The Root Vocalism of two Subclasses of Old Icelandic Class VII Strong Verbs

Hugviacutesindasvieth

The Root Vocalism of the Preterite of two Subclasses of Old

Icelandic VII Class Strong Verbs

Ritgereth til MA-proacutefs

Diego Ferioli

Maiacute 2010

Haacuteskoacuteli Iacuteslands

Medieval Icelandic Studies

Diego Ferioli

Kt 1510853269

Leiethbeinandi Haraldur Bernharethsson

Maiacute 2010

Abstract

The goal of this study is to discuss the controversial evolution of class VII

strong preterites in Old Norse which retained traces of the old Proto-Indo-

European and Proto-Germanic reduplicated perfect In particular the focus

will lay on two subgroups of class VII strong verbs in Old Icelandic which

from the 14th century onwards start being written with a diphthong ltiegt in

the preterite root as if from a long vowel (eg hielt fiekk and snieri rieri)

Orthographic evidence from the earliest Old Icelandic manuscripts is then

collected leading to the conclusion that the root vowel in the analysed

preterites forms was clearly a short monophthong (e) in early Old

Icelandic

In light of a review of the theories about the etymology of the preterites of

class VII strong verbs it is then proposed that the root vowel in the

preterites of the mentioned subclasses was short since Proto-Germanic

times and that it arose from the formerly reduplicated syllable after a shift

of the accentuation from the elided root to the reduplicating syllable The

diphthongisation is then traced back to multiple causes A first

phonological diphthongisation took place in words with word-initial h

affecting class VII preterites too (helt hekk) This initial diphthongisation

caused the spreading of the diphthong [je] from other VII class strong

preterites (heacutet greacutet) which had diphthongised because of etymological long

vowel In the modern language preterite plural forms directly derived from

forms with a short vowel are still observable as they show a different kind

of diphthongisation to [ei] (fengum gengum) The preterites of the second

subclass (snera rera etc) adopt the diphthong much later perhaps as late as

the 18th century as a result of their reanalysis as weak verbs and the

neutralisation of the opposition of quantity in the present stem

Table of Contents

1 Introduction hellip 4

2 The Old Icelandic Vowel System hellip 7

3 On Reduplication hellip 11

4 Views on the Rise of VII Class Strong Preterites hellip hellip 17

5 On ē2 and the Spreading of [je] in Old Icelandic helliphellip 21

6 The Orthography of the Earliest Manuscripts hellip 27

62 The earliest Icelandic Manuscripts Larsson (1981) hellip 31

63 Holm perg 15 4to hellip 33

64 The earliest Norwegian Manuscripts Holtsmark (1955) hellip 36

65 NRA 52 hellip 38

66 GKS 2087 4to hellip 38

67 AM 519a 4deg hellip 40

68 AM 132 fol hellip 41

69 Summary hellip 43

7 Conclusions hellip 44

8 Bibliography hellip 48

List of Abbreviations

Go = Gothic

Icel = Icelandic

IPA = International Phonetic Alphabet

OE = Old English

OFris = Old Frisian

ON = Old Norse

OS = Old Saxon

OHG = Old High German

PIE = Proto-Indo-European

Runar heita geltir en ruacutenar maacutelstafir

First Grammatical Treatise 8616

1 Introduction

The so-called seventh class of strong verbs is a well known puzzle within

Germanic linguistic research The preterite of these verbs evolved from

Proto-Germanic where all strong verbs were once reduplicated1 to the

attested daughter languages where with the notable exception of Gothic

(the only instance of reduplication being a synchronically analysable

phenomenon) very few traces of reduplication are recorded and different

preterite patterns are found instead Some of them present a vowel

alternation which could be synchronically explained as a divergent kind of

ablaut some others feature what could either be infixation or the result of a

contraction of the root and the ancient reduplicating syllable Such verbs are

attested in all early Germanic languages the best attested ones being

Gothic Old Norse Old English Old High German Old Saxon and Old

Frisian although it is evident that at the time of the attestation

reduplication was being abandoned for good as a regular way of forming

the preterite

Old Norse retains a handful of interesting instances of formerly

reduplicated preterites The verbs examined here constitute an important

part of the core common Germanic vocabulary preserved in Old Norse and

show an interesting mixture of archaic traits and innovations The main

difficulty for the linguist attempting to trace the development of these

1 See Bammesberger 199415ff Jasanoff 2003168 ff

forms is their great variety of patterns within a fairly small verb class The

following six structurally defined subclasses have traditionally been

presented for classical early 13th-century Icelandic (see for instance Noreen

1970337-339 for the subdivision subclass VIIe only entry bloacuteta is most of

the times grouped with VIId the glosses are reported as according to

Cleasby-Vigfuacutesson 1874)

Table 1 The Old Icelandic VII Class of Strong Verbs

Subclass Vowel Alternation

Infinitive English Translation

3p pret sg 3p pret pl

VII a ei - ē heita be called command

heacutet heacutetu

leika play leacutek leacuteku

VII b au - jō hlaupa run hljoacutep hlupu

auka add joacutek

ausa pour joacutes josu

houmlggva chop hjoacute hjoggu hjuggu

ū - jō buacutea dwell bjoacute bjoggu bjoumlggu bjuggu

VII c a - e halda hold helt heldu

falla fall fell fellu

falda fold felt feldu

blanda blend blett blendu

ganga walk gekk gengu

hanga hang hekk hengu

faacute (lt fanhaną) get fekk fengu

VII d ā - ē raacuteetha rule reacuteeth reacuteethu

blaacutesa blow bleacutes bleacutesu

graacuteta weep greacutet greacutetu

laacuteta let leacutet leacutetu

VII e ō - ē bloacuteta bleed bleacutet bleacutetu

VII f ū - e snuacutea turn snoslashra snera sneru

gnuacutea rub gnoslashra gnera gnoslashru gneru

ō - e roacutea row roslashra rera roslashru reru

groacutea grow groslashra grera groslashru greru

ā - e saacute sow soslashra sera soslashru seru

Moreover Noreen (1923338-339) lists sveipa (pret sveip) in subclass VIIa

and mentions two isolated participles eikinn and aldinn which could fit

into subclasses VIIa and VIIc respectively The verb bnuacutea in VIIf (attested

only in the preterite bnera) may be a variant of gnuacutea

From the subdivision above it is clear that all of these preterite singular

forms except subclass VIIf (sneri reri etc) are monosyllabic and except

VIIc (helt fekk etc) and again VIIf all have a long root vowel This study

will especially focus on these two latter sub-classes as in the course of the

14th century for subclass VIIc and after the 16th century for subclass VIIf

the root vowel in the preterite usually believed to once be have been short

surfaces as a diphthong written ltiegt just as if it had come from a long

vowel (ē) The effects of such sound change are still very well observable

in modern Icelandic where the spelling lteacutegt reflects a [je][je]

pronunciation The dynamics according to which this unusual

diphthongisation took place are still unknown and such lack of knowledge

constitutes a major obstacle towards understanding the actual development

of this class of verbs into modern Icelandic

As it will be shown vowel length is not indicated systematically in Old

Icelandic written sources That the vowel system was internally distinctively

divided by the feature of length seems to have been well known even to

early 12th-century Icelanders as clearly confirmed by the First Grammatical

Treatise (see below) Individual scribes however may oftentimes fail to

mark vowel length by avoiding it completely or applying it inconsistently

Moreover contamination among divergent scribal practices and

interpolation of manuscripts during various stages of the tradition may

obscure the picture presented by the orthography even further Before

tackling the problem of the orthography a few considerations about the

historical development of the Old Icelandic vowel system and reduplication

are to be made

2 The Old Icelandic Vowel System

Old Icelandic retained an ancient Proto-Indo-European vowel length

pattern ie syllable length could be of three types light (VC) heavy

(VC or VC) and hyper-characterised (VC) Vowel length was

originally contrastive and independent from any other variable The Old

Icelandic vowel system was derived from Proto-Germanic after being

heavily restructured by syncope at a Proto-Norse stage which re-shaped

vowel length in unstressed syllables and triggered the phonemicisation of

the new vowels arising from umlaut processes ultimately greatly enlarging

the inherited phoneme inventory (cf Garnes 1976196-199 )

Table 2 - The Proto-Norse Vowel System

SHORT LONG DIPHTHONGS

Front Back Front Back

High i u ī ū eu [ju]

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

Table 3 The Common Norse Vowel System after Syncope

SHORT LONG NASAL2 DIPHTHONGS

front back front back front back

High i y u iacute yacute uacute ĩ y ũ ey

Mid e oslash o eacute ǿ oacute ẽ oslash otilde ei

Low aelig a ǫ ǽ aacute ǫ aelig atilde ǫ au

Table 4 The classical Old Icelandic Vowel System (ca 1200)

front back front back

High i y u iacute yacute uacute ey

Mid e oslash o eacute ǿ oacute ei

Low a ǫ ǽ aacute au

Around the time of the First Grammatical Treatise (mid-12th century) the

vowel system was still divided into three main subsystems of short long

and nasal vowels (table 3) Possibly because the short and long subsystems

were not symmetrical a significant re-shuffling gradually took place in

several steps over a long period of time in the history of Old Icelandic and

eventually the distinctive feature of quantity was eliminated to the benefit

of quality Firstly the phonemic distinction between oslash and ǫ which

merged into ouml (ca 1200 or shortly thereafter) was neutralised secondly

the merger of aelig and ǿ into aelig took place (ca 1250) later long mid and

low vowels became diphthongs and syllable types were reduced from four

2 According to Hreinn Benediktsson (1972128-137) there is enough evidence pointing at fully distinctive nasal correlation at the time of the First Grammatical Treatise Being nasality and length superimposable features a more accurate representation would have showed a distinction between long and short nasal vowels however due to the complementary distribution which seems to apply to nasal and non-nasal short vowels and the fact that the nasality correlation was neutralised when long vowels when a nasal consonant followed I have opted for a simpler chart showing the nasal correlation as a third type of vowel correlation besides length and shortness

to two (ie VC and VC) so that all stressed syllables became heavy

Whereas in the mid and high vowel subsystems there had nearly always

been a one-to-one correspondence between long and short the low vowels

rather exhibited an opposition of frontness (note the shift of aacute from a

central to a back position after the disappearance of ǫ)3 The abandonment

of contrastive vowel length is commonly referred to as the Icelandic

Quantity Shift (Icel hljoacuteethvalarbreytingin) stretching at least from the 13th to

the 16th century (cf Bjoumlrn K THORNoacuteroacutelfsson 1929a Aacuternason 1980121ff and

2005332ff) Such phenomenon reflects a wider tendency to re-organise a

languages vowel inventory in terms of quantity and emergence of new

diphthongs which is common to most other old Germanic languages (see

for instance Haugen 198224ff on Scandinavian and Prokosch 1939107)

The diphthongisation in the late 13th and 14th centuries brought about a

new in a way less definite dicotomy between unimoric and bimoric vowels

rather than between long and short vowels by means of a glide added to the

former long vowels coming to constitute the reshaped second mora To the

front vowels the front semi-vowel i was added (aelig [aelig] gt [aeligi] gt [ai])

while a back semi-vowel u was added to the back vowels (aacute [a] gt [au])

As early as in the 13th century however the new realisation of eacute [ei]4 came

to be confused with the older diphthong ei (eg in minimal pairs such as

meir and meacuter) so that the process was soon reversed to [ie] (cf Hreinn

3 The issue is in fact still open to question and it is not to be excluded that the merger of aacute and ǫ may have resulted in a round vowel not affecting its backnessfrontness

4 Others explain ei as dialectical as it is apparently not found in Western Iceland (Noreen 192395) However considering that all new diphthongs are descending with [je] being the only exception the descending [ei] could have well been its predecessor Unclear is the development of aelig into [ai] if the early spelling ltiaeliggt reflects an ascending diphthong the phoneme might have undergone the opposite change ie from ascending to descending But again that might be a regional variant from Northern Iceland and in part Breiethafjoumlrethur (Aacuternason 2005333)

Benediktsson 1959298 and Kristjaacuten Aacuternason 2005333) It follows that the

glide must have been originally added to the high vowels as well to which it

was identical in quantity the result was very close to the original value of

the former long vowels [i] ~ [ii] [u] ~ [uu] Although it has never been

proposed before in fact it is not to be excluded that the glide spread from

the high vowels down to the low vowels implying a reanalysis of the

constituents of the two morae (cf Table 5) Down to the modern language

former mid and low long vowels are best analysed as a sequence of two

separate phonemes (especially [je] as j+e) while the high vowels

(including y and yacute which eventually merged with i from a certain

point on lost any bimoric manifestation

Table 5 The Late Old Icelandic Vowel System (ca 1200-1500)

UNIMORIC BIMORIC DIPHTHONGS PROPER

High i y u iacute [ii] uacute [uu] ey

Mid e ouml o eacute [ei]gt[ie] oacute [ou] ei

Low a aelig [ai] aacute [au] au

Such transformations are indeed very complex and as one can expect took a

considerable amount of time to become established both in the spoken and

by reflex in the written language The only way to determine how the

changes took place is thorough a orthographic investigation not forgetting

that the manuscripts preserved are mostly neither consistent nor do they

always represent a single phase of the history of the language they are

written in Nevertheless as will be confirmed later in greater details the

data just examined above show a clear tendency towards the replacement of

length as a distinctive feature by quality possibly as early as the 13th

century and lasting until the 16th century Garnes (1976198) defines the

Quantity Shift as ldquoan increase of the scope of the suprasegmental feature

quantityrdquo meaning that before the shift ldquothe scope of the quantity was the

segment whereas in the post-quantity shift period the scope was the

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Reduplication originates in Proto-Indo-European as a morphological tool

to form the perfect The perfect denoted a stative aspect meaning that it

expressed a state resulting from the completion of an action and was

characterised by e-reduplication plus mainly o zero apophony plus

special endings partly recalling those of the middle and hysterokinetic

accentuation (Jasanoff 200330 and 2007242) Later the Proto-Indo-

European (active) perfect became a simple past tense in Germanic and was

further specialised to the point that all strong Germanic preterites must

once have been reduplicated Later on however except for subclass VIIf

there are no clear vestiges of reduplication in Old Norse and most of its

relatives making the loss of this peculiar and once very productive

morphological feature one the most important innovations in the early

history of the Germanic languages

The next steps were the rise of a formal dichotomy between reduplication

and ablaut formerly superimposable features as two concurring

alternatives for forming the preterite The reduplicating syllable was not

stressed in the Proto-Indo-European perfect and it is generally assumed

that it never was in Proto-Germanic either (Ringe 2007191) Because of the

accent lying on the root vowel one might expect Verners Law to have

voiced root-initial fricatives in those stems that were still reduplicating sure

instances of that are very few (eg ON sera (s)he sowed Go gasaiacutezlep

(s)he had fallen asleep) but of a particular relevance since their reanalysis

gave rise to a -Vr- infix which according to some was extended to a good

number of other stems in Old Norse (where sera alone gave birth to

subclass VIIf) and Old High German Since the voicing s gt z is the only

example of Verners Law in class VII verbs it may be concluded that other

alternations of root-initial fricatives had already been levelled in Proto-

Germanic (Ringe 2007191-192)

The main difference between reduplication in Gothic and Northwest

Germanic is the treatment of the initial clusters Obstruent + sonorant

clusters reduplicate in Gothic with the obstruent only (cf slepan ~ saiacuteslep

fraisan ~ faiacutefrais) while NWGmc retains the cluster initially but simplifies

it medially (cf ON grera OE -dreord OHG pleruzzun) However Gothic

does not entirely reflect the Proto-Germanic situation Gothic innovates

from Proto-Germanic in the following aspects a) neutralisation of Verners

Laws effects (with few exceptions) b) weak plural (and dual) stem forms

are levelled in favour of the singular and c) generalisation of -ai- [ɛ] at the

expense of -i- (cf Jasanoff 2007244)

While most preterite roots are believed to have somehow been re-shaped by

contraction with the reduplicating syllable there is a subgroup which may

simply have dropped it The reason for this development was that the roots

were already ablauting so that the reduplicating syllable became redundant

as a mark for the past tense There are at least eight such verbs which

retained both reduplication and ablaut possibly until a late stage in Proto-

Germanic

blēsaną blow ~ beblōsgrētaną weep ~ gegrōt hwētaną push continuously ~ hehwōt

lētaną let ~ lelōt letrēdaną rule~ rerōd ruletēkaną take ~ tetōk takesēaną sow ~ sezōwēaną blow (of wind) ~ wewō

Ringe (2007250) hints at more strong verbs with root-internal ē which

are attested elsewhere in the Germanic family tree Some of those did

probably not ablaut like slēpaną ~ sezlēp Only two of these verbs surely

kept the original o-vocalism in the preterite unaltered In Old Norse a

considerable part of them migrated into other classes or were relocated

within class VII wēaną fell out of use sēaną remained basically

unchanged but was relocated with the non-ablauting rōaną to form

subclass VIIf tēkaną and hwētaną which meanwhile both developed a

short instead of a long a-vocalism in the infinitive as taka became the

former a simple class VI strong verb as to hwētaną it apparently surfaces

as a weak verb5 Last but not least the remaining preterites changed their

root vocalism from ō to ē but not without leaving traces in Old

Swedish loacutet and of course sezō which re-emerged after the syncope as a

reanalysed sera with regressed accentuation (Ringe 2007249)

The developments which led to the new VII class of strong verbs can be

now summarised as follows

a) rise of a new generalised ē-vocalism (of unclear origins) marking the

preterite tense and applying to subclasses VIIa VIId and VIIe

5 The attestation of hwētaną is problematic It is found both as the weak verbs hvata and hvota in Old Icelandic where hvota (seemingly from hvaacuteta) seems to regularly derive from hwētaną and is probably related to the other weak verb hoacuteta (to hold forth with threatening gestures) which probably merged with older hǿta (to threaten) the form hvata seems to suggest a development similar to taka (cf Ringe 2007249 CleasbyVigfuacutesson 1957297 and 281)

b) tendency toward monosyllabic preterites matching the present forms

and consequently

c) elimination of either the reduplicating syllable or the root syllable in

the above subclasses (see chapter 4)

d) in subclass VIIb especially when the root started with a vowel a kind

of contraction took place at the same time re-modelling the new ō-

vocalism to a pattern close if not identical to class VI preterites (the

migration of taka to class VI confirms the analogy)

e) subclass VIIf would then work as a waste bin for orphaned forms

which because of their inner structure fully retained reduplication

but of which only sera did originally ablaut the last vowel was then

easily reanalysed as a weak ending -a analogous to -etha

f) the verbum puro būaną did not join subclass VIIf in most Germanic

languages (unlike Old High German birun) and was relocated to

subclass VIIb after undergoing contraction būaną ~ beƀ gt

bew gt beū gt bjoacute (plural forms would then be analogical

according to the VIIb alternation)

The question that needs to be answered before dealing with the

reconstruction of class VII strong preterites is whether the root vowel was

long or short This is the case for especially subclass VIIc preterites since

even when their development is satisfactorily explained the results are

often hardly applicable to the remaining subclasses In Proto-Germanic

subclass VIIc verbs used to form the preterite in roughly the same way as

subclass VIIa verbs so they are expected to behave in a similar way even

after the reduplication period And yet their development is different as

they do not seem to be drawn (yet) towards the newly created ē-grade It

has been maintained that the reason for this is to be sought in their inner

structure (see chapter 4) Their distinctive features are the following

a) their default (present) root structure is CaRC rather than

b) the final consonant was originally voiced and if it is not a

resonant it is later devoiced and if there is an adjacent nasal it is

assimilated

c) at times not only the quantity but also the quality of the root

vowel fluctuates between e and i in Old Norse (i in East Norse

e in West Norse although i is sometimes found as a variant in

Old Icelandic cf Chapter 6 section on Moumlethruvallaboacutek) Old Saxon

and Old Frisian

An overview of the preterite singular forms is given below in table 6 (cf

Fulk 1987169-172 Torp 1909 Katara 1939 for Old Saxon Steller 1928 and

Bremmer 2009 for Old Frisian)

Table 6 Comparative Overview of Subclass VIIc Preterite Singular Forms

ON OHG OS OE OFris Go

held hialt held hēold hēldhīld haiacutehald

felt fialt feld fēold faiacutefald

fekk fiang feng fēng fengfing faiacutefāh

hekk hiang heng hēng henghweng haiacutehāh

gekk giang geng gēong gengging (gaiacutegagg)

fell fial fellfēl fēoll fol faiacutefal

Old High German shows a clear long vowel since its earliest period (ē

later ia and then ie) alongside Old English where it is more

problematic to trace back the original vowel length but it seems however

that the given diphthongs probably came from long vowels (Fulk 1987171)

As shown in the table in both Old English and Old High German the VIIc-

type has been absorbed into another type characterised by a long vowel in

the preterite In Old English it merged with the b-type which was

productive and serving as a box for verbs with divergent vocalisms in Old

High German it merged with the a-type acquiring thus the diphthong ia

in the preterite Through this process the anomaly of a short vowel in class

VII was soon obliterated in West Germanic (Joumlrundur Hilmarson 199138-

39) with the notable exceptions of the manuscripts of the so-called Isidore

Group and the Monsee-Wiener fragments (Braune 1967286-287) and Old

Saxon The latter shows chiefly a short vowel being thus all in all identical

to Old Icelandic The vowel can occasionally be lengthened or

diphthongised before a simple consonant like in fell gt fel gt fēl but it

definitely appears to be a later minor innovation The evidence for Old

Frisian is somewhat less clear due to an extensive reshuffling of the vowel

system although a short vowel seems to dominate

Postulating an early long vowel in all Northwest Germanic remains an

option but has further implications Old Icelandic is not the anomaly the

diphthongisation e gt ei gt ie which seems to affect some of subclass

VIIc preterites is found not only in Old Icelandic but remarkably also in

Old Saxon and Old Frisian sources in apparently the same instances

Particularly in the oldest Old Saxon attestations (the manuscripts of the

Heliand) the root vowel in class VIIc is nearly always noted as short and

fluctuates between e and i (as in gengging) whereas the latter phoneme

is stabilised in East Norse at about the same time In late Old Saxon it also

starts appearing as lteegt lteigt lteygt and in those words containing i as

ltiegt and later into Middle Low German it monophthongises to lteegt (cf

Katara 1939114) There is no apparent reason for the fluctuation e~i to

be dependent on a long vowel or even less plausibly to be a reflex of

Proto-Germanic ē2 (as it is often claimed among others by Fulk

1987171) and why Old English and Old High Germans should not have

been the innovators In fact the situation looks rather like the preservation

of an archaism which has later been analogically levelled There is in short

no need of postulating a long chain of lengthenings and shortenings in

order to explain why Old Norse was different from the rest rather the other

way around In the following chapter theories on the formation of class VII

preterites will be examined more specifically

4 Views on the rise of VII class strong preterites

Traditional handbooks of Old Norse grammar display different and at

times inconsistent views on the development of reduplicating verbs In one

of his early works Adolf Noreen (1913205) delineates a twofold pattern

following a tradition which had started already with Grimm

a) fefall gt ffall gt ON fal(l) from inf falla

b) hehald gt hēalt gt ON heacutelt from inf halda

Noreen believed that two different changes occurred within subclass VIIc

and that pattern b) was later generalised to a) which originally retained the

root vowel quality due to the intervening fricative As a consequence of such

analogical change most subclass VIIc preterites would then have had a long

vowel from the beginning resulting partly from a compensatory

lengthening (hehald gt hēalt) which later causes a contraction of the root

vowel with the one in reduplicating syllable and partly on analogy The

diphthongisation in Icelandic would then be due to the long monophthongs

whereas in subclass VIIf the root vowel was lengthened because in an open

syllable (sneri gt sneacuteri) Those forms which were not subject to this change

underwent analogical change (fall gt feacutell)

Heusler (195092-93) produced a much more modern-looking picture with

a short vowel in all subclass VIIc preterites He argued that ldquodas nord fell

verlangt keine Vorstufe fēllrdquo His intention was possibly to criticise the

common idea that a long vowel had arise from contraction or secondary

lengthening and then later been shortened as in Boer (1920191) ldquoDe e is

door verkorting uit ē (ē₂) ontstaanrdquo

An outdated approach that for a time met with widespread approval was a

phono-morphological ablaut-based derivation once popular among the

Neogrammarians This has later turned out not to be a feasible approach

especially after the advent of the laryngeal theory An epitome of this school

is Van Coetsem (1956) Van Coetsem pointed out that pure reduplication as

in haiacutehait is exclusively found in Gothic while Northwest Germanic

developed its own VII-class ablaut grades In his scenario subclasses VIIa

(present root vocalism ai) and VIId (present root vowel ē1) had

originally developed the same ldquoaugmented graderdquo ei in the preterite

later this newly formed diphthong ei monophthongised to ē2 pushed

by the development ai gt ei in the infinitive Subclass VIIc fits nicely

in to the reconstructed alternation ai ~ ei and similarly in VIIb au

~ eu (gt jō) corresponds the simpler a ~ e This kind of

alternation has also been called reversed ablaut (Ablaut in umgekehrte

Richtung) due to the mirrored image of the Proto-Indo-European e ~

a ablaut alternation This theory still has much to recommend it

especially because by acknowledging an original short e in subclass VIIc

preterites the overall picture becomes simpler

However the approach which eventually has had most success is strictly

phonological In short it is a theory of contraction of the formerly

reduplicating syllable and the root syllable similar to the one formulated by

Noreen and discussed above Contraction generates a new kind of root

vocalism that is ultimately reanalysed as a new ablaut type Scholars do not

agree on the exact details of the contraction and presently divide between

those advocating a mixture of syncope and compensatory lengthening

infixation ldquocompressionrdquo and haplology

Voyles (199273) explains how ldquoone of the ways class VII strong verbs

formed the past was to insert stressed e into the present-tense stemrdquo

Although subclass VIIc is not specifically discussed one can assume that

Voyles believes Old Norse helt to have been hēlt since the beginning and

having developed from hald gt heald gt healt gt hēlt Voyles does not

produce any real sound law to explain the change ea gt ē only that ldquothe

new diphthong eē in forms like leēt let was interpreted quite naturally

as ērdquo and so ldquosimilarly the new diphthong ea [hellip] was also interpreted as

ērdquo Even though most of this is actually in line with earlier theories such

developments are in fact highly implausible and not supported by any

actual orthographic evidence (ie the Old Icelandic written sources indicate

that subclass VIIc verbs had a short root vowel in the preterite as will be

discussed below) It is also likely that some stage of this process assumed by

Voyles and the Old Norse breaking were overlapping at some point in

North Germanic and given the similarity between a hypothetical

diphthong ea in the preterite stem and the first stage of breaking (e

gt ea gt ja) one would rather expect the development ea gt ja as in

the breaking environment Arguably this was most probably the context

from which the preterite joacutek arose from eauk

Another kind of infixation theory has been proposed by Vennemann

(1994) According to Vennemann the different root syllables in

reduplicated forms typically made up of a fricative and a vowel were first

generalised to -zV- and later rhotacised to -rV- Later the root vowel was

syncopated and stress was stabilised on the reduplicating syllable somehow

opening the way for the elision of -r- which triggered a compensatory

lengthening of the stress-bearing vowel Vennemann assumes therefore that

subclass VIIc preterites got a long vowel at an early stage The assumption

that there ever was a stress regression from the root to the reduplicating

syllable appears to be peculiar of Vennemannrsquos theory (1994306-307)

Vennemannrsquos theory has been firmly criticised by Jasanoff (2007) who also

notably claims that most of Vennemannrsquos sound laws have been produced

ad hoc Jasanoff maintains that the word-initial (ie radical) stress was

established on a Proto-Germanic level thus including Gothic as well and

that long vowels were not shortened in unstressed position in either North

and West Germanic concluding therefore that ldquothere is no way in short

that the position of the accent could have been a determining factor in the

restructuring of reduplication in Northwest Germanicrdquo (Jasanoff 2007257)

Instead he reformulates the contraction theory into a new-looking

ldquocompressionrdquo theory where disyllabic preterite plural forms were made

monosyllabic through the ldquoejectionrdquo of the root vowel first in the preterite

plural the consequent cluster was then simplified and the new vowel

alternations were reanalysed as ablaut As a necessary criticism it should be

noted that Jasanoff does not clarifies how the ldquoejectionrdquo could have taken

place without the regression of the stress from the root to the reduplicating

syllable however

5 On ē2 and the spreading of [je] in Old Icelandic

Class VII preterites such as heacutet and reacuteeth are usually reconstructed with

Proto-Germanic ē2 a late phoneme resulting from the lengthening of

short e and distinct from Proto-Germanic primary ē (or ēsup1 lt PIE

ē) There can be little doubt that in order to be two different phonemes

ēsup1 and ē2 must have had some more or less marked difference in

quality Evidence for ēsup1 being rather a low-spread vowel perhaps better

noted with ǣ have been convincingly produced by Antonsen (200220)

that is evident from its later development to long ā in stressed syllables from

the lowering influence it has on preceding root vowels as when

P[roto]G[ermanic] klibǣnan gt OHG klebēn Ger kleben to cleave to stick

and from early foreign loanwords in which a foreign long mid-front vowel ē is

borrowed into Germanic as the long high front vowel ī [hellip] This sound-

substitution in loanwords occurred because there was no corresponding long mid

vowel in Germanic

According to Joumlrundur Hilmarson (1991) Proto-Germanic ē2 as a

distinctive phoneme is primarily found in the word for here which he

derives from the Proto-Indo-European particle ke (rather than from the

instrumental singular kī) whose e was ldquoemphaticallyrdquo lengthened and

to which an analogical -r was added In addition Joumlrundur Hilmarson

assumes that ē2 was found in most preterites of class VII strong verbs It

is also found in some other minor instances most notably in Latin

loanwords containing ē The phoneme is therefore a Germanic

innovation and surfaces whenever lengthening occurs

The attestation of Old Icelandic heacuter and that of VII class strong preterites

does indeed have some important similarities which necessitated the

inclusion of the adverb in this present study Joumlrundur Hilmarson did his

own survey of the orthographic manifestation of herheacuter on the Old

Icelandic Book of Homilies Holm Perg 15 4to (about 1200) He states

(199134)

According to Hreinn Benediktsson (19676832 [in the bibliography of this

present study listed as Hreinn Benediktsson 1967]) over 90 of long vowels in

some of the hands of that manuscript exhibit the length mark The adverb ldquohererdquo

however when written in full has a short vowel in all of its 44 occurrences and

when abbreviated it is written with a length mark only once out of 39

occurrences This seems to necessitate the assumption that Old Icelandic

possessed not only the form heacuter as usually posited and preserved in Modern

Icelandic but also the form her with a short vowel [hellip]

This theory clearly casts new light upon the problem of lengthening of e

in Old Icelandic The attested length of the word here fluctuates for a

time in a fashion that is indeed very similar to some of the preterites of the

VII class of strong verbs and its occurrence is directly observable in those

sources which are also useful for observing the formerly reduplicating

preterites Apparently there are several instances of ē2 over a longer time

span and they are due to multiple sound changes about which very little is

known According to Joumlrundur Hilmarsson (199139-40) the sound

changes giving rise to ē2 apply to three cases

bull Strong verbs of subclass VIIa he-hait- gt heacute-hāt- gt het- (haplologic

elision of the root syllable) gt hē2t- (secondary lengthening analogy

wit the present stem)

bull Similarly in strong verbs of subclass VIId le-lē1t- gt leacute-lāt- gt let- gt

lē2t-

bull her gt hē2r (emphatic lengthening)

Joumlrundur Hilmarsons theory is not far from Jasanoffs compression theory

But while Jasanoff still heavily relies on contraction consequent to the

elision of the root vowel the first employs haplology in order to eliminate

the whole root syllable While on one hand this could very well apply to

Old Norse on the other hand limited evidence of cognate vestiges such as

Anglian heht reord and leort constitute a difficult problem as they seem to

retain clear traces of the root syllable which could therefore not have been

elided at once (see for example Jasanoff 2007245) Moreover a reasonable

amount of caution is needed when it comes to phenomena such as emphatic

lengthening and most importantly haplology in the latter case elision by

haplology calls for the assumption that reduplication as a morphological

tool was entirely no longer understood by the users of the language at the

time The reason for that would not necessarily be that the mechanism had

been made obscure by independent sound changes although it was clearly

no longer productive morphological reduplication must have been liable of

being fully analysed as such but for some reason it simply was not

The exact evolution of reduplicating verbs aside however there seems to be

an evident limitation with most of the linguistic research discussed above in

that its focus generally lies on the quantity of the root vowel in the

discussed preterites and rarely on the diphthongisation which is the actual

recorded phenomenon in several Germanic languages In Old Icelandic in

particular there is enough reason to pay deeper attention at the emergence

of the diphthong [je] in class VII strong verbs but also in a number of other

cases These other cases are so relevant that from the time of the Quantity

Shift on they may even justify analogical transformations within class VII

strong verbs

The first one which needs to be mentioned here involves e gt [je] in words

such as eacuteg eacuteta eacutel heacuteri heacuteraeth heacuteethan Heacuteethinn occurring long before the

change had started affecting class VII strong preterites (according to Bjoumlrn

Karel THORNoacuteroacutelfsson 1929b223 manuscript sources start reading ltiegt in such

instances from around 1300) The sound change behind these instances has

been explained in several different ways and very often as lengthening with

subsequent diphthongisation whereas both the etymological and

orthographic evidence points at a diphthongisation of a short vowel

Another popular explanation is that [je] arose by means of a palatalisation or

j-infix (cf discussion by Haukur THORNorgeirsson 2009) which in itself is not

very explanatory Theories of the origin of [je] in eacuteg eacuteta etc often include

class VII strong preterites while it is evident that we are dealing with not

only two but more separate phenomena which however produce the same

result and which possibly triggered analogical transformations In words

such as heacuteraeth heacuteethan and the personal name Heacuteethinn for example the change

e gt [je] is triggered by the word-initial h and affects e as from Proto-

Germanic (not resulting from earlier aelig from i-mutated short a)

(Noreen 192395) To class V preterite eacuteta on the other hand possibly a

particular analogical change applies triggered by the preterite singular aacutet

(quite exceptionally both the singular and the plural preterite forms have a

long vowel from a lengthened ablaut grade ē1t-) Finally the adverb heacuter

is most likely one of those words where an initially occasional prosody-

regulated emphatic lengthening could very well apply and later become

generalised These instances albeit not numerous are crucial for the

occurrence of the diphthong [je] as they are part of a varied group of highly

frequent lexemes undergoing the same unusual kind of diphthongisation

Another kind of diphthongisation of short vowels taking place during the

Quantity Shift this time analogical affecting shortened vowels in originally

hyper-characterised syllables This change is limited to the nominal and

adjectival domain and it is another exception to the rule stating that the

exclusive phonetic condition for the diphthongisation was the long duration

of the vowels Some examples are neuter forms of adjectives such as skjoacutett

fljoacutett braacutett which developed an ldquounderlying diphthongrdquo from an o that

must have been shortened earlier at around 1200 (as in gott ~ goacuteethur and

minn ~ miacuten) because of the evident morphological relationship with their

masculine and feminine equivalents which all had oacute (Kristjaacuten Aacuternason

1980116-118) According to Kristjaacuten Aacuternason one could also consider the

shortened long vowels to have been qualitatively different from the original

short ones so that they could be classified as short allophones of long

vowels (ibid) It should be however noted that such claims are impossible to

substantiate ie there I no way to find out whether there ever was a

lengthening before the diphthongisation because the only valuable sorce

metrics does not distinguish between long and hyper-characterised

syllables Clearly Kristjaacuten Aacuternason excludes that there ever was any

lengthening (1980118)

Furthermore there are also quite a few very interesting examples of

neutralisation of the quantity correlation in Old Icelandic although

affecting very specific instances In monosyllables where a compensatory

lengthening is usually supposed to have taken place the vowel is sometimes

apparently noted as short before junctures (notably in the imperative se thorno

vs seacutethorno (you) see and the phrase Gothornroslashthorne vs goacutethorn roslashthorne in the First

Grammatical Treatise 863-5) Hreinn Benediktsson (1972138) explains

the incongruence as not being an actual shortening for which there would

be no comparable cases but rather a case of vowel length being neutralised

to a point in which the vowel segments in this case taking on the value of

archiphonemes were perceived as neither long nor short This

phenomenon clearly caused fluctuation in pronunciation with the

possibility that the ldquoactual length was more similar to that of the

phonemically short vowels ie of the negative term of the quantity

correlationrdquo (Hreinn Benediktsson 1972139) The implications of such

observation are manifold but one in particular is interesting for this present

study that

a phonemic change has to be interpolated between Old and Modern Icelandic in

order to account for the fact that the archiphonemes in spite of being identified

with the short phonemes in the twelfth century have later developed in the same

way as the long vowels in positions of distinction (Hreinn Benediktsson

1972139)

which is to say they developed a diphthong (se gt [sje]) directly from a

situation of seemingly short vocalism without previously undergoing the

required lengthening This could definitely account for a further example of

vowel length fluctuation affecting important areas of speech and

ultimately of a diphthong sprung from a vowel which if not surely short

was somehow perceived to be short and certainly noted as such in certain

manuscript tradition It profiles itself as a powerful trend initiated by a

large array of different causes and stretching throughout a considerably long

period of time and gradually extending to a fairly large portion of the

language well into the modern language

Hreinn Benediktssons neutralisation theory becomes very useful when

trying to make sense of the diphthong in the present stem of class V strong

verb eacuteta Criticism is strong on this point Sturtevant (1953457) points out

that if eacuteta is an analogical form it would be the only example of such

analogy in the verbal system whereas on the other hand verbs such as vega

~ vaacute fregna ~ fraacute remain unchanged There are at two main reasons why I

prefer analogy in this particular case One is that it is harder to demonstrate

how often a verb such as eacuteta would occur in contexts where its vowel was

liable to be lengthened due to its initial position than it is for words such as

eacuteg and heacuter ie leaving the emphatic lengthening hypothesis and the

obviously non-related case of diphthongisation following word-initial h

little explanatory material is left but plain analogy The other one answers

the question as to what kind of analogy this may be taking into account

that preterites of the type of vaacute and fraacute are monosyllables ending with their

stem vowel and were therefore subject to neutralisation of the quantity

correlation it becomes evident that that is the reason why an analogical

infinitive such as veacutega is impossible whereas the diphthongisation of eacuteta

from non-vowel-final aacutet is Also an analogy of the kind gaf aacutet gefa eacuteta

is not entirely out of the question Following this track it should also be

noted that neither the preterites of the verba pura of subclass VIIf (snuacutea

roacutea groacutea nuacutea saacute but also the displaced buacutea) show an unambiguous long

root vowel until late because in early Old Icelandic length in their present

stems was likewise neutralised

6 The Orthography of the Earliest Icelandic Manuscripts

61 Introduction

As discussed above there is some disagreement among scholars concerning

the quantity of the root vowel in subclasses VIIc and VIIf strong preterites

in Old Norse This calls for an inspection of the available sources ie early

Icelandic manuscripts until the 14th century in order to shed some light on

the use of the accent mark and other ways of marking length andor

diphthongisation of eacute Hreinn Benediktsson (196832) and later Kristjaacuten

Aacuternason (1980101) identified only three Old Icelandic manuscripts

containing the most reliable orthographic manifestation of vowel length of

which only two are of considerable length These three manuscripts are

Holm perg 15 4to NRA 52 and GKS 2087 4to (description below) and

here well represented in this present study but admittedly they did not

contain many relevant examples as will become more evident from a closer

glance

The survey will mainly focus on manuscripts containing prose texts I the

earliest Icelandic manuscripts the principal means of denoting vowel length

is by means of the superscript acute accent mark However the acute mark

has been employed in West Norse for denoting several further grapho-

phonological features besides vowel length and its usage changes

considerably in time and from scribe to scribe Some scholars have even

gone as far as saying that the accent mark is not uniformly used as a length

mark in any manuscript (Seip 195463) Its most common usages are a)

marking a words primary stress especially in words of foreign origin b) as

a diacritic for marking vowels especially on ltigt and ltygt (also noted as

ltijgt) for better distinguishing them from nearby strokes (ultimately

evolving into the dots over i and j) c) as a double mark on two adjacent

vowels it serves as diaeresis (cf Noreen 1913sect33) Other notable practices

are d) marking monosyllables such as aacute iacute oacuter ǫn etc evidently in order not

to confuse them with parts of nearby longer words (however the same

monosyllables are elsewhere often never marked when long unlike long

vowels in other contexts) e) marking vowel quality rather than quantity as

in ltoacutegt for ǫ or oslash and lteacutegt for ę (Seip 195463)

In spite of this it is generally accepted that a primary function of the acute

mark is a quantitative one ie of marking vowel length especially as a

scribal practice which gets established over time According to Lindblad

(1952133-138) it is in the so-called classical period (ca 1150-1350) that the

length-marking practice is best exemplified reaching peaks of 90 (GKS

2087 4to) while starting around 1250 and throughout the 14th century this

practice yields gradually to the graphical function with a transitional period

stretching roughly from 1300 to 1350 Notably in spite of the great

similarities with the various usages of the accent mark in Anglo-Saxon and

Norwegian written sources the exclusive and consequent employment of

the acute as a length mark is a unique feature of Old Icelandic script with

potential parallels only in Old Irish script (Lindblad 195210-11)

The reasons for this uniqueness may perhaps be sought in the role which

the First Grammatical Treatise is believed to have played in early Icelandic

scriptoria as a (or perhaps even the) normative text for apprentice scribes

until younger more influential fashions from continental Europe gradually

made their way to Iceland The anonymous author of the First Grammatical

Treatise recommends the use of a stroke for marking length (ldquomerkja ina

longu meeth stryki fraacute inum skommumrdquo 862-3 cf translation in Hreinn

Benediktsson 1972218-21) because he finds it more economic than the

solution employed by one of his models the Greek script which uses

separate graphemes for long vowels He is well aware of the fact that if he

were to devise a separate letter (stafr) for each of the units he is trying to

make order with he would get an alphabet of sixty-four units (thirty-six

vowels and twenty-eight consonants) Nonetheless he still wants to show

the distinction because ldquohon skiftir maacutelirdquo (862) Because of the lack of

parallels at the time (except maybe for Irish scriptoria) and possibly because

of the hint suggesting that the author had especially Greek in mind it is

sensible to assume that the usage of the accent mark was his original idea

just as the superscript dot denoting nasality among other innovations

The influence of the First Grammatical Treatise however if it ever was

that great does indeed fade away quite soon as Icelandic scribes become

more skilled and experienced Generally most of the early Old Icelandic

manuscripts make no graphic distinction between long and short vowels

because the traditional Latin orthography lacked this distinction as well as

for nasal and non-nasal vowels However the First Grammatical Treatise

testifies to a great level of linguistic awareness of an author or possibly a

small group of literate 12th-century Icelanders but since it was probably

written long before any extant manuscript it is hard to establish how great

its influence really was at the time It is for instance possible that a norm

like that of the length mark was but a recommendation which did not gain

widespread acceptance in other words marking vowel length was good

practice in those cases where not doing it would have made the reading

harder (which does only rarely occur)

In fact early manuscripts totally lacking length mark are not rare (cf

Lindblad 195228ff) AM 237 a fol for example dated to the mid-12th

century shows 5 times lteacutegt and 4 of the instances are the word verk which

has etymological short vowel and does not later diphthongise) Riacutembegla

(GKS 1812 4to A) has lteacutegt standing for ę just like ltoacutegt stands for ǫ On

the other hand there is a good number of sources where the length mark is

used selectively and according to an inner logic for example it may be

systematically avoided on prepositions adverbs and other non-nominal and

non-verbal monosyllables but nonetheless its notation elsewhere can be

extremely precise although the statistics will not account for that

It is therefore necessary in this present study to examine in details the

graphemic representation of subclasses VIIc and VIIf preterites in Old

Icelandic Within monographs dealing specifically with single manuscripts

and in other orthographic-statistical surveys it is not uncommon to

encounter statements of the kind ldquolteacutegt appears in N instances of

etymological short vowelrdquo where it is hard to understand whether the

author thinks that the preterites of subclasses VIIc and VIIf and related

cases originally had originally a short vowel or not

62 The earliest Icelandic Manuscripts Larsson (1981)

Already from a first glance into a reference work on Old Icelandic lexicon

in the earliest manuscripts it appears clear that where the length mark

occurs less often than it should when denoting length it is hardly used for

subclasses VIIc and VIIf preterites and almost never with the adverb heacuter

For a comparison the table presented below also shows the figures for the

commonest class VII verb heita It should also be mentioned that the

number of preterites which are attested in the first place is not as much as

desirable The following information is found in Larssons lexicon (1891)

including the following manuscripts AM 237 folio (abbr 237) Riacutembegla

GKS 1812 4to (abbr Rb) Icelandic Homily Book (Holm Perg 4to no15

abbr H) Physiologus Fragments (I II and III abbr Ph I II III in AM 673

4to A) AM 645 4to (abbr 645) Elucidarius (AM 674 4to A abbr El)

Placitusdraacutepa (AM 673 4to B abbr Pl) Graacutegaacutes (AM 315 folio D abbr

Table 7 Orthography of subclasses VIIc and VIIf strong preterites and heacuter in Larsson (1891)

237 Rb H Ph I Ph II Ph III 645 El Pl Grg

VIIa) HEITA 1sg heacutet3sg heacutet heacutet (29) het (5) het heacutet (44) het

(8) heacutet het (15) heiacutet

heacutet heacutett

3pl heacuteto (2) heto heacuteto (6)

VIIc) FAacute 1sg fecc fek fec2sg fect3sg feck (2) fek (7) fek fek(8) fec (4)

fexkfecc fecc

FALLA 3sg fell (12) fell (31) fell (2)

GANGA 1sg gek gek gec3sg geck (4)

gekc gecgeck (7) gek (8) geck

(2)gek (26) gec (16) gecſc

gek geck gek

HALDA 3sg helt helt (2) hellt (3) hellz

heacutelt helt (4) helt helt hellt

HANGA 3sg heck (3) hek (3) hek hec

VIIf) SAacute 3sg ſoslashre ſeacutere

SNUacuteA 3sg ſneore (2) ſneoreſc ſnoslashreſc (2)

ſnere (2) ſnereſc (2) ſneriſc

3pl ſnǿroſc ſnero (2) ſneroſc

Adv HEacuteR her her her heacuter

her (44) her (38) heacuter

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

In the whole corpus of manuscripts a subclass VIIc preterite is spelled only

once with lteacutegt (ltheacuteltgt in AM 645 4to) while the same word occurs four

other times in the same manuscript and in the same mood tense and

person with ltegt Class VIIa preterites on the other hand are

overwhelmingly spelled with lteacutegt as exemplified by heita the ratio

between ltheacutetgt and lthetgt is 678 against 1666 There is also one

6 The remaining spellings of ht (besides ltheiacutetgt) in AM 645 4to are abbreviated and are here believed to be less relevant for this kind of statistics

instance of a subclass VIIf preterite written with an accent mark

ltſnǿroſcgt which seems to be one of those cases as in ltheacuteltgt where the

accent mark may be superfluous given the very low attestation of subclass

VIIf preterites with accent mark Notably among all manuscripts there are

only three instances of ltheacutergt (of which one is actually lthgt in Holm Perg

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

One of the most ancient and best known Old Icelandic manuscript is the

so-called Icelandic Homily Book (Homiliacuteuboacutek Holm perg 15 4deg) dated to

about 1200 Given its considerable size (102 pages) it represents an

extraordinary source of information about Old Icelandic language and

scribal practices It has been argued that if follows to some extent the

orthographical rules given by the First Grammatical Treatise to the extent

that even (albeit few) nasal vowels are marked (de Leeuw van Weenen

20044 and 60-61) There is traditionally little agreement on the number of

hands in the manuscript but the idea that the whole manuscript could have

been written either by one hand over a long period of time or by several

scribes all writing the same hand has been lately gaining more and more

popularity among the experts of this particular manuscript (de Leeuw van

Weenen 200434) In short thus the handwriting does vary considerably

but it is unclear whether this is to be traced back to the intervention of

several hands rather than to the will of being as close as possible even in

the layout to the parent manuscript(s) or more simply to a considerable

time span between the writing of its single parts

Hreinn Benediktsson (196733) wrote about the occurrence of the length

mark that it ranges from an average percentage of accuracy as high as 849

up to 968 for almost all hands with the only notable exception of the hand

called i exhibiting a meager 557 In fact differences within the

manuscripts can be substantial and spelling can vary considerably

According to Lindblad (195259-61) the cases where an accent mark is

placed on an indisputably short vowel are 150 which represents a frequency

of about 025-03 In the most recent edition of the ms de Leeuw van

Weenen (200458) estimates that the spelling ltegt for eacute surpasses lteacutegt

and other alternative spellings fill in the scenario as well as eacute occurs a few

times as ltęgt or ltaeliggt or lteigt Now these latter spellings are certainly

more valuable for the present research than plain ltegt as both ltaeliggt and

lteigt could perhaps say something about the early stage of diphthongisation

of eacute into [je] though [ej] [eⁱ] [aeligi] or a similar intermediate stage

The hand division showed in the table below is the one used by Andrea de

Leeuw van Weenen (2004) which is a sort of compromise among several

others and not differing too much from them As shown in the table

orthographical practices fluctuate considerably even within the same hands

Hand c in particular is inconsistent in the following points

a) consonant gemination k is written either ltkgt or ltckgt l(C)

either ltllgt ltlgt or ltgt

b) the spelling of the preterite of heita with 5 times ltegt vs 5 times

lteacutegt and this is about all of occurrences of lthetgt

c) most notably the spelling of subclass VIIf preterites

In this last case the normal root vowel is short oslash spelled either ltoslashgt or

lteogt but hand c spells ltſeacuteregt (one instance) which could suggest a long

derounded vowel and elsewhere the medio-passive ltſnoslashreſcgt while none

of subclass VIIc preterites bear an acute mark From the point of view of

historical phonology there can be no doubt that all cases of r-umlaut in this

kind of preterites had a short oslash and never a long one because its normal

development into modern Icelandic would have then been snaeligri

[snairɪ] rather than sneacuteri [snjerɪ] Hand q spells ltſnereſcgt but also

always ltheacutetgt without exceptions Given all other spellings elsewhere in the

manuscript it is therefore unlikely that ltſeacuteregt indicates a long vowel

Hand i is the only one marking a VIIc preterite but at the same time

spelling ltfellgt and lthetothorngt and it must therefore be deemed unreliable I

would thus draw the following conclusions about the manuscript

bull the normal vocalism in VIIc preterites is short e in VIIf short oslash

with some instances of derounding to e

bull the word here when not abbreviated appears nearly always as

lthergt (37 times) and only once as lthgt 73v22 (whereas Larsson

reported 44 see table above)

bull the vocalism of VIIa preterites is eacute as the acute mark surpasses by

far the instances where it is absent

bull it is possible that the spelling ltheacuteitogt 47v12 notes some kind of

diphthongisation of ē gt [ei] although it only occurs in one instance

Table 10 Orthography of subclasses VIIa VIIc and VIIf strong preterites

divided by scribal hands in Hom perg 15 4deg as according to de Leeuw van

Weenen (2000)

Hand VII c VII f VII aFAacute FALLA GANGA HALDA HANGA SAacute SNUacuteA HEITA

a 1r 1v28-40 geb 1v1-27 heacutetc 2r-40v27 fek (3)

feck (2)fe fell geck (4) hellt (2)

helt heck (3) hek

ſeacutere ſnoslashreſc het (4) heacutet (5) heto

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

62v24geck heacutet heacuteito

g 50v5-54r heacuteth 54v-56vi 57r-61r feacutek fell hetothornk 62v25-65v18 fe (2) heacutet heacutetol 65v19-66v 69r ſoslashrem 67r-68vn 69v-77v fe gec he ſnoslashroſco 78r-80v3 ge (3) heacutet (3)p 80v4-35 94r19-

97rfecc fell (5) Ge ge het helt ſneoeſc het heacutet (11)

heacutetoq 81r-94r19 fe ge geck het he ſnereſc heacutet (8)r 97v-102v fell (2) ge (2) heacutetō

64 The earliest Norwegian Manuscripts Holtsmark (1955)

A comparison can be made within West Norse with the oldest Norwegian

manuscripts until ca 1250 The following table based on Holtsmark

(1955) contains the following manuscripts

bull Norwegian Homily Book I II III (AM 619 4to abbr Hom I II

bull AM 655 IX 4to (abbr 655 IX)

bull Oacutelafs saga Tryggvasonar (in De la Gardie 4-7 fol abbr OT)

bull Norske Diplomer (in Norsk Riksarkiv abbr ND)

Table 8 Orthography of of subclasses VIIc and VIIf strong preterites and heacuter in early Old Norwegian manuscripts according to Holtsmark (1955)

Hom I Hom II Hom III 655 IX OT ND I 51

VIIC) FAacute 3sg fecc (5) fec (7)

ecc (3)

FALLA 3sg fell (11) fel ell (4) aeligl ell (4)

GANGA 1sg gecc 3sg gecc (11)

gec (3)gec (3) gecc (4)

HALDA 2sg helz3sg helt (5)

hellthelt

HANGA 2sg hect3sg hecc (2) hec

VIIF) SAacute 3sg ſere (5)

SNUacuteA 2sg ſnereſc (2)3sg ſnere (2)

ſnereſc (2) ſnerez

ſnere ſneɼe

VIIA) HEITA 1sg3sg het (8)

heacutet (10)het (2) heacutet

heacutet hett het (2) hett

ADV HEacuteR her (19) haeligr (5)

her (25) heacuter haeligr

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

Two more manuscripts in Holtsmark (AM 315 G and Ra I C IV) read

ltheacutergt but with the caption ldquooverskriftrdquo (added later by an another hand

possibly the compiler) and therefore excluded here The overall situation

does not seem to be far from the early Old Icelandic subclass VIIa

preterites are sporadically marked whereas no VIIc and f preterites are

With 25 instances of lthergt for the adverb heacuter in Hom II and 19 in Hom I

against but one ltheacutergt in Hom II even this seems to be short statistically

given the great occurrence of the word ndash and the fact that it occurs so many

time in full ndash one would expect it to be closer to the values of heacutet at least in

AM 619 4to One could of course speculate that adverbs and other particles

received at times a different treatment from verbs nouns and other lexically

richer grammatical classes ndash but that is arguably much harder to claim than

when they are all but heavily abbreviated as they are elsewhere

65 NRA 52

Among the earliest known manuscripts are fragments of the saga of Olaf

the Saint (Oacutelafs saga helga hin elzta NRA 52) found in the Norsk Riksarkiv

and dated to ca 1225 In spite of its fragmentary state it is not hard to note

how the scribe took very good care in marking length The manuscript is

very accurately written also regarding the use of the accent mark denoting

length The following is the more recent evaluation by Lindblad (195288-

[NRA 52] av samtliga fisl Hss har den naumlst houmlgsta accentfrekvensen vid laringng

vokal och diftong De 6 raumltt obetydliga fragmenten inneharingller ej mindre aumln 495

akutecken och laringng vokal accentueras i 77 av samtliga fall Det houmlgsta

percenttalet uppvisar AnR [Annales Regii] (88)

In the original portions of the ms most long vowels in class VII preterites

are systematically marked where they should be long (ie in all strong

preterites lttoacutekgt ltstoacutethorngt ltfoacutergt ltleacutetgt) and the scarce attestations of the

forms ltfekgt (one time) ltheltgt (one time) and ltgekgt (twice) points

towards a distinctively short vowel

66 GKS 2087 4to

The Annales or Konungsannaacutell (GKS 2087 4to) are also both very old and

precise among the sources which make use of the length mark The

manuscript was written partly in Latin and partly in Norse by two hands

one after another the older ending the chronicle in 1306 the younger

continuing until 1341 Unfortunately the instances which are relevant to

the present survey do not abound but even in their small number point at a

short vowel in VIIc preterites The following is a chart with all relevant VII

class verb forms in the manuscript based on Buergel (1904)

Table 9 Orthography of class VII strong preterites in GL kgl Sml 2087 4to

according to Buergel (1904)

Subclass Infinitive Person and Number

Orthography N of Occurrences

VIIa HEITA 3 sg (pres) heiacutet 23 sg heacutet 3

VIIb HLAUPA 3 sg liacuteop (hljoacutep) 4

VIIc FALLA 3 sg fell 13 pl fellv 3

HALDA 3 sg hellt 13 pl helldv 1

FAacute Inf faacute 13 sg fe 1

GANGA 3 sg ge 13 pl gengv

VIId LAacuteTA 3 sg leacutet 13 sg leacutetz 13 pl leacutetvz 2Part laacuteti 1Part laacutetn 1

RAacuteETHA 3 sg reacuteeth 13 sg reacuteethz 1

VIIf SNUacuteA 3 pl ſnervz 1

Here the root vowel is regularly marked in subclasses VIIa and VIId in

correspondence of an etymological long vowel on the other hand there is

no accent mark in subclass VIIc and in the only instance of subclass VIIf

67 AM 519a 4deg

The manuscript of Alexanders saga AM 519a 4deg dated ca 1280 consists of

the B version of the prose translation of the 12th century Latin epic poem

Alexandreis by Walter of Chacirctillon with a lacuna of four leaves within 37

parchment leaves The Old Norse translation is attributed to Brandr

Joacutensson (born ca 1210 died 1264) in AM 226 fol and Stock Perg 4deg nr 24

which are much younger than AM 519 a 4deg and contain the A version The

language is surely Icelandic and some traits point to an Icelandic scribe but

Norwegian influence is clear throughout the manuscript as was common in

Iceland at that time It is especially interesting for its paleography as it is

clearly written by a single hand and even the corrections seem to be written

by the same hand (or by a corrector using exactly the same ductus and

spelling) There are some occasional corrections and expansions by a 17th-

century hand (de Leeuw van Weenen 200925)

The length mark is used less regularly for single vowels and it never

appears on the preterites of faacute falla ganga halda and ganga (de Leeuw van

Weenen 2009141) As far as VIIf is concerned only the preterite of snuacutea is

attested 4 times appearing as either sneri or snoslashri (although in several

instances the ltegt is closed so that it is not really distinguishable from

ltoslashgt) The overall occurrences of lteacutegt are 94 in all cases against the 17524

for ltegt (de Leeuw van Weenen 200934) The phoneme e is spelled ltegt

79 times lteacutegt 60 times (de Leeuw van Weenen 200951) ltheacutetgt occurs only

4 times against the 43 times of unmarked lthetgt and lthergt occurs 12

times and never with the acute The scribe therefore only rarely uses the

accent mark to denote vowel length

68 AM 132 fol

The most interesting text for the present survey is doubtless Moumlethruvallaboacutek

(AM 132 fol) dated ca 1330-1370 The manuscript contains several sagas

included Laxdaeligla and Foacutestbraeligethra saga and was written mostly by one hand

as well as at least four minor medieval hands and a much later one from the

seventeenth century (de Leeuw van Weenen 200022)

Here according to Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen the verbs faacute falla ganga

and halda are well attested in their multiple preterite forms to the extent

that they exhibit parallel paradigms with alternation e~i (attested

secondary forms are noted in brackets all forms are normalised in the table

an their spelling discussed below)

Table 10 Variants of Subclass VIIc Preterites in AM 132 fol

faacute fekk (fengu) (fanginn)

feacutekk fingu fenginn

(finginn)

falla fell fellu fallinn

feacutell feacutellu

ganga gekk (gengu) gengit

gingu (gingit)

halda helt heldu haldinn

heacutelt heacuteldu

Although the spelling in Moumlethruvallaboacutek is generally remarkably precise the

notation of length is not to the extent that the editor states that ldquothe use of

accents in Moumlethruvallaboacutek is such that no conclusions for the length of

vowels can be drawn from itrdquo (de Leeuw van Weenen 200063) For words

other than VII class strong verbs only one instance of lteacutegt and two of ltiegt

are recorded for e eacute is usually spelled ltegt 2937 times lteacutegt 294 times

ltiegt 275 times ltiacuteegt 56 times lteigt 3 times ltieacutegt 1 time and ltiaeliggt 1 time

Lindblad (1952128) reports 557 occurrences of the accent mark with

ldquoetymologically long vowelrdquo out of the 576 single accents in the manuscript

Subclasses VIIc and VIIf strong preterites are clearly understood by

Lindblad to have a short vowel as it is mentioned that the accent mark

occurs but 15 times on etymologically short vowels of which once in feacutell

(23819)

But the most important innovation of the present manuscript is that a

diphthong [je] is written in the preterite singular of the verbs faacute falla and

halda According to the index by Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen (2000) the

preterite of faacute is written ltiekgt one time ltieckgt 9 times and 20 times

without diphthong while the preterite of falla appears 8 times as ltiellgt 2

times as ltiellugt 2 times as lteacutellgt with the accent mark and 34 times with

neither diphthong nor accent mark It seems therefore that the diphthong

[je] had already spread to the preterite plural of falla and halda The

preterite of halda appears as lthɩelltgt 3 times lthɩeltgt 2 times lthɩellugt 2

times and once as lthɩellɩgt for a total of 8 times as well as 2 times with

an accent mark as ltheacutelltgt against 40 occurrences with neither diphthong

nor accent mark

Class VII strong preterites however seem to be the only cases of

diphthongation in the manuscript since in addition to the preterites of

hanga (5 times) ganga (53 times) which are present in the manuscript but

do not show neither ltiegt nor accent mark other words which would be

expected to show ltiegt just like in feacutekk feacutell and heacutelt do not The adverb

here is written in full a number of times but always as lthergt (unlike

heraeth which is always but once abbreviated compounds included) forms

the verb eta with the present stem occur 14 times eacutel occurs once with an

accent mark

69 Summary

To summarise the evidence found in the earliest manuscripts of prosaic

texts is that the root vowel in subclasses VIIc VIIf and heacuter was originally

short until signs of diphthongisation appear in VIIc in the 14th century A

similar survey but of poetic texts is unfortunately impossible because the

largest part of the preterites here investigated are found in hyper-

characterised syllables which are not distinguished from the heavy syllables

in the metre (ie fekk (heavy) and feacutekk (hyper-characterised) would behave

in exactly the same way within the metre) Nonetheless a survey of some

subclass VIIf preterites and other instances of the sound change e gt [je]

has been carried out by Haukur THORNorgeirsson (mentioned in a talk given at

the University of Iceland in 2009 and personal communication) The scope

of Haukurs survey was poetry after 1200 until the time of the Quantity

Shift Out of 60 instances sneri was found 13 times and reri 2 times both

always with a short vowel This evidence clearly qualifies VIIf preterites as

the last group of all words discussed in the previous chapter to undergo

diphthongisation (according to Bjoumlrn Karel THORNoacuteroacutelfsson 1925115-116 as late

as the 18th century) These data also exclude the possibility that snoslashri was

short but the unrounded sneacuteri was long Even as late as the Guethbrandsbibliacutea

(1584) where VIIc preterites and related cases are now most often noted

with a diphthong (hiellt blies hiedan ietin) the spelling ltsneregt is the still

only one coming forth (cf Joacuten Helgason 192918 and Bandle 1956407) As

will be discussed in the final chapter it is likely that the spelling ltiegt

reflected some regional pronunciation which took relatively longer time to

spread across the island and be accepted into a now well-codified written

language

7 Conclusions

As we have seen both subclass VIIc (hellt fell gekk hekk etc) and VIIf

(sneri reri etc) preterites occur with a short vowel from their first

attestations in Old Icelandic until the middle of the 14th century when some

of the subclass VIIc preterites occur with the diphthong [je] in the preterite

singular (lthielltgt in Moumlethruvallaboacutek AM 132 fol from 1330-1370 cf

Chapter 7) Therefore the reconstruction of the Proto-Germanic forms has

to account for ĕ as the root vowel in Old Icelandic preterites The most

likely origin of the short root vowel is from the old reduplicating syllable

which would have come to bear the stress through the elision of the old

root vowel This could have either happened through ldquoejectionrdquo of the old

vowel (Jasanoff 2007) or more likely haplology of the entire old root

syllable (Joumlrundur Hilmarsson 1992) The reasons for preferring haplology

are chiefly two On one hand there is no evidence that a contraction ever

produced a radical ē which was then subsequently shortened in Old

Norse On the other hand a secondary (perhaps compensatory) lengthening

of a short e to ē2 is feasible for both subclasses VIIa (heacutet leacutek etc))

VIId (leacutet reacuteeth etc) and VIIe (bleacutet) which all have either a diphthong or a

long vowel in the present stem and an open syllable structure in the

preterite plural Concerning the archaic Anglian forms mentioned in

chapter 5 (eg heht reord) their retention of a part of the old root syllable

may well indicate that in Anglian reduplication was not yet altogether

obsolete this would mean that there is no reason to date the final loss of

reduplication back to Proto-Germanic times and that the development in

Old Norse (and for sure Old Saxon) may have been independent from that

of Old English and Old High German

Presumably from a very early time a fluctuation in the vowel length of

several Old Icelandic words starts taking place Many of such words contain

e in the root It first affects (open) monosyllables which were liable of

being occasionally emphatically lengthened according to their position in

the sentence a sure example is the adverb her which is primarily noted

without accent mark Moreover as seen in chapter 5 ldquoarchiphonemesrdquo

primarily perceived as short where the correlation of quantity had been

neutralised are found in some instances of etymologically long vowels

preceding junctures and hiatus (Hreinn Benediktsson 1972138)

monosyllabic strong preterites such as vaacute (from vega) and fraacute (from fregna)

and in several forms of the present of all verba pura (included all verbs in

subclass VIIf eg snuacutea roacutea etc)

Summarising from the 14th century on the following sound changes take

a) long mid and open monophthongs were diphthongised included the

long root vowels in most class VII strong preterites (heacutet greacutet bleacutet

b) diphthongisation also occurred in vowels that had been interpreted as

short phonemically ie where the quantity correlation had been

neutralised before a juncture or a hiatus (snuacutea buacutea vaacute fraacute etc)

Diphthongisation also affected inherited short monophthongs because of

different processes

c) in words starting with h+e (heacuteethan heacuteraeth but also heacutekk and heacutelt in

subclass VIIc preterites)

d) the present root vowel of the class V strong verb eacuteta by analogy with

its preterite forms

e) shortened vowels in hyper-characterised syllables of neuter forms of

adjectives (skjoacutett fljoacutett etc) because of an ldquounderlying diphthongrdquo

extended from their masculine and feminine forms

Subclass VIIc preterites hekk and helt were probably the pioneers of the

diphthongisation to [je] because of their word-initial h Through this

process a first couple of preterites in subclass VIIc to be considered

typologically closer to the diphthongised ones in other subclasses the new

syllable structures CjeRC (hjelt) and CjeCC hjekk) are closer to

CjeC (hjet rjeeth) and CRjeC (grjet bljet) than the original

CeRC (helt) and CeCC (hekk) Gradually the analogical process spreads

across more forms of subclass VIIc preterites too but not to the plural of

forms containing the cluster ng whose root vowel had undergone another

diphthongisation to [ei] This is still evident in the modern pronunciation

[ej] of the preterite plural forms fengum and gengum (cf Sigfuacutes Bloumlndal

1924170 [fɛiɳgoslashm] and [gɛiɳgoslashm] which in mod IPA would be

[fejɳgʏm] [gejɳgʏm]) and also heacutengum which at times shows both

diphthongs ([hjejɳgʏm]) because of the word-initial h beside the regular

heacuteldum [hjeldʏm] and feacutellum [fjetlʏm] The diphthong [ei] in fengum and

gengum but also in heacutengum clearly go back to a short monophthong

Meanwhile the number of items in subclass VIIc is reduced as falda and

blanda become weak (cf Sigfuacutes Bloumlndal 1924172 and 84)

Lastly subclass VIIf preterites (snera rera etc) are affected by the

diphthongisation There are several reasons why the subclass VIIf preterites

got a diphthong much later than subclass VIIc preterites First as posited in

chapter 5 the opposition of quantity was neutralised in much of the present

stem possibly all the way to the Quantity Shift in the 16th century

Consequently the present could not be the source of analogical lengthening

of the root vowel in the preterite Secondly the bisyllabic structure of the

preterite singular forms on one hand and the dialectal fluctuation

between ouml and e which to a certain extent continues until as late as the

20th century (see below) contributed in keeping the subclass typologically

separated from the others Thirdly and as a consequence of the said

separation the verbs were soon reanalysed as of a new kind of weak type

as if it formed the preterite by means of an -r- infix for this reason the

second syllable in the preterite singular was perceived of as an inflected

ending comparable to that of a weak verb (snera gt sneri with ending -ri as

the weak dental suffix -ethi) Here too as late as the 20th century the process

is incomplete as the remaining four verbs in subclass VIIf all have non-

diphthongised variants at least until the 20th century Sigfuacutes Bloumlndal

writing in the 1920s reports the pronunciations [sn(j)ɛrɪ] and [sn(j)ɛroslashm]

with optional [j] and also optional pronunciation [snoumlrɪ] (Sigfuacutes Bloumlndal

1924769) [rɛrɪ] beside [rjɛrɪ] (and [roumlrɪ] in East Skaftafell East Fjords

and West Fjords) (1924657) similarly [grɛrɪ] [grjɛrɪ] [groumlrɪ] (1924274)

and [njɛrɪ] beside [noumlrɪ] in the East Fjords (1924583) Finally saacute (mod

pret saacuteethi according to the Beygingarlyacutesing iacuteslensks nuacutetiacutemamaacutels) migrated

to the weak proper conjugation forming the preterite with a dental suffix

8 Bibliography

Bammesberger Alfred 1994 Dehnstufe und Reduplikation im

Urgermanischen Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universitaumlt zu

Berlin Akten der Konferenz vom 243 ndash 2631992 aus Anlaszlig von Franz

Bopps zweihundertjaumlhrigem Geburtstag am 1491991 Ed Reinhard

Sternemann pp 15-20 Carl Winter Heidelberg

Bandle Oscar 1956 Die Sprache der Guethbrandsbibliacutea Orthographie und

Laute Formen Munksgaringrd Hafniaelig

Beyingarlyacutesing iacuteslensks nuacutetiacutemamaacutels Ed Kristiacuten Bjarnadoacutettir Stofnun Aacuterna

Magnuacutessonar iacute iacuteslenskum fraeligethum Reykjaviacutek 2002-2010 Available at

httpbinarnastofnunis (accessed in May 2010)

Bjoumlrn Karel THORNoacuteroacutelfsson 1925 Um iacuteslenskar orethmyndir aacute 14 og 15 oumlld og

breytingar thorneirra uacuter fornmaacutelinu meeth viethauka um nyacutejungar iacute

orethmyndum aacute 16 oumlld og siacuteethar Fjelagsprentsmiethjan Reykjaviacutek

Bjoumlrn Karel THORNoacuteroacutelfsson 1929a Kvantitetsomvaeligltningen i islandsk Arkiv foumlr

Nordisk Filologi 4535-81

Bjoumlrn Karel THORNoacuteroacutelfsson 1929b Nokkur oreth um hinar iacuteslensku

hljoacuteethbreytingar eacute gt je og y yacute ey gt i iacute ei Studier tillaumlgnade Axel Kock

Lund CWK Gleerup Arkiv foumlr nordisk filologi tillaumlggsband till band

XL ny foumlljd 232ndash243

Braune Wilhelm 1967 Althochdeutsche Grammatik Niemeyer Tuumlbingen

Bremmer Rolf H Jr 2000 An Introduction to Old Frisian History

Grammar Reader Glossary Benjamins Leiden and Philadelphia

Cleasby Richard and Gudbrand Vigfusson 1874 An Icelandic-English

Dictionary Clarendon Press Oxford

Fulk RD 1987 Reduplicating Verbs and their Development in Northwest

Germanic Beitraumlge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur

109159-178

Garnes Sara 1976 Quantity in Icelandic production and perception Buske

Hamburg

Haugen Einar 1982 Scandinavian Language Structures A Comparative

Historical Study Niemeyer Tuumlbingen

Haukur THORNorgeirsson 2009 Hin helgu eacute - stiklur uacuter erindi Handout of a talk

given at Haacuteskoacuteli Iacuteslands ndash University of Iceland on September 11th

Heusler Andreas 1950 Altislaumlndisches Elementarbuch 3rd ed Carl Winter

Heidelberg

Holtsmark Anne 1955 Ordforraringdet i de eldste norske haringndskrifter til ca 1250

Gammelnorsk ordboksverk Oslo

Hreinn Bedediktsson 1959 The vowel system of Icelandic a survey of its

history Word 15 282-312

Hreinn Benediktsson 1967 Indirect Changes of Phonological Structure

Nordic Vowel Quantity Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 1131-65

Hreinn Benediktsson (ed) 1972 The First Grammatical Treatise

Introduction Text Notes Translation Vocabulary Facsimiles Institute

of Nordic Linguistics Reykjaviacutek

Jasanoff Jay 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European Verb Oxford University

Press Oxford

Jasanoff Jay 2007 From Reduplication to Ablaut The Class VII Strong

Verbs of Northwest Germanic Historische Sprachfrschung 120241-284

Joacuten Helgason 1929 Maacutelieth aacute nyacuteja testamenti Odds Gottskaacutelkssonar Hieth

iacuteslenska fraeligethafjelagieth iacute Kaupmannahoumlfn Copenhagen

Joumlrundur Hilmarsson 1991 On ēsup2 in Germanic Acta Linguistica Hafnensia

2333-47

Katara Pekka 1939 Die urspruumlnglich reduplizierenden Verba im

Niederdeutschen Beitraumlge zur Geschichte der deutschen Verbalflexion

Meacutemoires de la Societeacute neacuteophilologique de Helsinki 12 Socieacuteteacute

neacuteophilologique Helsinki

Kristjaacuten Aacuternason 1980 Quantity in Historical Phonology Icelandic and

Related Cases Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Kristjaacuten Aacuternason 2005 Hljoacuteeth Handboacutek um hljoacuteethfraeligethi og hljoacuteethkerfisfraeligethi

Iacuteslensk tunga I Almenna boacutekfeacutelagieth Reykjaviacutek

Larsson Ludvig 1891 Ordforraringdet I de aumllsta islaumlnska haringndskrifterna Ph

Lindstedts Universitets-bokhandel Lund

de Leeuw van Weenen Andrea 2000 A Grammar of Moumlethruvallaboacutek

Leiden University Press Leiden

de Leeuw van Weenen Andrea 2004 Lemmatized Index to the Icelandic

Homily Book Perg 15 4deg in the Royal Library Stockholm Stofnun Aacuterna

Magnuacutessonar aacute Iacuteslandi Reykjaviacutek

de Leeuw van Weenen Andrea 2009 Alexanders Saga AM 519a 4deg in the

Arnamagnaelign Collection Copenhagen Museum Tusculanum Press

Copenhagen

Lindblad Gustaf 1952 Det islaumlndska accenttaumlcknet En historisk-ortografisk

studie Gleerup Lund

Noreen Adolf 1913 Geschichte der nordischen Sprachen besonders in

altnordischer Zeit Truumlbner Straszligburg

Noreen Adolf 1923 Altnordische Grammatik I Altislaumlndische und

altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter

beruumlcksichtigung des Urnordischen 4th ed Niemeyer Tuumlbingen

Prokosch Eduard 1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar Linguistic

Society of America Philadelphia

Ringe Don 2007 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic Oxford

University Press Oxford

Seip Didrik Arup 1954 Palaeligografi B Norge og Island Bonnier Stockholm

Sigfuacutes Bloumlndal 1923 Iacuteslensk-doumlnsk orethaboacutek (Reykjaviacutek 1920-1924) Hieth

iacuteslenska boacutekmenntafeacutelag Reykjaviacutek

Steller Walter 1928 Abriszlig der altfriesischen Grammatik Niemeyer Halle

(Saale)

Storm Gustav 1893 Otte brudstykker af Den aeligldste saga om Olav den hellige

Groslashndahl amp Soslashns Christiania

Sturtevant Albert Morey 1953 ldquoFurther Old Norse Secondary

Formationsrdquo Language Vol 29 No 4 457-462 The Linguistic

Society of America Washington DC

Torp Alf 1909 Woumlrterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen Dritter Teil

Wortschatz der Germanischen Spracheinheit Goumlttingen Vandehoek amp

Ruprecht

Van Coetsem Frans 1956 Das System der starken Verba und die

Periodisierung im aumllteren Germanischen Noord-hollandsche uitgievers-

maatschappij Amsterdam

Vennemann Theo 1994 Zur Entwicklung der reduplizierenden Verben im

Germanischen Beitraumlge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und

Literatur 116 Band Niemeyer Tuumlbingen

Voyles Joseph 1992 Reduplicating Verbs in North-West Germanic

Lingua 5289-123

Haacuteskoacuteli Iacuteslands

Medieval Icelandic Studies

Diego Ferioli

Kt 1510853269

Leiethbeinandi Haraldur Bernharethsson

Maiacute 2010

Abstract

Icelandic

Table of Contents

65 NRA 52 hellip 38

Go = Gothic

Icel = Icelandic

OE = Old English

OFris = Old Frisian

ON = Old Norse

OS = Old Saxon

1 Introduction

the preterite

heacutet heacutetu

auka add joacutek

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Abstract

Icelandic

Table of Contents

65 NRA 52 hellip 38

Go = Gothic

Icel = Icelandic

OE = Old English

OFris = Old Frisian

ON = Old Norse

OS = Old Saxon

1 Introduction

the preterite

heacutet heacutetu

auka add joacutek

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Table of Contents

65 NRA 52 hellip 38

Go = Gothic

Icel = Icelandic

OE = Old English

OFris = Old Frisian

ON = Old Norse

OS = Old Saxon

1 Introduction

the preterite

heacutet heacutetu

auka add joacutek

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Go = Gothic

Icel = Icelandic

OE = Old English

OFris = Old Frisian

ON = Old Norse

OS = Old Saxon

1 Introduction

the preterite

heacutet heacutetu

auka add joacutek

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

1 Introduction

the preterite

heacutet heacutetu

auka add joacutek

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

heacutet heacutetu

auka add joacutek

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

are to be made

Mid e ē2 ai

Low a ē1 ō au

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllablerdquo

3 On Reduplication

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Germanic

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

and consequently

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

assimilated

and Old Frisian

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

syllable however

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

vowel in Germanic

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

(199134)

lē2t-

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

strong verbs

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

study that

1972139)

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

61 Introduction

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

glance

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

heacutet heacutett

fexkfecc fecc

gek geck gek

her (2) her

her (3) her (16)

her her (3)

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

15 4to see below)

63 Holm perg 15 4to

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Weenen (2000)

helt heck (3) hek

d 40v27-42ve 43r-44v fellf 45r-50v4 61v-

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

ecc (3)

hellthelt

ſnere ſneɼe

her (3) heɼ (4) her (2)

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

65 NRA 52

66 GKS 2087 4to

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

67 AM 519a 4deg

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

68 AM 132 fol

(finginn)

gingu (gingit)

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

(23819)

nor accent mark

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

accent mark

69 Summary

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

language

7 Conclusions

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

different processes

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

its preterite forms

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

8 Bibliography

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

109159-178

Hamburg

Heidelberg

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Press Oxford

2333-47

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Copenhagen

studie Gleerup Lund

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

(Saale)

Ruprecht

Lingua 5289-123

Documents

The Root Vocalism of two Subclasses of Old Icelandic Class VII Strong Verbs