König 1994, p. 149.
  67. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 258.
  68. ^ König 1994, pp. 148–149.
  69. ^ Wiesinger 1983b, p. 928.
  70. ^ De Schutter 2013, p. 287.
  71. ^ Hermans 2013, p. 348.
  72. ^ a b Goblirsch 2018, p. 37.
  73. ^ Goossens 2014, p. 144.
  74. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 259.
  75. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 77.
  76. ^ Salmons 2018, pp. 259–260.
  77. ^ Wiesinger 1970a, p. 46.
  78. ^ Wiesinger 1970a, p. 49.
  79. ^ Examples taken from Henry (1900).
  80. ^ de Vaan 2017, p. 102.
  81. ^ Van Bree 2013, p. 107.
  82. ^ Goossens 1970b, p. 71.
  83. ^ Weijnen 1958, pp. 154–155.
  84. ^ de Vaan 2017, p. 505.
  85. ^ Braune & Reiffenstein 2004, pp. 47–49.
  86. ^ a b c Fulk 2018, p. 76–77.
  87. ^ Keel 2020, p. 751.
  88. ^ Wiesinger 1970b, pp. 1–4, 58–59.
  89. ^ Taubken 1996, pp. 4–5.
  90. ^ Niebaum & Macha 2014, pp. 94–95.
  91. ^ Niebaum & Macha 2014, pp. 95.
  92. ^ Bloemhoff et al., pp. 458–460.
  93. ^ a b Salmons 2018, pp. 134–136.
  94. ^ a b Wiesinger 1983a, pp. 826–827.
  95. ^ Klein 2003b, p. 216.
  96. ^ Van Bree 2013, p. 111.
  97. ^ a b Boersma 2017, p. 49.
  98. ^ Polenz 2020, pp. 83–84.
  99. ^ Wiesinger 1970a, p. 72.
  100. ^ a b Van Bree 2013, p. 114.
  101. ^ Swanenberg 2019, p. 3.
  102. ^ Hermans 2013, pp. 348–349.
  103. ^ Taubken 1996, p. 6.
  104. ^ Niebaum 1980, p. 462.
  105. ^ Salmons 2018, pp. 33–38.
  106. ^ van der Wal & Quak 1994, p. 74, 92.
  107. ^ Salmons 2018, pp. 206.
  108. ^ König 1994, p. 73.
  109. ^ Klein 2003a, pp. 45–46.
  110. ^ Kienle 1969, p. 55.
  111. ^ Baechler & Pröll 2018.
  112. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 80.
  113. ^ Marynissen 2009, p. 235-239.
  114. ^ König 1994, p. 159.
  115. ^ Marynissen 2009, pp. 237–244.
  116. ^ Keel 2020, pp. 751–752.
  117. ^ Marynissen 2009, pp. 235–238.
  118. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 257.
  119. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, pp. 81–82.
  120. ^ Harnisch 2019, p. 383.
  121. ^ de Vaan 2017, p. 34.
  122. ^ Goblirsch 2018, p. 78, 91.
  123. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 74.
  124. ^ Goblirsch 2018, pp. 84–89.
  125. ^ Goblirsch 2018, p. 91.
  126. ^ de Vaan 2017, p. 37, 252.
  127. ^ Goblirsch 2018, pp. 92–93.
  128. ^ Goblirsch 2018, p. 75.
  129. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 256.
  130. ^ Salmons 2018, pp. 254–256.
  131. ^ Goblirsch 2018, pp. 97–98.
  132. ^ Seiler 2009.
  133. ^ Goblirsch 2018, pp. 84–90.
  134. ^ Goblirsch 2018, pp. 84–85, 94–95.
  135. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 255.
  136. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, pp. 76–77.
  137. ^ Braune & Reiffenstein 2004, p. 81.
  138. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 136.
  139. ^ a b van der Hoek 2010, p. 3.
  140. ^ Goblirsch 2003, p. 120.
  141. ^ Goblirsch 2003, p. 119.
  142. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 131.
  143. ^ van Loey 1970, pp. 260–261.
  144. ^ Braune & Reiffenstein 2004, pp. 87–88.
  145. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 120.
  146. ^ Goblirsch 2003.
  147. ^ a b c Braune & Reiffenstein 2004, p. 104.
  148. ^ Goblirsch 2003, pp. 119–120.
  149. ^ Goblirsch 2003, pp. 122–123.
  150. ^ Goblirsch 2003, pp. 120–122.
  151. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 121.
  152. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 204.
  153. ^ Jones & Jones 2019, p. 65.
  154. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 162.
  155. ^ Braune & Reiffenstein 2004, pp. 162–167.
  156. ^ Laker 2014, pp. 264–266.
  157. ^ Laker 2014, pp. 275–283.
  158. ^ Laker 2014, pp. 283–291.
  159. ^ Salmons 2018, p. 202.
  160. ^ Hall 2021, p. 2.
  161. ^ Hall 2021, p. 6.
  162. ^ Hall 2021, p. 7.
  163. ^ Hall 2021, pp. 32–33.
  164. ^ Arens 1908, p. 10–11.
  165. ^ Polenz 2020, p. 93–94.
  166. ^ Behaghel 1928, p. 398–402.
  167. ^ Wagner 1926, p. 33.
  168. ^ a b van Loey 1970, p. 264.
  169. ^ de Vaan 2017, pp. 100–101.
  170. ^ Lasch 1974, p. 187.
  171. ^ a b Wagner 1926.
  172. ^ Paul, Wiehl & Grosse 1998, p. 156.
  173. ^ Frings 1961, p. 372.
  174. ^ Lasch 1974, p. 153.
  175. ^ de Vaan 2017, pp. 108–109.
  176. ^ Frings 1961, pp. 370–371.
  177. ^ Boersma 2017, p. 27–29.
  178. ^ de Vaan 1999, p. 23–26.
  179. ^ Boersma 2017, p. 30.
  180. ^ de Vaan 1999, p. 26.
  181. ^ a b Boersma 2017, p. 31.
  182. ^ a b de Vaan 1999, p. 28.
  183. ^ Hermans 2013, p. 343.
  184. ^ Höder 2014, pp. 318–321.
  185. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 191.
  186. ^ Frings & Lerchner 1966, pp. 70–71, 77.
  187. ^ Fulk 2018, pp. 182–183.
  188. ^ Fulk 2018, p. 188.
  189. ^ König 1994, p. 155.
  190. ^ a b Van Bree 2013, p. 116.
  191. ^ Salmons 2018, pp. 214–215.
  192. ^ Fertig 1998, pp. 261–262.
  193. ^ Fertig 1998, pp. 262–265.
  194. ^ Wiesinger 1983a, p. 875.
  195. ^ Wiesinger 1983a, p. 884.
  196. ^ Wiesinger 1983a, p. 891.
  197. ^ a b König 1994, p. 157.
  198. ^ Tiefenbach 1987, p. 8.
  199. ^ Tiefenbach 1987, p. 9.
  200. ^ Tiefenbach 1987, pp. 19–25.
  201. ^ Tiefenbach 1987, pp. 13–15.
  202. ^ Lameli 2018.
  203. ^ a b Sanders 1974, p. 11.
  204. ^ Härd 1980, p. 588.
  205. ^ Sanders 1974, p. 17.
  206. ^ Sanders 1974, p. 18.
  207. ^ Harbert 2007, pp. 16–17.

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Arens, Josef (1908). Der Vokalismus der Mundarten im Kreise Olpe unter Zugrundelegung der Mundart von Elspe. Borna: Robert Noske.
  • Baechler, Raffaela; Pröll, Simon (2018). "Loss and preservation of case in Germanic non-standard varieties". Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 3 (1:): 1–35. doi:10.5334/gjgl.680.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  • Behaghel, Otto (1928). Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Grundriß der germanischen Philologie, Band 3 (5th ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Bloemhoff, Henk; Niebaum, Hermann; Twilhaar, Jan Nijen; Scholtmeijer, Harrie (2013). "Low Saxon phonology". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 454–475. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.454.
  • Boersma, Paul (2017). "The history of the Franconian tone contrast". In Wolfgang Kehrein; Björn Köhnlein; Paul Boersma; Marc van Oostendorp (eds.). Segmental Structure and Tone (PDF). Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 27–97. doi:10.1515/9783110341263-003. ISBN 978-3-11-034126-3.
  • Braune, Wilhelm; Reiffenstein, Ingo (2004). Althochdeutsche Grammatik (15 ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • De Schutter, Georges (2013). "The dialects of the Brabant region: Phonological properties". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 277–297. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.277.
  • de Vaan, Michiel (1999). "Towards an explanation of the Franconian tone accents". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 51: 23–44. doi:10.1163/18756719-051-01-90000004. hdl:1887/14124.
  • de Vaan, Michiel (2017). The Dawn of Dutch: Language contact in the Western Low Countries before 1200. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/nss.30.
  • Fertig, David (1998). "The ge- Participle Prefix in Early New High German and the Modern Dialects". American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures. 10 (2): 237–78. doi:10.1017/S1040820700002353.
  • Fischer, Hanna (2021). "Präteritumschwund im Deutschen. Neue Erkenntnisse zu einem alten Rätsel". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. 143 (3): 331–363. doi:10.1515/bgsl-2021-0027.
  • Fischer, Hanna (2024). "Von der Flexion in die Wortbildung und darüber hinaus. Zur diachronen Entwicklung des s-Suffixes im Deutschen". Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik. 52 (2): 257–286. doi:10.1515/zgl-2024-2013.
  • Frings, Theodor (1961). "FLÄMISCH KACHTEL 'FÜLLEN', LATEINISCH CAPITALE, UND DER ÜBERGANG VON FT ZU CHT, DEUTSCH KRAFT, NIEDERLÄNDISCH CRACHT". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. 81 (Sonderband): 363–393. doi:10.1515/bgsl.1961.82.s1.363.
  • Frings, Theodor; Lerchner, Gotthard (1966). Niederländisch und Niederdeutsch: Aufbau und Gliederung des Niederdeutschen. Akademie Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783112701034.
  • Fulk, R.D. (2018). A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages. Studies in Germanic Linguistics. Vol. 3. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/sigl.3. ISBN 978-90-272-6312-4.
  • Gallée, Johan Hendrik (1993). Altsächsische Grammatik. Mit Berichtigungen und Literaturnachträgen. Nach Wendelin Försters letzter Ausgabe in Auswahl bearbeitet und mit Einleitung und Glossar versehen (3 ed.). Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110920147.
  • Goblirsch, Kurt Gustav (2003). "THE VOICING OF FRICATIVES IN WEST GERMANIC AND THE PARTIAL CONSONANT SHIFT". Folia Linguistica Historica. 37 (1–2): 111–152. doi:10.1515/flih.2003.24.1-2.111.
  • Goblirsch, Kurt Gustav (2018). Gemination, Lenition, and Vowel Lengthening: On the History of Quantity in Germanic. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139540780.
  • Goossens, Jan (1970a). "Inleiding tot de Nederlandse dialectologie". Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie en Dialectologie. 44 (1): 105–273. doi:10.21825/hctd.88272.
  • Goossens, Jan (1970b). "Niederländische Mundarten – vom Deutschen aus gesehen" (PDF). Niederdeutsches Wort. 10: 61–80.
  • Goossens, Jan (2008). "Dialectgeografische grondslagen van een Nederlandse taalgeschiedenis". Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie en Dialectologie. 80 (1): 33–258. doi:10.21825/hctd.88678.
  • Goossens, Jan (2014). "Het vroegere Zuid-Brabantse ontrondingsgebied". Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie en Dialectologie. 86: 139–152. doi:10.2143/TD.86.0.1000009.
  • Harbert, Wayne (2007). The Germanic Languages. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755071.
  • Härd, John Evert (1980). "Mittelniederdeutsch". In Hans Peter Althaus; Helmut Henne; Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.). Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Berlin, New York: Max Niemeyer. pp. 584–588. doi:10.1515/9783110960846.584.
  • Hall, Tracy Alan (2021). "The Realization of West Germanic +[sk] in Low German". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. 143 (1): 1–50. doi:10.1515/bgsl-2021-0001.
  • Harnisch, Rüdiger (2019). "Ostfränkisch". Sprache und Raum - Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch. de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 363–406. doi:10.1515/9783110261295-012.
  • Henry, Victor (1900). Le dialecte alaman de Colmar (Haute-Alsace) en 1870: grammaire et lexique. Paris: Félix Alcan.
  • Hermans, Ben (2013). "Phonological features of Limburgian dialects". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 336–355. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.336.
  • Höder, Steffen (2014). "Low German: A profile of a word language". In Reina, Javier Caro; Szczepaniak, Renata (eds.). Syllable and Word Languages. de Gruyter. pp. 305–326. doi:10.1515/9783110346992.305.
  • Howell, Robert B.; Salmons, Joseph (1997). "Umlautless residues in Germanic". American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures. 9 (1): 83–111. doi:10.1017/S1040820700002006.
  • Jones, Howard; Jones, Martin H. (2019). The Oxford Guide to Middle High German. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199654611.001.0001.
  • Kaiser, Livia (2021). Runes Across the North Sea from the Migration Period and Beyond: An Annotated Edition of the Old Frisian Runic Corpus. de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110728224.
  • Keel, William D. (2020). "The West Germanic Dialect Continuum". In Michael T. Putnam; B. Richard Page (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 736–760. doi:10.1017/9781108378291.032.
  • Kienle, Richard (1969). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783111392479.
  • Klein, Thomas (2003a). "ALTHOCHDEUTSCH UND ALTNIEDERLÄNDISCH". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 57 (1): 19–60. doi:10.1163/18756719-90000131.
  • Klein, Thomas (2003b). "Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch in mittelhochdeutscher Zeit". In Berthele, Raphael; Christen, Helen; Germann, Sibylle; Hove, Ingrid (eds.). Die deutsche Schriftsprache und die Regionen: Entstehungsgeschichtliche Fragen in neuer Sicht. de Gruyter. pp. 203–229. doi:10.1515/9783110201574.203.
  • König, Werner (1994). dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache (10 ed.). Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
  • Krogmann, Willy (1970). "ALTSÄCHSISCH UND MITTELNIEDERDEUTSCH". In Schmitt, Ludwig E. (ed.). Kurzer Grundriß der germanischen Philologie bis 1500. Band 1: Sprachgeschichte. de Gruyter. pp. 211–252. doi:10.1515/9783110822717.211.
  • Kürschner, Sebastian (2018). "Dialects of German, Dutch, and the Scandinavian Languages". In Charles Boberg; John Nerbonne; Dominic Watt (eds.). The Handbook of Dialectology. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 462–473. doi:10.1002/9781118827628.ch27.
  • Laker, Stephen (2014). "The Downfall of Dental Fricatives: Frisian Perspectives on a Wider Germanic Trend". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 73: 261–300. doi:10.1163/9789401211918_011.
  • Lahiri, Aditi; Riad, Tomas; Jacobs, Haike (1999). "Diachronic prosody". In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.). Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 335–422. doi:10.1515/9783110197082.1.335.
  • Lameli, Alfred (2018). "The replacement of diminutive suffixes in the New High German period: A time series analysis in word formation". Journal of Historical Linguistics. 8 (2): 273–313. doi:10.1075/jhl.17014.lam.
  • Lasch, Agathe (1974). Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik (2 ed.). Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111393124.
  • Marynissen, Ann (2009). "Taalverandering tussen evolutie en normering: De e-apocope als breuklijn tussen het Nederlands en het Duits". Nederlandse Taalkunde. 14 (3): 233–254.
  • Marynissen, Ann; Janssens, Guy (2013). "A regional history of Dutch". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 81–100. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.81.
  • Niebaum, Hermann (1980). "Westniederdeutsch". In Hans Peter Althaus; Helmut Henne; Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.). Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Berlin, New York: Max Niemeyer. pp. 458–464. doi:10.1515/9783110960846.458.
  • Niebaum, Hermann; Macha, Jürgen (2014). Enführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110338713.
  • Nielsen, Hans Frede (2001). "Frisian and the Grouping of the Older Germanic Languages". In Munske, Horst Haider; Århammar, Nils; Faltings, Volker F.; Hoekstra, Jarich F.; Vries, Oebele; Walker, Alastair G.H.; Wilts, Ommo (eds.). Handbuch des Friesischen. Niemeyer. pp. 512–523. doi:10.1515/9783110946925.512.
  • Paul, Hermann; Wiehl, Peter; Grosse, Siegfried (1998). Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (24 ed.). Niemeyer.
  • Polenz, Peter von (2020). Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (11 ed.). de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110485660.
  • Rübekeil, Ludwig (2017). "The dialectology of Germanic". Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2. de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 986–1002. doi:10.1515/9783110523874-013.
  • Salmons, Joseph (2017). "The Evolution of Germanic". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2. de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110523874-014.
  • Salmons, Joseph (2018). A History of German: What the Past Reveals about Today's Language (2 ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Sanders, Willy (1974). "Deutsch, Niederdeutsch, Niederländisch". Niederdeutsches Wort. 14: 1–22.
  • Sapp, Christopher D. (2009). "Syncope as the Cause of Präteritumschwund: New Data from an Early New High German Corpus". Journal of Germanic Linguistics. 21 (4): 419–450. doi:10.1017/S1470542709990134.
  • Seebold, Elmar (2013). "Die Aufgliederung der germanischen Sprachen". NOWELE. 66 (1): 55–77. doi:10.1075/nowele.66.1.04see.
  • Seiler, Guido (2009). "Sound change or analogy? Monosyllabic lengthening in German and some of its consequences". Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. 12: 229–272. doi:10.1007/s10828-009-9031-y.
  • Stiles, Patrick V. (2013). "The pan-West Germanic isoglosses and the sub-relationships of West Germanic to other branches". NOWELE. 66: 5–38. doi:10.1075/nowele.66.1.02sti.
  • Swanenberg, Jos (2019). "Grenzen aan de streektaal: De taalkundige en de culturele benadering van het Brabants in Nederland". In Veronique De Tier; Anne-Sophie Ghyselen; Ton van de Wijngaard (eds.). De wondere wereld van de streektaalgrenzen. Leiden: Stichting Nederlandse Dialecten. pp. 39–48.
  • Szczepaniak, Renata (2014). "Vowel and consonant epentheses in the history of German from the typological perspective of syllable and word languages". In Caro Reina, Javier; Szczepaniak, Renata (eds.). Syllable and Word Languages. de Gruyter. pp. 160–180. doi:10.1515/9783110346992.160.
  • Taubken, Hans (1996). "Zur Lautgeographie des Westfälischen". Die niederdeutschen Mundarten. Münster: Aschendorf. pp. 2–13.
  • Tiefenbach, Heinrich (1987). "-chen und -lein. Überlegungen zu Problemen des sprachgeographischen Befundes und seiner sprachhistorischen Deutung". Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik. 54 (1): 2–27. JSTOR 40502254.
  • Van Bree, Cor (2013). "The spectrum of spatial varieties of Dutch: The historical genesis". In Frans Hinskens; Johan Taeldeman (eds.). Dutch. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 100–128. doi:10.1515/9783110261332.81.
  • van der Hoek, Michel (2010). "Old Franconian and Middle Dutch <gh> and Velar Palatalization". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. 132 (1). doi:10.1515/bgsl.2010.002.
  • van der Wal, Marijke J.; Quak, Aad (1994). "Old and Middle Continental Germanic". In König, Ekkehard; van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). The Germanic Languages. Routledge. pp. 72–109.
  • van Loey, Adolphe (1970). "ALTNIEDERLÄNDISCH UND MITTELNIEDERLÄNDISCH". In Schmitt, Ludwig E. (ed.). Kurzer Grundriß der germanischen Philologie bis 1500. Band 1: Sprachgeschichte. de Gruyter. pp. 253–287. doi:10.1515/9783110822717.253.
  • van Loon, Jozef (2003). "DE CHRONOLOGIE VAN DE R-METATHESIS IN HET NEDERLANDS EN AANGRENZENDE GERMAANSE TALEN". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. 1: 141–167. doi:10.1163/18756719-90000136.
  • Versloot, Arjen; Adamczyk, Elżbieta (2017). "The Geography and Dialects of Old Saxon: River-basin communication networks and the distributional patterns of North Sea Germanic features in Old Saxon". In Hines, John; IJssennagger-van der Pluijm, Nelleke (eds.). Frisians and their North Sea Neighbours: From the Fifth Century to the Viking Age. Boydell and Brewer. pp. 125–148. doi:10.1515/9781787440630-014.
  • Voyles, Joseph B. (1971). "The Problem of West Germanic". Folia Linguistica Historica. 5 (1–2): 117–150. doi:10.1515/flin.1969.5.1-2.117.
  • Wagner, Kurt (1926). "Die Geschichte eines Lautwandels. ks < chs > s". Teuthonista. 2 (1): 30–46. JSTOR 40498432.
  • Weijnen, A. (1958). Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.
  • Wiesinger, Peter (1970a). Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten, Band 1: Die Langvokale im Hochdeutschen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. doi:10.1515/9783110881240.
  • Wiesinger, Peter (1970b). Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten, Band 2: Die Diphthonge im Hochdeutschen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. doi:10.1515/9783110881240.
  • Wiesinger, Peter (1983a). "Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte". In Besch, Werner (ed.). Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 807–900. doi:10.1515/9783110203332-003.
  • Wiesinger, Peter (1983b). "Deutsche Dialektgebiete außerhalb des deutschen Sprachgebiets". In Besch, Werner (ed.). Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 900–930. doi:10.1515/9783110203332-003.