Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Historical Development of Dutch
Phonology & morphology, dialects & stages
Michiel de Vaan
Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics 9 – 20 July, 2018
3
4
Preface This reader combines elements from three main sources: van Loon’s Historische Fonologie van het Nederlands (20142), by far the most linguistic introduction to Dutch historical phonology; Jan Goossens’ Dialectgeografische Grondslagen van een Nederlandse Taalgeschiedenis (2008); and my own research, large parts of it published in De Vaan 2017 and in some articles. Other literature has been referenced in the bibliography. I have generally not indicated the individual source of each claim – and of course much of what I discuss is common knowledge. As this reader is a preliminary version, it is not to be cited as a work of reference. There is no guarantee that I will manage to deal with all these topics in class, nor that the teaching will be restricted to the topics mentioned in this reader.
Michiel de Vaan Lausanne, July 2018
Bibliography
5
Contents
Page
Bibliography 8
1: Introduction 17 Dutch and the Low Countries 17 Celtic and Germanic 19 From Celtic to Latin 20 Wallonian place-‐‑names in -‐‑effe and -‐‑aive 21 Franconian and Frisian 22 Chronological survey 22 Relative chronology of the main phonological changes between Proto-‐‑ Germanic and Early Middle Dutch (13th c.)
24
Sources 34 Terminology 37 2. Vowel reduction, intonation 41 2.1 Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables in ODu. 41 2.2 Syncope of medial vowels 41 2.3 Syncope of pretonic schwa in MDu. 42 2.4 Apocope of final schwa in MDu. di-‐‑ and trisyllables 43 2.5 The Franconian tone accents 47 3. Consonants in Dutch 51 3.1 Velar consonants 51 3.2 Palatalization of velars 52 3.2.1 tg > tj and tk > tj 53 3.2.2 Palatalization of word-‐‑internal *a/eg to ei 56 3.2.3 The prefix *ga-‐‑ 58 3.2.4 Fricativization of initial j-‐‑ to g-‐‑ 59 3.2.5 Phonetics and phonemics of g 60 Wgm. *ft > Dutch cht 60 Wgm. *xs > Dutch ss 60 3.3 Lenition and fortition 61 3.4 Removal of dental fricatives 67 3.5 Proto-‐‑Germanic *x before vowels 68 3.6 ODu. resonant assimilation and d-‐‑epenthesis 69 3.7 Final -‐‑m > -‐‑n 70 3.8 Degemination 71 3.9 wr > vr 71
6
4.Vowel system(s) 74 4.1 Vowel systems from ODu. to MoDu. 74 4.2 Coastal and Inland Dutch 79 4.2.1 Different vowel systems of Inland and Coastal Dutch 80 4.2.2. Frisian and Franconian 80 4.2.3 To what extent did Frisian and Franconian differ around 1100? 81 4.2.4. The legal system in the Hollandish coastal area 82 4.2.5 Dutch ie instead of aa from PGm. *ǣ 82 4.2.6 WGm. *ai in Frisian and Coastal Dutch 83 4.3 Unrounding of *ü in Coastal Dutch 83 4.4 Unconditioned fronting of *u in Coastal Dutch 86 4.5. Unconditioned fronting of *ū in Coastal Dutch 88 4.6 The reflexes of *au and *aw 90 4.7 The reflexes of *ai 90 4.8 MDu. ei from unrounding 91 4.9 The reflexes of *eo and *iu 92 4.10 Open Syllable Lengthening (OSL) 94 5. Treatment of loanwords 98 5.1 Latin loanwords 98 5.2 French loanwords 99 6. Verbal morphology 101 6.1 Simplification of verbal inflexion 101 6.2 Strong and weak verbs 101 6.3 The preterite of weak verbs 103 6.4 The semantics of Dutch modal verbs 104 7. Nominal morphology 106 7.1 Case and gender in MDu. and MoDu. 106 7.2 Adjectival inflexion 108 7.3 The plural of nouns 109 7.4 The reflexive pronoun 112 7.5 Inflected conjunctions 113 7.6 Pronominal er 114 8. Derivational morphology 115 8.1 Diminutive nouns 115 8.2 The function of verbal prefixes 116 8.3 Dutch surnames 116 8.4 MDu. -‐‑se for female persons 119 9. Etymologies 121
Bibliography
7
a. Flemish soe ‘she’ 121 b. Some exclamations 121 c. Dutch gene ‘yonder’ d. Dutch eend ‘duck’ e. Dutch spreeuw ‘starling’ and spraaien ‘to sprinkle, strew’
123 124 125
Text sample Middle Dutch: Van den Vos Reynaerde
127
8
Bibliography ANKO = J. Daan & M.J. Francken, Atlas van de Nederlandse Klankontwikkeling. Two vols., 1972–1977. Amsterdam.
von Bahder, Karl. 1903. Zur hochdeutschen Lautlehre (hd. f = wgerm. b). Indogermanische Forschungen 14, 258–265.
van Berkel, Gerald & Kees Samplonius. 2006. Nederlandse plaatsnamen. Herkomst en historie. Third, revised edition. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
Berteloot, Amand. 1984. Bijdrage tot een klankatlas van het dertiende-‐‑eeuwse Middelnederlands. Ghent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde.
Berteloot, Amand. 2004. Nogmaals de prefixloze voltooide deelwoorden in het Middelnederlands. In: J. de Caluwe, G. de Schutter, M. Devos, J. van Keymeulen (eds.): Taeldeman, man van de taal, schatbewaarder van de taal. Ghent: Academia, 67–86.
Blockmans, W. 2010. Metropolen aan de Noordzee. De geschiedenis van Nederland, 1100–1560. Blok, Dirk. 1959. De vestigingsgeschiedenis van Holland en Utrecht in het licht van de plaatsnamen. Bijdragen en mededelingen der Naamkunde-‐‑Commissie van de KNAW, vol. 17, Amsterdam, 13–38.
Blok, Dirk. 1960: Een diplomatisch onderzoek van de oudste particuliere oorkonden van Werden. Diss. Amsterdam. Assen.
Boekenoogen, Gerrit & Klaas Woudt. 2004. De Zaanse volkstaal: het Zaans woordenboek. Wormer: Stichting Uitgeverij Noord-‐‑Holland.
Boutkan, Dirk. 1995. The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Braune, Wilhelm & Ingo Reiffenstein. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I. Laut-‐‑ und Formlenlehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
van Bree, Cor. 1987. Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Dordrecht: Foris. van Bree, Cor. 2012. Een Fries substraat in Noord-‐‑Holland? Oftewel: Noord-‐‑Hollandse frisismen op de methodologische pijnbank gelegd. In: R.H. Bremmer Jr. & M. de Vaan (red.), Sporen van het Fries en de Friezen in Noord-‐‑Holland (= It Beaken 74). Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 173–205.
van Bree, Cor & Arjen Versloot m.m.v. Rolf H. Bremmer Jr. 2008. Oorsprongen van het Stadsfries. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
van Bree, Cor. 2016. Leerboek voor de Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands. Deel 1: Gotisch grammatica, Inleiding, Klankleer. Second, revised edition. Published online at https:/openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/38870.
van Bree, Cor. 2017. The Frisian substrate beneath the Groningen dialect. To appear in: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 77.
Bremmer Jr, Rolf H. 2008. North Sea Germanic at the cross-‐‑roads: The emergence of Frisian and Hollandish. NOWELE 54/55.279–308.
Bremmer Jr, Rolf H. 2009. An Introduction to Old Frisian. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bibliography
9
Bremmer Jr, Rolf H. & Michiel de Vaan (eds.). 2012. Sporen van de Friezen en het Fries in Noord-‐‑Holland. It Beaken 74, 1/2.
Buccini, Anthony. 1995. Origins and earliest developments of the Dutch language. In J. Goossens, J. van Loon & H. Niebaum (eds.), Historische dialektologie. Taal & Tongval, Themanummer 8, 8–66. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
Buccini, Anthony. 2003. Ab errore liberato: the northern expansion of Frankish power in the Merovingian period and the genesis of the Dutch language. In: W. Pijnenburg et al. (eds.), Quod Vulgo Dicitur. Studien zum Altniederländischen (= ABÄG 57), 183–220.
Carnoy, Albert. 1942. Het Waalsch suffix “-‐‑effe” in de toponymie. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie en Dialectologie 16, 21–30.
van Coetsem, Frans. 1959. Het suffix -‐‑erse in het Geraardbergse dialect. Taal en Tongval 11, 253-‐‑257.
Debrabandere, Frans. 2003. Woordenboek van de familienamen in België en Noord-‐‑Frankrijk. Revised edition. Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Veen.
Debrabandere, Frans et al. 2010. De Vlaamse gemeentenamen. Verklarend woordenboek. Leuven: Davidsfonds.
Devleeschouwer, Jacques. 1981. Het ontstaan der Nederlands-‐‑Franse taalgrens (I). Naamkunde 13, 188–225.
Eickmans, H., L. Geeraedts, R. Peters (eds.). 2000. Jan Goossens: Ausgewählte Schriften zur niederländischen und deutschen Sprach-‐‑ und Literaturwissenschaft. Münster etc.: Waxmann. EWAhd = Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. 1988–present. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vol. I–IV (a–h). EWN = Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands. 2003-‐‑2009. Four volumes. Amsterdam University Press. FAND = Fonologische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten. Four volumes. 1998-‐‑2004. Ghent: KANTL.
I: Jan Goossens, Johan Taeldeman, Geert Verleyen en Chris de Wulf: De Westgermaanse korte vocalen in gesloten lettergreep. 1998.
II: Jan Goossens, Johan Taeldeman en Geert Verleyen: De Westgermaanse korte vocalen in open lettergreep. 2000.
III: Jan Goossens, Johan Taeldeman en Geert Verleyen: De Westgermaanse lange vocalen en diftongen. 2000.
IV: Chris de Wulf, Jan Goossens en Johan Taeldeman: De consonanten. 2004. Franck, Johannes. 1910. Mittelniederla ndische Grammatik mit Lesestu cken und Glossar. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
Franck/van Wijk = van Wijk, Nicolaas. 1912. Franck’s Etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Frings, Theodor. 1932. Persönliche Feminina im Westgermanischen. p. 23-‐‑40. Gallée, Johan Hendrik & Heinrich Tiefenbach. 1993: Altsächsische Grammatik. Register von J. Lochner. 3. Auflage. Mit Berichtigungen und Literaturnachträgen. Tübingen.
Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1970. Romania Germanica. Band I. Zu den ältesten Berührungen zwischen Römern und Germanen. Die Franken. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin (1. Auflage 1934).
10
Gildemacher, Karel. 2007. Friese plaatsnamen. Friese Pers: Leeuwarden. Gildemacher, Karel. 2008. Terpen en terpnamen: een naamkundig en historisch-‐‑geografisch onderzoek naar vijf naamtypen in Frysla n. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Goeman, Ton. 1998. Delven naar de zachte g. In: D.P. Blok et al. (eds.), Datum et actum. Opstellen aangeboden aan Jaap Kruisheer ter gelegenheid van zijn vijfenzestigste verjaardag, Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut, 211–222.
Goossens, Jan. 1968. Pseudo-‐‑Lautverschiebung im niederländischen Sprachraum. Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 91, 7-‐‑41.
Goossens, Jan. 1978. Naar een Nederlandse familienaamgeografie? Naamkunde 10, 213–233.
Goossens, Jan. 1988–1994. Fränkischer Sprachatlas. Two volumes. Marburg: Elwert. Goossens, Jan. 1997. Nederlands leren spellen met Latijnse letters. In A. van Santen & M. van der Wal (eds.), Taal in tijd en ruimte. Voor Cor van Bree bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar Historische Taalkunde en Taalvariatie aan de Vakgroep Nederlands van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. Leiden, 163–169.
Goossens, J. 2000. Herauslösung und Herausbildung des Niederlänischen. In: H. Eickmans et al., Jan Goossens, 197–211 (reprint of the same article in: P. Sture Ureland (ed.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto-‐‑ und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985, 287–304).
Goossens, J. 2000. Hoe is het Nederlandse taalgebied tot stand gekomen? In: H. Eickmans et al., Jan Goossens, 261–278 (reprint of the same article in: Neerlandica Wratislaviensia 9.63–78).
Goossens, J. 2000. r-‐‑Metathese vor Dental im Westen der kontinentalen Germania. In: H. Eickmans et al., Jan Goossens, 181–194 (reprint of the same article in E. Schmitsdorf, N. Hartl & B. Meurer (eds.), Lingua Germanica. Studien zur deutschen Philologie. Jochen Splett zum 60. Geburtstag. Münster [etc.]: Waxmann, 1998, 10–22).
Goossens, Jan. 2008. Dialectgeografische grondslagen van een Nederlandse taalgeschiedenis. Hasselt (= Bijlagen van de Vereniging voor Limburgse Dialect-‐‑ en Naamkunde 8).
Goossens, Jan. 2010. Over korte o-‐‑klanken. In: J. De Caluwé & J. Van Keymeulen (eds.), Voor Magda. Artikelen voor Magda Devos bij haar afscheid van de Universiteit Gent. Ghent: Universiteit Gent Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde & Academia Press, 249–254.
Goossens, Jan. 2011. Namenklassen und ihre Spiegelung in der niederländischen Familiennamengeographie. In: R. Heuser, D. Nübling, M. Schmuck (eds.), Familiennamengeographie. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011, p. 43–60.
Heeroma, Klaas. 1948. De Gm. eu in het Nederlands (II). Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde 65, 7–17.
Heidermanns, Frank. 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen Primäradjektive. Berlin / New York.
van der Hoek, Michel. 2009. The Dutch diminutive suffix and palatalization in Medieval Dutch. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 76, 1–13.
van der Hoek, Michel. 2010. Old Franconian and Middle Dutch <gh> and Velar Palatalization. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 132, 1–17.
Bibliography
11
Hoekstra, Jarich. 2001. An outline history of West Frisian. In: In: Horst H. Munske (ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 722–734.
Hof, Jan Jelles. 1933. Friesche dialectgeographie. ’s-‐‑Gravenhage: Nijhoff. Hol, A.R. 1941. Het prefix in het verleden deelwoord, TNTL 60, 249–293. van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. 2 vols. Louvain: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
Kerkhof, Peter Alexander. 2018 (to be defended). Language, Law and Loanwords in Early Medieval Gaul. Language Contact and Studies in Gallo-‐‑Romance Phonology. PhD Dissertation, Leiden University.
Kiliaan 1599 = C. Kilianus, Etymologicum teutonice linguae siue dictionarium Teutonico-‐‑Latinum, praecipuas teutonicae linguae dictiones et phrases latinè interpretatas, et cum alii nonnullis linguis obiter collatas complectens. Editio tertia. Antwerp.
König, Werner & Hans-‐‑Joachim Paul (Graphiker). 1998. dtv-‐‑Atlas Deutsche Sprache. 12. Auflage. München: DTV.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-‐‑European and Indo-‐‑Uralic. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010a. Proto-‐‑Germanic obstruents. In: Kortlandt 2010, 169–174. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010b. Proto-‐‑Germanic obstruents and the comparative method. In: Kortlandt 2010, 193–196.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010c. English bottom, German Boden, and the chronology of sound shifts. In: Kortlandt 2010, 197–199.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010d. The origin of the Franconian tone accents. In: Kortlandt 2010, 255–257.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010e. Anglo-‐‑Frisian. In: Kortlandt 2010, 275–284. Krahe, Hans & Wolfgang Meid. 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. III: Wortbildungslehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Krogh, Steffen. 1996. Die Stellung des Altsächsischen im Rahmen der germanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kroonen, Guus. 2011. The Proto-‐‑Germanic n-‐‑stems. A study in diachronic morphology. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi.
Kroonen, Guus. 2011. Neuniederländisch zeug ‘Sau’ und spugen ‘speien’: zwei Beispiele der westgermanischen Velarisierung? Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 67, 149-‐‑161.
Kunze, Konrad. 2004. dtv-‐‑Atlas Namenkunde. Vor-‐‑ und Familiennamen im deutschen Sprachgebiet.
Lasch, Agathe. 1974. Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer. [reprint of 1914] LNT = R.E. Künzel, D.P. Blok, J.M. Verhoeff: Lexikon van Nederlandse toponiemen tot 1200. Amsterdam: Meertens-‐‑Instituut.
van Loey, A. 1976. Middelnederlandse spraakkunst. I Vormleer. Groningen: Willink. van Loey, A. 1980. Middelnederlandse spraakkunst. II Klankleer. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff.
van Loon, Jozef. 1981. Bijdrage tot de morfeemgeschiedenis en -‐‑geografie der Nederlandse toenamen. Handzame.
12
van Loon, Jozef. 1986. Historische fonologie van het Nederlands. Leuven / Amersfoort. van Loon, Jozef. 1996. Familiennamengeographie und –morphologie. In: E. Eichler et al. (eds.), Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, p. 1153–1163.
van Loon, Jozef. 1999. De r-‐‑metathesis en haar gevolgen voor de fonologie en morfologie van het Vroegmiddelnederlands. In: E. Dijkhof, J. Goossens, J. van Loon (eds.), De verschriftelijking van het Nederlands. Taal en Tongval. Themanummer 12. Ghent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde / Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut, 103–135.
van Loon, Jozef. 2000. De ontstaansgeschiedenis van het begrip ‘stad’. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde.
van Loon, Jozef. 2003. De chronologie van de r-‐‑metathesis in het Nederlands en aangrenzende Germaanse talen. In: Pijnenburg/Quak/Schoonheim 2003, 141–167.
van Loon, Jozef. 2014. Historische fonologie van het Nederlands. Second edition. Antwerp: Universitas.
Mansion, J. 1924: Oud-‐‑Gentsche naamkunde; bijdrage tot de kennis van het Oud-‐‑Nederlandsch. Den Haag: Nijhoff.
Marynissen, Ann. 1995. De flexie van het substantief in het 13de-‐‑eeuwse ambtelijke Middelnederlands. Leuven: Peeters.
Marynissen, Ann. 1998. Van -‐‑(t)ke naar -‐‑(t)je. De oorsprong en verspreiding van het Nederlandse diminutiefsuffix -‐‑(t)je. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde 114, 252-‐‑269.
Van der Meer, M. (1927): Historische Grammatik der niederländischen Sprache. I. Band: Einleitung und Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. MNW = E. Verwijs, J. Verdam et al.: Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek. The Hague, 1885-‐‑1952.
Mooijaart, Marijke. 1991. Morfologische verandering in het Nederlands van de dertiende tot de zeventiende eeuw -‐‑ de vorming van vrouwelijke persoonsnamen. ABäG 33, 193-‐‑213.
Mooijaart, Marijke. 1992. Atlas van Vroegmiddelnederlandse taalvarianten. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Muller, Jacob Wijbrand. 1926. De herkomst van je en jij. TNTL 45, 81–110. ONW = Oudnederlands Woordenboek. http://gtb.inl.nl/. Pée, Willem. 1936. Dialectgeographie der Nederlandsche diminutiva. Ghent: Koninklijke Vlaamsche Akademie.
Pijnenburg, Willy. 1982: De mnl. ghe-‐‑loze participia, TNTL 98, 104-‐‑116. PLAND = Plantennamen in de Nederlandse Dialecten. www.meertens.knaw.nl/pland/. Quak, Arend. 1995. Über die Dehnung in offener Silbe im älteren Niederländischen. ABÄG 42, 149–157.
Quak, Arend. 2000. Über h-‐‑ vor Liquiden und Nasalen im Altniederländischen. FS Firchow I-‐‑II, edd. A. Grotans, H. Beck & A. Schwob. Göppingen, 709–715. Rheinisches Wörterbuch. 1923–1971. J. Franck, J. Müller et al. Berlin: Klopp. Ringe, D. 2006. From Proto-‐‑Indo-‐‑European to Proto-‐‑Germanic. Oxford University Press.
Bibliography
13
RND = Reeks Nederlandse Dialectatlassen (1940–1982). Antwerpen: De Sikkel. Ryckeboer, Hugo. 1972. Zoe, pers. vnw. 3e pers. vrouwel. enk., een uitstervend relikt. Taal en Tongval 24, 67–70.
Sanders, Willy. 1974. Der Leidener Willeram. Untersuchungen zur Handschrift, Text und Sprachform. München.
Schönfeld, M. & A. Van Loey. 1970. Schönfelds Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands. Verzorgd door prof.dr. A. van Loey met medewerking van dr. M. Schönfeld. 8th ed. Zutphen: Thieme.
Schiller-‐‑Lübben = Schiller, Karl & August Lübben. 1875–1881. Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch. Bremen: Kühtmann.
Schoonheim, Tanneke. 2001. Pieterse, een vrouwennaam uit de dertiende eeuw. Naamkunde 33, 63–71.
Schoonheim, Tanneke. 2004. Vrouwelijke persoonsnamen in Holland en Zeeland tot 1300. Groningen: Gopher.
Schrijver, Peter. 1999. The Celtic contribution to the development of the North Sea Germanic vowel system, with special reference to Coastal Dutch. NOWELE 35.3–47.
Schrijver, Peter. 2014. Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages.New York/London: Routledge.
Schumacher, Stefan. 2007. Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme: Lexikalische und kulturelle Sprachkontaktphänomene entlang der keltisch-‐‑germanischen Übergangszone. Keltische Forschungen 2.167–207.
de Schutter, Georges. 1999. Fonologische parallellen aan weerszijden van de Germaans-‐‑Romaanse taalgrens. Taal en Tongval 51, 111–130.
Seebold, Elmar. 1970. Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen starken Verben. The Hague: Mouton.
Seebold, Elmar. 2011. Kluge. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 25., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Siebs, Theodor. 1901. Geschichte der friesischen Sprache. In: Grundriß der germanischen Philologie. Ed. H. Paul, 2nd edition. Strasbourg, vol. I, 1152–1464.
Simmler, F. 1974. Die westgermanische Konsonantengemination im Deutschen unter besonderer Beru cksichtigung des Althochdeutschen. Munich: Fink.
Van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2005. Groot Leenwoordenboek. De invloed van andere talen op het Nederlands. Van Dale Lexicografie. Utrecht / Antwerp: Van Dale.
Sjölin, Bo. 2006. Etymologisches Handwörterbuch des Festlandsnordfriesischen. Kiel: Christian-‐‑Albrechts-‐‑Universität.
Steffens, Rudolf. 2014. Nese Seylersen prondenersen in dem Spidal. Sexusmarkierung bei rheinfränkischen Familiennamen (spätes Mittelalter/frühe Neuzeit). In: Friedhelm Debus/Rita Heuser/Damaris Nübling (Hgg.): Linguistik der Familiennamen. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York, S. 55-‐‑84.
Tavernier-‐‑Vereecken, C. 1968. Gentse naamkunde van ca. 1000 tot 1253. Een bijdrage tot de kennis van het oudste Middelnederlands. Brussels: Belgisch Universitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.
14
Tiefenbach, Heinrich. 1984. Xanten-‐‑Essen-‐‑Köln. Untersuchungen zur Nordgrenze des Althochdeutschen an niederrheinischen Personennamen des neunten bis elften Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tiefenbach, Heinrich. 1997. Zur frühen Werdener Sprachgeschichte. Die Namengraphien der Vita Liudgeri. In: E. Glaser & M. Schlaefer (eds.), Grammatica Ianua Artium. FS Rolf Bergmann 60, Heidelberg: Winter, 169-‐‑183.
Tiefenbach, Heinrich. 2002. Zu den Personennamen der frühen Werdener Urkunden. In D. Geuenich, W. Haubrichs & J. Jarnut (eds.), Person und Name. Methodische Probleme bei der Erstellung eines Personennamenbuches des Frühmittelalters. Berlin: de Gruyter, 280–304. TNZN = Taalatlas van Noord-‐‑ en Zuid-‐‑Nederland, ed. G.G. Kloeke [et al.], 1939–1972, Leiden.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2010. Another Frisianism in coastal Dutch: traam, treem, triem ‘crossbeam’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22, 315-‐‑335.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2011. West-‐‑Germanic *ai in Frisian. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 67, 301–314.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2011. Etymologie en dialectgeografie van koorts. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde 120, 45–79.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2012. The metathesis of suffixal -‐‑sl-‐‑ to -‐‑ls-‐‑ in West Germanic. North-‐‑Western European Language Evolution 64/65, 91–103.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2012. Verkleinde familienamen in Noord-‐‑Limburg: Kleuskens, Litjens en hun voorgangers. Jaarboek van de Vereniging voor Limburgse Dialect-‐‑ en Naamkunde 14, 5–24.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2012. Taalcontact in Noord-‐‑Holland: een inleiding. In: R.H. Bremmer Jr. & M. de Vaan (red.), Sporen van het Fries en de Friezen in Noord-‐‑Holland (= It Beaken 74). Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 77–84.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2012. Dutch koon and Proto-‐‑Germanic 'ʹjaw, cheek'ʹ. North-‐‑Western European Language Evolution 64/65, 105–115.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2014. West Germanic *-‐‑þþ-‐‑ and *-‐‑þm-‐‑ in Dutch. In: ABÄG 72, 1–34. de Vaan, Michiel. 2014. Dutch eiland ‘island’: Inherited or Borrowed? ABÄG 73, 527-‐‑538. de Vaan, Michiel. 2017. The Dawn of Dutch. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Verdenius, A.A. 1924. De ontwikkeling der Hollande voornaamwoorden je en jij. TNTL 43, 81–104.
Verdenius, A.A. 1930. Over mogelijke spelvormen onzer j-‐‑pronomina in Middelnederlandse en 17de-‐‑eeuwse taal. TNTL 49, 97–125. VMNW = Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek. Woordenboek van het Nederlands van de dertiende eeuw in hoofdzaak op basis van het Corpus-‐‑Gysseling. 2001. Ed. W. Pijnenburg et al. Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie / Groningen: Gopher. WBD = A. Weijnen et al. Woordenboek van de Brabantse dialecten. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967–2005.
Weijnen, A.A. 1964. Fonetische en grammatische parallellen aan weerszijden van de taalgrens. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde 80.1–25.
Weijnen, Antoon. 1966. Nederlandse Dialectkunde. Second edition. Assen: van Gorcum.
Bibliography
15
Weijnen, Antoon. 1967. Leenwoorden uit de Latinitas, stratigrafisch beschouwd. In: Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal-‐‑ en Letterkunde. Nieuwe Reeks, 365–480.
Weijnen, Antoon. 2003. Etymologisch dialectwoordenboek. Second edition. The Hague: Sdu. WLD = A. Weijnen e.a. Woordenboek van de Limburgse dialecten. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1983–2008. WNT = M. de Vries, L.A. te Winkel et al. (uitg.). 1863–2001. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. ‘s-‐‑Gravenhage: Nijhoff / Sdu. WVD = Woordenboek van de Vlaamse Dialekten. 1979–present. Ghent: (Rijks)universiteit Ghent. WZD = Ghijsen, Henderika. 1959-‐‑1974. Woordenboek der Zeeuwsche Dialecten. The Hague: van Goor.
16
1. Introduction Dirk Blok, De Franken in Nederland (1979): (translation – MdV) “the entry of the Franks in our country (...) in the 3rd-‐‑5th century, as part of a migration from East-‐‑Netherlands across the Rhine to Brabant and thence to southern Belgium and France,” is “a fait divers in our history, which has left no tangible traces in our country.” Melis Stoke, Rijmkroniek (ca. 1300), line 127-‐‑132: Inghels was Willebroert becant: ‘English was well-‐‑known to St. Willibrord: Gheboren van Noorthumbertlant Born from Northumbria (Ende want de Ingelse sijn gewassen, (for the English have sprung, Als men leest, van Neder-‐‑Zassen) as one reads, from Lower Saxony) Conste hi de bet de Vriessche tale; he knew Frisian all the better; Dat mach elc man proeven wale. Anyone can easily understand that.’ Dutch and the Low Countries By Modern Dutch I mean the variety which functions as a standard language in The Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium. The vernacular dialects which are roofed by this standard are therefore the Modern Dutch dialects. There is a natural external linguistic border with French. A natural internal border is with Modern West Frisian, as spoken in most parts of the province of Friesland. There is no linguistic border towards German, at least, not as far as the language until 1815 – and in some regions until the first half of the twentieth century – is concerned. For earlier stages of Dutch, the local Germanic dialects spoken within the same administrative borders are considered Dutch, with the addition of some areas in which Dutch no longer functions as the main language of communication:
(1) French-‐‑Flanders (east of Calais), in which Dutch functioned as a standard language until into the nineteenth century,
(2) the Lower Rhine area around Cleves, Geldern and Wesel, where Dutch was used until into the eighteenth century,
(3) a small area in the northeast of the Belgian province of Liege, between the town of Limbourg and the city of Aachen. Here, formerly Dutch and presently High German and French are the main supralocal means of communication. All of the areas mentioned together can be referred to as the Low Countries.
Chapter 1
18
Map 1 situates the modern provinces of The Netherlands (1–9, 13, 17), Flanders (11, 12, 14–16), and two adjacent areas of France (10) and Germany (18). I will refer to these entities on many occasions throughout this reader.
1 Friesland (NL) 2 Groningen (NL) 3 Drente (NL) 4 Overijssel (NL) 5 Gelderland (NL) 6 North Holland (NL) 7 South Holland (NL) 8 Utrecht (NL) 9 Zealand (NL) 10 French Flanders (F) 11 West Flanders (B) 12 East Flanders (B) 13 North Brabant (NL) 14 Antwerp (B) 15 Flemish Brabant (B) 16 Belgian Limburg (B) 17 Dutch Limburg (NL) 18 Kleve/Geldern (D)
Map 1: Provinces of the Low Countries For earlier stages of the language, larger dialect areas are referred by the following names: Flanders: 10+11+12 Brabant: 13+14+15 Limburg: 16+17 Holland: 6+7 western / coastal Dutch: 10+11+12+9+7+6, sometimes also the western half of 8 and the
westernmost part of 13 inland Dutch: 3+4+5+8 (east)+13+14+15+16+17+18 northeastern Dutch: 3+4+5, often +8 (east), after 1400 also +2
Introduction
19
Celtic and Germanic At the start of the Roman period, Celtic was spoken to the South of the river Meuse. North of that river, the presence of Celtic is uncertain, but not impossible. Tacitus mentions Verritus and Malorix as two leaders of the Frisii. Both these names are Celtic. Helinium, the delta of Meuse and Waal, would contain PIE *sel-‐‑ ‘swamp’, with British Celtic *s-‐‑ > h-‐‑. Map 2 gives a rough indication of the areas inhabited by Celts and Germanic peoples in the last centuries BC, and postulates a Celtic-‐‑Germanic transitional zone in between (taken from Schumacher 2007):
Map 2: Celts and Germanic peoples before the Roman Era Proof for Celtic-‐‑Germanic contact is provided, among others, by the well-‐‑known Celtic loanwords in Germanic. A clear contemporary testimony is delivered by the Germanic and mixed Germanic/Celtic epithets of the Rhenish matrones in inscriptions made by the Ubii, who lived to the west and southwest of Cologne (Neumann 1987, Schumacher 2007). A mixed (linguistic) character is often assumed for the Batavi, in the Betuwe, and for the Cannenefates, living along the Dutch coast. Their leaders had partly Celtic, partly Germanic names. Probably they spoke Germanic, but had replaced an earlier Celtophone population.
Chapter 1
20
Schrijver (2000) explains the name Cannenefates from PClt. *kasnēnā ‘leek’ and Gm. *faþ-‐‑ ‘lord’. This tribe would have come from east of Cologne. Among the Ubian inscriptions there is one devoted to the matribus paternis Hiannanef[atibus], and also to Mercuri Channini [ sacrum?]. A similar acculturation between Celts and Germans is known from elsewhere, e.g. Bohemia and Moravia. Schumacher (2007) even assumes that West-‐‑Germanic adopted the Celtic difference between the copula ‘to be’ (stem *es-‐‑/*s-‐‑) and habitual ‘to be’ (stem *bije-‐‑ < *buje-‐‑). Celtic words are hardly found in the Dutch lexicon – except for some old toponyms:
• *Brogilos ‘fenced-‐‑off piece of land’ (Du. Breugel, Briel) may be from Clt. *brog-‐‑i-‐‑ ‘border’, with Gaulish br-‐‑ < *mr-‐‑ (Old Irish mruig). Probably from Celtic → Romance → West-‐‑Germanic.
• The city of Nijmegen was called Noviomagus in Roman times, from Celtic *Novio-‐‑magos ‘New-‐‑market’.
• Dutch (dialectal), German ben ‘cart, basket’, French benne ‘basket’ < Gaulish benna ‘cart’ as cited by Latin authors.
• Southern Du. mok(ke) ‘sow’, MHG Mocke, possibly to Celtic *mokku-‐‑ ‘pig’ (OIr. mucc, W. moch), though an internal origin within Germanic has also been proposed.
From Celtic to Latin We know little about Gaulish and the switch to Latin in Gaul. For northern Gaul, our knowledge is even more restricted than for southern Gaul. How many speakers of Gaulish had already switched to Latin before the Germanic immigrations of the third and fourth centuries? Probably, all towns and larger estates were Latinized, but a Gaulish residue is often assumed to have survived until the third, here and there even the fourth century. From the third century, there were hundreds of Germanophone settlements in northern Gaul. Ultimately, a linguistic border arose between Germanic in the north, and Gallo-‐‑Romance in the south. In the South of this area, speakers of Germanic switched to Romance. This has caused the imposition of Germanic L1-‐‑features onto Romance as L2 in what are now Wallony and France. North of what became the linguistic border, Romance islands remained in existence until at least the tenth century, e.g. along the Moselle river between Trier and Koblenz, and to the West of Aachen. This means that, during at least half a millennium, we are dealing with a broad bilingual zone.
Introduction
21
It is unclear, how many Romance speakers switched to Germanic north of the border. They may not have been many. Also, there was a continuous migration into Gaul until the Merovingian period. Therefore, it is only to be expected that there are less Romance substrate features in Dutch than Germanic substrate features in French.
Case-‐‑study: Wallonian place-‐‑names in -‐‑effe and -‐‑aive
In Belgium and northern France, a number of Romance place-‐‑names in -‐‑effe occur with a WGm. second member *-‐‑axjō ‘river meadow’, e.g. Boyeffles, Marqueffles, Escanaffles, Seneffe, Sombreffe, Floreffe, Boneffe, Marneffe, Jeneffe, Aineffe, Haneffe, Kemexhe, Kanne (1158 Canaphia, 1181 Cheneffe). The element *-‐‑axjō developed into Gallo-‐‑Romance *-‐‑afja in the Carolingian period. It then became *-‐‑aifa whence *-‐‑aife > *-‐‑eife and finally -‐‑effe in Old French of the twelfth century. The replacement of Germanic velar x by Gallo-‐‑Romance f is well known from several Frankish appellatives which were borrowed into Gallo-‐‑Romance. For instance, French flanc ‘flank’, froc ‘frock’ and freux ‘rook’ render Frankish *hlank, *hrok and *hrōk. The input and output of this shift are both attested for Floreffe, a town west of Namur, which shows the replacement of xj by fj. Its oldest forms are Florechia and Flerechia (eighth century, copy eleventh century); in 1033 we read Florefia, while the sources from the twelfth century have Floreffia. The former presence of /x/ in these names is of some consequence to the settlement
history of this area. The West Germanic reflexes of the f. noun nom.sg. *awī, oblique *awjō ‘watery, island, river meadow’ do not normally show any velar reflex of PGmc *gw, but only a labial glide. It follows that the Wallonian names in x > f must have replaced inherited *awjō by *axjō. The obvious model for this replacement was the simplex *axō-‐‑ ‘water’, which is also found in compound names: Flemish Lar-‐‑aha (976), Diepen-‐‑ha (976). Beside the names in -‐‑effe, Wallonian also has toponyms with Germanic ‘river meadow’
as their second member which now end in -‐‑aive, -‐‑ave, -‐‑ève. The names in -‐‑effe are mainly found in the northwest of the province of Liège, in the area north of Namur, and in some places in Hainaut, whereas the v-‐‑forms are situated on the southern outskirts of the effe-‐‑territory. The element -‐‑aive, -‐‑ave, -‐‑ève developed directly from the older stage *awjō. This distribution suggests that the analogical replacement of w by x took place in the
names closest to the language border, that is, in the area which must have remained Germanophone for a longer time. The replacement must have been a feature of the Germanic dialects of this area before they went extinct, whereas the older stage *awjō was preserved further South.
Chapter 1
22
Franconian and Frisian The dialects of the Germanic speakers who entered the Low Countries from across the Rhine are generally referred to as Franconian, even if we cannot be sure that all these speakers referred to themselves, at the time, as Franks. In the coastal areas, from Flanders to Friesland, a different variety of West Germanic was spoken in the Early Middle Ages, which would eventually develop into the Frisian language in Friesland. These dialects probably developed along the North Sea coast in what is now Germany and the northeastern Netherlands. Their initial stage is mostly called Ingvaeonic or Anglo-‐‑Frisian. Anglo-‐‑Saxon, from which English derives, also belongs to this branch of West Germanic. Native speakers of Proto-‐‑Frisian and Old Frisian switched to Franconian at various stages: possibly by the eighth century in Flanders, by the eleventh century in South Holland, and not before the thirteenth century in North Holland. The language shift from Frisian to Franconian has had important consequences for the linguistic system of Franconian as spoken in the coastal area, which, in its turn, became the basis for the Dutch standard in the seventeenth century. We will see traces of these effects in various instances during this course. A third dialect group which has often been assumed to exist in the early medieval Low Countries is that of Saxon, as the dialects of the modern provinces of Gelderland, Overijssel, Drenthe and (after it gave up its Frisian speech) Groningen are often jointly called. Yet there is no structural boundary between phenomena that would be ‘Saxon’ as opposed to ‘Franconian’. Hence, for dialectological purposes the distinction is devoid of meaning. Chronological survey 200–500: West Germanic dialect continuum on the continent, before the migration of the Anglo-‐‑Saxons to Britain. The north(west)ern part of this continuum, close to the North Sea coast, was until at least 500 AD an important center of linguistic innovations, such as a > o before NC, the loss of nasals before fricatives other than /x/, and the (initially allophonic) palatalisation of velar stops. Some of these Anglo-‐‑Frisian innovations spread further south, but they are only minimally represented in the Franconian layer of Dutch. 250–400: Speakers of West Germanic spread southwest into the Low Countries. It is unclear when the spread started and how fast the Low Countries became germanophone. We know that Celtic and Latin were spoken in different regions, or maybe side by side at various points.
Introduction
23
450–700: The spread of innovations from the north comes to a halt. The Frisians extend their power southward along the coast in the sixth and seventh century, possibly bringing along Proto-‐‑Frisian innovations. Proto-‐‑Frisian and Old Franconian had experienced some centuries of separate development, as a result of which two different linguistic systems now come into contact in the western Low Countries. 700–1000: Franconian starts to expand from the southeast toward the west and northwest, pushing back part of the Proto-‐‑Frisian characteristics. The actual language shift to Franconian must be dated the earliest in Flanders, and later in Holland and Utrecht. The main evidence for these dates comes from onomastic material, such as place-‐‑names with Frisian phonology in Holland and Utrecht, and, to a lesser extent, also from personal names. 1000–1200: The inhabitants of the coastal areas switch from Proto-‐‑Frisian or Ingvaeonic to Franconian. This brings with it a lot of phonological imposition from their native language (L1) onto their newly acquired speech (L2), which may now be called Old Coastal Dutch. There is also a fair amount of lexical borrowing from L1 into L2. The result is a phonological system based on Old Franconian of around 1000–1100, but adapted to the L1 system of Old Frisian. 1200–present: New waves of linguistic innovations spread from the main economic centers of the Low Countries into other regions. Until ca. 1400, the core area of economic activity was Flanders. Then the center of gravity shifted to Brabant (1300–1600), and, after 1585, to Holland.
Chapter 1
24
Relative chronology of the main phonological changes between Proto-‐‑Germanic and Early Middle Dutch (13th c.) a. Consonant changes between Proto-‐‑Germanic and West Germanic (1) Rhotacism of PGm. *z and merger with original *r. (2) Loss of *-‐‑z after stressed short and long monosyllables in Anglo-‐‑Frisian, Low German and most of Dutch. as opposed to its retention and development to -r in High German and southeastern Dutch: ODu. he ‘he’, gi ‘you’, mi ‘me’ vs. High German er, ihr, mir. Possibly, *-‐‑z > -‐‑r was originally retained in posttonic syllables. Alternatively, words may have had two variants depending on the status of a word as stressed or unstressed (note OFri. -‐‑er ‘he’).
Introduction
25
(3) Loss of *-‐‑z in pretonic prefixes in Anglo-‐‑Frisian, Old Saxon and Dutch: ODu. MDu. ā-‐‑ ‘out’, te-‐‑ ‘apart’ (ODu. ābulge ‘wrath’, MDu. amechte ‘exhausted’, tebrecan ‘to crush’) versus OHG ar-‐‑ < *uz-‐‑, zur-‐‑ < *tuz-‐‑. In contrast, the stressed variant of *uz-‐‑ retained its r and yields MoDu. oor-‐‑ as in oorlog ‘war’, oorlof ‘permission’.
(4) Velarization of *w to g between high vowels i, u: OFri. niugun, OS nigun, MoDu. negen ‘nine’ < PGm. *newun, OE sugu, OS suga ‘sow’ < acc.sg. *suwun (Kroonen 2011). (5) J-‐‑gemination: *-‐‑Cj-‐‑ > -‐‑CC-‐‑ (with C ≠ *r) if the root was light (that is, if it contained a short vowel plus consonant). (6) Vowel epenthesis in word-‐‑final resonants after the loss of short *a in endings, as in OE segl ‘sail’, botm ‘bottom’, OS apl ‘apple’, ODu. accar ‘acre’, uagar ‘beautiful’, uogal ‘bird’; after the eleventh century, e prevails in unstressed syllables. (7) West Germanic gemination of *’p, *’t, *’k before l and r, and of *’k before w, in particular after short vowels. The geminates have been generalized to different degrees. In some cases, languages retain traces of paradigmatic alternations, as in ODu. -‐‑akkar, MoDu. akker ‘acre’ versus the toponym Aker-‐‑sloot, Du. appel ‘apple’ but Apel-‐‑doorn, ODu. quiccafe /kwikka fē/ ‘livestock’ but MoDu. kwiek ‘brisk’. Vowel changes between Proto-‐‑Germanic and West Germanic (1) Nasalization of *i, *u, *a > *ĩ, *ũ, *ã before *nx. Shared by Gothic and North Germanic. Examples: Gothic fāhan ‘to catch’, leihts ‘light’, ūhtwo ‘dawn’. (2) a-‐‑mutation: lowering of non-‐‑nasal *i > *e and *u > *o before *a, *ǣ, *ō in the next syllable, e.g. OE lof, OFri. lof, OS lof, OHG lob ‘praise’ < *luba-‐‑. (3) i-‐‑mutation of *e: raising of *e > *i before *i, *ī, *j in the next syllable, e.g. OHG deot vs. diutisk, ODu. werthan vs. wirthit. Shared by North Germanic. (3a) u-‐‑mutation of *e: In High German, *e is also raised to i before *u in the next syllable: OHG nimu ‘I take’, hilfu ‘I help’, filu ‘much’, sibun ‘7’, sichur ‘sure’. How far north this mutation reached and how regular it was, is unclear. (4) Rise of *ea from e-‐‑infixation in verb stems in -‐‑a-‐‑ and from lowering of *ia to *ea, e.g., in the reduplicated preterite of strong verbs of the 7th class, such as *e-‐‑
Chapter 1
26
auk ‘increased’, *e-‐‑ar ‘ploughed’, in the preterite *e-‐‑aj ‘went’, and in *hiar > *hear ‘here’. Shared by North Germanic. For this hypothesis, see Kortlandt 1994, 2006.
Changes in the Late West Germanic period: (1) Lowering of *ǣ > *ā, before the denasalization of nasalized long vowels. (2) Reduction of unstressed long vowels and diphthongs in High German: *ai > *ē, *au > *ō; shortening of *-‐‑ō > -‐‑o, *-‐‑ī > -‐‑i, *-‐‑ē > -‐‑e.
Consonants:
labial dental velar
*f *ff *þ *þþ *x *xx
*p/*b *pp/*bb *t/*d *tt/*dd *k/*g *kk/*gg
*’p *’pp *’t *’tt *’k *’kk
*s *ss
*w *ww *j *jj
*m *mm *n *nn
*r *rr
*l *ll
Stressed vowels:
short long diphthongs
high *i *u *ī *ū *ea *eu ([iu], [eo])
mid *e *[o]
low *a *ǣ *ō *ai ([ai], [ae]) *au ([au], [ao])
Table: Consonants and vowels of West Germanic
Introduction
27
Early Old Franconian changes The only texts which have been composed before that date are the Lex Salica and Pactus Legis Salicae. Even though the extant manuscripts of those texts date to the late eighth and the ninth centuries, we can use the vernacular glosses in the texts as indicative of the language of the Merovingian period. A few changes show up: (1) The metathesis of intervocalic *þl > *lþ is shown by 1sg. pres. maltho ‘I say’ (Quak in ONW s.v. malthon). (2) WGm. nom.acc. sg. *-‐‑ewa had already yielded -‐‑eo, as shown by theo ‘servant, slave’ (Quak in ONW s.v. thio). (3) The endings *-‐‑az, *-‐‑an leave no certain traces in the Merovingian glosses, but the Runic evidence suggests that final unstressed /-‐‑a/ was still present in the fifth century. Once final -‐‑a was lost, *u had become split in /u/ and /o/. (4) Monophthongization of *ai and *au before r, h, hw and w, viz. in Lex Salica chreo-‐‑ ‘corpse’ < *hraiwa-‐‑ (ONW s.v. rēo) and seola-‐‑ ‘soul-‐‑’ < *saiwalō-‐‑ (ONW s.v. siela), and possibly also in the form horogauo, horogaut, if it represents an acc.sg. m. *chorogan = hōrogan ‘serf’ from WGm. *xaurigan-‐‑ (MoDu. horige, see Quak in OWN s.v. *hōrigo). Old Franconian changes between 700 and 1000 (1) Lenition of intervocalic *x(w) to ODu. /h/, which is subsequently lost between vowels: ODu. jehan ‘to say’, MDu. giën. Compare also ODu. beuelen ‘to command’, MoDu. bevelen (OS bifelhan, PGm. *felxanan). It seems likely that word-‐‑final -‐‑x was retained longer, as it survives into Middle and Modern Dutch as <-‐‑ch>, <-‐‑g> in a number of words, especially after vowels. The modern language usually spells <g> here, e.g. Dutch hoog ‘high’ (*xauxa-‐‑), zag pret. ‘saw’ (*saxw), sloeg ‘slew’ (*slōx), ruig ‘rough’ (*rūxa-‐‑).1
1 The main exception with <-ch> is MoDu. toch, doch ‘yet, however’ < *þaux. A spelling doublet has led to semantic differentiation in the particles nog ‘still, yet’ versus noch ‘nor’, both from PGm. *nux. After r, the velar fricative is preserved in the MDu. hapax dworch ‘transverse’ (Gouda, ca. 1340; cf. Verdam 1919: 245–46), cf. OS thwerh, as opposed to the assimilation in MDu. dwerree ‘cross-ditch’ (*dwerch plus reye ‘ditch’), and dialectally also in MDu. dorch, MoDu. durg ‘through’, StDu. door.
Chapter 1
28
(2) Loss of initial h-‐‑ (Quak 2000). Before liquids, n and w, h is generally dropped in all of Dutch. Only some of the earliest toponyms retain h before liquids, e.g., Hrineshem in Guelders (855 copy 10th c.), Hlithum next to Lidum in North Holland (10th c.). The modern language has several homonyms due to the merger of *xR-‐‑ and R-‐‑: MoDu. lid ‘body part’ < *liþu-‐‑ vs. oog-‐‑lid ‘eye-‐‑lid’ < *xlida-‐‑, MoDu. rijm ‘hoar-‐‑frost’ < *xrīma-‐‑ vs. rijm ‘rhyme’ from French rime, MoDu. (ver)welken ‘to wither’ to *welka-‐‑ ‘humid’ vs. welk ‘which’ < *xwalīka-‐‑. (3) xs > ss. In the southeastern Dutch Wachtendonck Psalter of ca. 1000, we find uusso ‘foxes’ (gen.pl.) beside wahsan, wihsil, ohsson. The earlier date of the change in western dialects is shown by that fact that in Ghent, there is no trace left of *x before s by the eleventh century (Tavernier-‐‑Vereecken 1968: 589). By 1200, ss has become general in Dutch. (3) Voicing of the word-‐‑initial and word-‐‑internal fricatives *f, *þ, *s to [v], [ð], [z]: Du. vader ‘father’ < *fader, over ‘over’ < *ufar, zee ‘sea’ < *saiwa-‐‑, lezen ‘to read’ < *lisan, dat ‘that’ < *þat, broeder < *brōþar. Voicing can be dated to the tenth or eleventh century on the basis of written evidence, such as Old Ghent personal names (Tavernier-‐‑Vereecken 1968: 580f.), though it may have been present earlier in pronunciation. (4) Lenition of intervocalic -‐‑b-‐‑ to -‐‑v-‐‑ (MDu. gheven ‘give’) and of word-‐‑initial and word-‐‑internal -‐‑g-‐‑ to -‐‑γ-‐‑ (MDu. goed ‘good’, ooghe ‘eye’). The new /v/ merged with Early Old Franconian intervocalic *f. In Flemish, the fricative character of /g/ is indirectly attested from the eleventh century by the spelling <ch> for a voiceless fricative in auslaut: Isburch ‘Is-‐‑burg’, Thietwich ‘Thiet-‐‑Wig’ (Tavernier-‐‑Vereecken 1968: 587). (5) Word-‐‑final devoicing. Date uncertain. (6) Devoicing of fricatives in syllable coda before resonants. A number of lexemes with intervocalic voiced fricatives in Dutch (Schönfeld & van Loey 1970: 55) and Low German (Lasch 1914: 131f.) have allomorphs with a voiceless fricative before l, m and n. A similar devoicing of b (v) to f is found in Old High German, but on a smaller scale (Braune & Reiffenstein 2004: 133). In Dutch, the change involves the fricative pairs s/z, *þ/*þþ, f/v, and g/ch, compare MoDu. bezem / bessem ‘broom’ < *besman-, adem / asem ‘breath’ < *æ þma-‐‑, gavel / gaffel ‘fork’ < *gablō-‐‑, even / effen ‘even’ < *ebna-‐‑, logenstraffen ‘to belie’ < *luginō-‐‑ but loochenen ‘to deny’ < *laugnjan. Devoicing of v, z, g was productive before derivational suffixes in l or n in Late
Introduction
29
Old and Early Middle Dutch: lieflijk ‘lovely’ to the stem lief, lieve-‐‑ ‘dear’, schuifelen ‘to shuffle’ to schuiven ‘to shove’, begrafenis ‘burial’ to begraven ‘to bury’. (7) Raising of the first element of the diphthongs *ai and *au to mid vowels, yielding ei and ou in the course of the ninth century. (7) Monophthongization of *iu to /y:/. Van Loon (2014: 125) dates this change around 900 for inland Dutch. The new vowel merges with the result of secondary i-‐‑mutation of *ū. (8) Secondary i-‐‑mutation of low and back vowels, yielding *y, *ø (or *üǝ), *öü, *äi, *œ, *ä, *ä, *ö, *ü. The loss of postconsonantal *j as well as the reduction of unstressed vowels to schwa led to phonologization of the i-‐‑mutated vowels. Of these, *y merged with the product of earlier *iu whereas *ä merged with earlier *e in part of the dialects. The vowels *ü, *ö, *ø, *œ, *ä and the diphthong *öü were new to the system. (9) Reduction of *eo via *io (attested as <io> in spelling) to /iǝ/, spelled as <ie>. This diphthong merges with the result /iǝ/, spelled <ie>, of *ea. In dialects, MDu. /iəә/ in hiatus and word-‐‑finally often merged with /i:/, which explains a number of words in ij of the standard language: bij ‘bee’ (MDu. bie, OHG bīa < *bi(j)ō-‐‑), dij ‘thigh’ (ODu. thio, MDu. die, OE þēoh < WGm. *þeuxa-‐‑), lij ‘lee(side)’ (MDu. lie, OS hleo, OFr. hlī < *xlewa-‐‑; cognate with MoDu. luw ‘protected’ < *xlewja-‐‑), betijen ‘to move on’ (MDu. tien, OHG ziohan < *teuxan-‐‑). (10) Diphthongization of *ō to *uo <uo> in Brabant and southern Guelders, which may by the eleventh century have become /uǝ/, at least in part of the southern and eastern dialects of the Low Countries. (11) Loss of w between a consonant and stressed *uo; that is, -‐‑Cwuo-‐‑ > -‐‑Cuo-‐‑, e.g., in OHG huosto ‘coughing’ < *hwuosto < *hwōstō, and in suozi from earlier swuozi ‘sweet’, but not in Old Saxon or Old English (OS swōti, OE hwōsan ‘to cough’). In Dutch, both variants can be found, e.g., zwoel, zoel ‘hot, humid’ (*swōla-‐‑; both variants in the standard language), zoenen ‘to appease; kiss’ (*swōnjan-‐‑), zoet ‘sweet’, hoesten ‘to cough’, hoe ‘how’ (*hwō). (12) Loss of postconsonantal j. Quak 2004 dates the loss of j in Old Dutch to the (early) ninth century, based in particular on the names from Ghent.
Chapter 1
30
Late Old Dutch and Early Middle Dutch changes until ca. 1250 The developments of this period are more diversified as regards their dialectal spread. The following changes can be seen in all dialects: (1) Occlusion of [ð] to d in anlaut and inlaut in the twelfth century: thu > du ‘thou’, ODu. fetheron > MDu. federen ‘feathers’ (van Loon 2014: 233). (2) In the early twelfth centurx, *þþ yields voiceless ss, which was spelled <s> after long vowels and <ss> after short ones (de Vaan 2014a). It merges with geminate /s:/ from WGm. *ss and *xs. The evidence includes bessen ‘to dab a wound’ (< *baþjan), smisse ‘smithy’ (*smiþjō-‐‑-), and klis ‘tangle, burdock’ (*kliþþan-‐‑). The rise of a sibilant reflex may be due to the voicing and occlusion of single *þ to d, after which *þþ remained isolated as a dental fricative. In the sequence *þm, *þ remained voiceless and merged with /s(:)/ in Late Old Dutch. Paradigmatic alternations explain the existence of variants with dem versus sm: central and eastern adem versus western Dutch asem ‘breath’ (nom.acc.*æ þam, obl. *æ þm-‐‑), Dutch vadem ‘fathom’ (< *faþma-‐‑) versus vessemen ‘to fathom’ (< *faþmjan-‐‑); for details, see de Vaan 2014a. (3) Syncope of short vowels in open, word-‐‑internal syllable. See further below. (4) Metathesis of rV to Vr before the dental consonants t, d, s, n if V was a short vowel. Examples are MDu. sport (G. Sprosse) ‘rung’, berd (Brett) ‘board’, vorsch (Frosch) ‘frog’, borst (Brust) ‘breast’, ors (Ross) ‘horse’, borne (Brunnen) ‘well’. Whereas the metathesis is restricted to original rV in closed syllables in most dialects, Flemish has a few cases of metathesis in open syllables: terden ‘to tread’, verde ‘peace’ (Du. vrede). Such forms show that the metathesis predates open syllable lengthening. Van Loon (2003) dates the metathesis between 1050 and 1150. (5) Metathesis of Vr to rV before xt. In Old Dutch, this metathesis is absent from the available evidence, with the exception of toponyms containing personal names in --‐‑berht < *Berxta-‐‑ in the twelfth century, e.g. UUoubrechtengem (1122) < *Waldberxtinga-‐‑haim. In Early Middle Dutch, the metathesis is present in most dialects except Limburgian: MDu. vrucht ‘fear’, vruchten ‘to fear’ (< *furxti-‐‑), (-‐‑)wracht ‘made’ (pret. and ptc. to werken), and personal names in -brecht beside -bert.
Introduction
31
(6) ft > xt. Standard Dutch shares with Low and Middle German the change of ft to /xt/. Whereas cht first appears in Middle Franconian in the eighth century and in Old Saxon in the tenth, the first certain attestations in Dutch date from the twelfth century: Lichtervelde < *luftar-‐‑feld-‐‑ (1127), achtinghe ‘confiscation’ < *haft-‐‑ (Ghent, 1176–1200). Holland preserved ft in the thirteenth century, and traditional dialects of Holland in the twentieth century still did so. (7) Vocalization of *al, *ol and *ul to ou before t and d. The vocalization is preceded by the three vowels merging in o, which can be dated to the tenth century in Flanders. The l-‐‑vocalization itself is attested after 1050 in Flanders, and after 1100 in Holland (Schönfeld & van Loey 1970: 72). (8) Fronting of ODu. /u:/ to /y:/, MoDu. <uu>, in Flanders in the twelfth century, and, before the end of the thirteenth century, also in West Brabant and Holland. The fronting may have been caused by the rise of the diphthong /uo/ > /uǝ/, according to van Loon (2014: 217–18). The new front rounded vowel merged with /y:/ from *iu in Brabant, but represented a new phoneme /y:/ in coastal Dutch. (9) Lowering of ODu. tense and short /i/, /y/, /u/ in western and central Dutch to the Early Middle Dutch lax vowels /ɪ/, /ʌ/, /ʊ/, compare MoDu. vis, put, vos with MoHG Fisch, Pfütze, Fuchs. The lowering of *i caused some confusion with *e > /e/, which is reflected by the large number of words in *i reflected with modern /ɛ/ and by the words in *e reflected with /ɪ/ (van Loon 2014: 204). The lowering of *u probably caused the merger with *o in a large number of dialects, though it is uncertain whether this originally affected all of Dutch. (10) Lengthening of short vowels in open syllable, which is dated to the twelfth century on the basis of place-‐‑names (Quak 1995, van Loon 2014: 210). In the east, the short vowels *i, *ü, *u, *e, *o, *ä, *a yielded the corresponding long vowels. Whereas the lengthened products of the three front vowels *i, *e, *ä and the back vowels *u and *o merged in /e:/ and /o:/ in western Dutch, they have remained distinct from each other in many eastern dialects, because the short high vowels had not been lowered to lax vowels as in western Dutch. In western Dutch, open syllable lengthening created a new phoneme /e:/ from WGm. *i, *e, *ä (e.g., WGm. *himil-‐‑, *geƀan-‐‑, *skapin-‐‑ > MDu. hēmel, gēven, schēpen), a new /o:/ from *u, *o (e.g. WGm. *þuruh-‐‑, *loƀan-‐‑ > MDu. dōre, lōven), and a new phoneme /ø:/ from *y. The new /a:/ from *a in open syllable merged with the product of *ǣ in most of western Dutch except North Holland but not in many eastern dialects.
Chapter 1
32
(11) Shortening of long vowels and diphthongs before consonant clusters: (1) Before cht: MDu. brachte ‘brought’ (OS brāhta), MDu. dachte ‘thought’ (OS thāhta), MDu. sochte ‘sought’ (OS sōhta), MDu. verkochte ‘sold’ (*kōfta), ODu. lioht > *līht > MDu. licht ‘light’, MDu. zachte ‘soft’ (OS sāfto), MoDu. ochtend ‘morning’ (OS ūhta); (2) Before nT: MDu. twintich ‘twenty’ (OS twēntig), ODu. friund > MDu. vrint, vrunt (but MoDu. vriend), ODu. stuont > MDu. stont, MoDu. stond ‘stood’, ODu. gieng > MDu. ginc > MoDu. ging ‘went’; (3) Before geminates: ODu. feitit > MDu. vet ‘fat’ (WGm. *faitida-‐‑), ODu. Bruocsella ‘Brussels’ (< *brōk-‐‑sali-‐‑) > Early MDu. brussele beside bruesele, brusele. (12) Degemination. It is difficult to decide on the basis of graphic evidence when degemination first started in Dutch, but a rough date in the thirteenth century seems plausible. Through degemination of /g:/, the phoneme /g/ was reintroduced into the language (e.g. in Early MDu. secghen ‘to say’), though this, too, soon changed into /γ/ in western dialects. (13) The loss of intervocalic d, g, v. Loss of d is generally dated to the late thirteenth and fourteenth century (van Loon 2014: 245–46), and seems to have spread from west to east. Van Loey 1976: 113 assumes d-‐‑syncope in Flanders from the twelfth century, in Brabant, from the thirteenth, and in Limburg, from the fourteenth: zilinghe beside sidelinghe (West Flanders, late thirteenth century) ‘small stream, dike’, alsoengher for also-‐‑denigher ‘suchlike’ (Maaseik, Limburg, 1343). Syncope of intervocalic v can sporadically be found in Middle Dutch, e.g. in heet ‘has’ (< hevet), hoot ‘head’ (MoDu. hoofd) < hovet, two forms which survive as such in dialects, and in toponyms, such as Haastrecht (< Havekes-‐‑dreht, South Holland), ter zen ‘by the testimony of seven (witnesses)’ (from *zeven ‘seven’; North Holland, 16th c.), Urmond (< *Euver-‐‑mont ‘Over-‐‑mount’, Limburg). In Standard Dutch, v-‐‑syncope has been canonised in proost ‘dean’ < MDu. provest < Old French provost ‘inspector’, heus ‘real’ < heuvesch ‘courteous’, oozie ‘overhanging part of a sloping roof, eaves’ < MDu. *ovese (OHG obasa, Goth. ubizwa). Examples of intervocalic g-‐‑loss are MDu. lede ‘lay’ < legede, geseet ‘said’ < geseget, swijt ‘is silent’ < swiget. Words which survive in Modern Dutch are altoos ‘always’ from *al-‐‑toges (altos already in 1200, Limburg), and verdedigen ‘to defend’ from Early MDu. ver-‐‑dege-‐‑dingen ‘to claim in court’. Loss has proceeded much further with d than with v and g, possibly for structural reasons (van Loon 2014: 248): after open syllable lengthening, short vowels plus geminate obstruent correlated regularly with long vowels plus single obstruents. But whereas ff /v , ch / g and ss / z formed fixed pairs of
Introduction
33
geminate versus single fricatives, single d (or its predecessor ð) was lacking a geminate counterpart, since geminate *þþ had become ODu. ss around 1100.
Consonants:
labial dental velar glottal
p b t d k g
f v s z x ɤ h
w j
m n
r
l
Vowels:
short long diphthongs
high i ü u ī y ū
mid e ö o ē ö ō ɛ œ ɔ
iǝ üǝ uǝ
low æ a ä ā ei öü ou
Table: The Early Middle Dutch system (southeastern dialects)
Chapter 1
34
Sources 1. Old Dutch a. The malberg glosses in the Lex Salica and the Pactus Legis Salicae. This is the oldest material which can with some right be regarded as reflecting non-‐‑Frisian dialects from the Low Countries. A very rough date for their speech is the sixth century, though they are generally transmitted in manuscripts from the later eighth century AD. In the Latin text of this legislation of the Salic Franks, the juridical terms describing the crime or offense are often given in their vernacular form, or rather, in a very deformed version of the original vernacular word. The manuscripts were copied in the Carolingian period by scribes who spoke a Romance dialect. For most of the glosses, it is very hard to tell what the original Frankish term must have been. Examples: mss. maltho thi atomeo lito ≈ /maltho: thī ātōmio, lēt/ ‘I say: I set you free, half-‐‑free one’ PGm. *maþlōn ‘to speak in court’, *þik ‘you’, *uz-‐‑taumjan-‐‑ ‘to set free’, *læ ta-‐‑ ‘set free’ mss. focichalta, foci fale ≈ *fokki-‐‑galt(j)a ‘breeding sow’ PGm. *fukkōn-‐‑ / -‐‑jan-‐‑ ‘to breed, fuck’, *galtjōn-‐‑ ‘sow’ mss. chreodiba, creu beba, ceo bebat ≈ *xreo-‐‑deva ‘corpse-‐‑cremation’ PGm. *xraiwa-‐‑ ‘corpse’ (OHG hrēo); deba ‘arson’ is only attested in the malberg glosses. b. There is a small number of short formulae and sentences from various centuries, to wit: the Westphalian horse and worm spell (891-‐‑900), Utrecht baptismal oath (791-‐‑800; Forsachistu diobolae etc.), Nederberg baptismal oath (811-‐‑812; Pompas autem nos dicimus siniu gelp ando sinan uuilleon), Northern Lower Rhine blood spell (1001-‐‑1050; Crist uuarth giuund tho uuarth he hel gi ok gisund That bluod for stuond. so duo thu bluod), a sentence from Munsterbilzen (1130; Tesi samanunga vvas edele. Unde scona). The Rochester Probatio pennae (1083-‐‑1110): Hebban olla uogala nestas [h]agunnan All birds have started nests hinase hi[c] [e]nda thu except for me and you; u[uat] [u]mbida[n] [uu]e nu What are we waiting for?
c. The Wachtendonck Psalter and its glosses (901–1000). A translation of the Latin Vulgate, it seems to first have been written in a Middle Franconian dialect, later
Introduction
35
reworked into Low Franconian. No medieval manuscripts with the texts survive, all we have is in copies and letters from the modern era. Example (Psalm 55.6): Allin dag uuort mina faruuieton angegin mi, alla gethahti iro an uuele. Tota die verba mea exsecrabantur adversum me, omnia consilia eorum in malum. ‘All day long they distort my words, all their thoughts are against me for evil.’ d. The Leiden Willeram (1100). An Old Dutch translation-‐‑plus-‐‑reworking of the High German translation-‐‑plus-‐‑commentary by abbot Willeram of Ebersberg on the Song of Songs. The Dutch remake was probably done in the monastery of Egmond in North Holland. The texts shows a mixture of High German features which were retained from the original, and Old Dutch features which the Egmond translator must have brought in. The dialect is now thought to be that of North Holland, as evidenced by some features which may be explained as Frisianisms. e. The Middle Franconian Rhyming Bible (1151–1200). It was probably written in Werden an der Ruhr in Westphalia, so that the term ‘Old Dutch’ is somewhat misleading. f. Vernacular glosses in Latin texts, such as the Reichenauer glosses (750), list of pagan practices (791-‐‑800), northeast Lower Rhine Prudentius glosses (951-‐‑1000), Orosius glosses from St.Omars (1001-‐‑1100), Hollands/Utrechts names of months and winds (1046-‐‑1100), Psalm glosses from Groningen (1151-‐‑1175), Letterswerve fish names (1159-‐‑1164). Examples from the names of months and winds (11th c.): Februarium. Hornungmanoth ‘bastard-‐‑month’ (or: ‘of throwing off the horns’?) Iunium. Brachmanoth ‘fallow month’ (Du. braak, OHG brāhha) Iulium. Haymanoth ‘hay-‐‑month’ (Du. hooi) Augustum. Aranmanoth ‘harvest-‐‑month’ (G. Ernte, E. earn) Nouembrem. Heruistmanoth ‘autumn-‐‑month’ (Du. herfst, E. harvest) Decembrem. Heilmanoth ‘heal-‐‑month’ g. Place-‐‑names. The hundreds of toponyms from documents until 1225 have been collected comprehensively in Gysseling 1960 (for the Benelux, northern France and western Germany; see http://www.wulfila.be/tw/), and those until 1200 in Künzel/Blok/Verhoeff 1989 (for The Netherlands). Examples: Leithon, Leythen (11th c.) > Leiden Bruocsella (966) > Brucselle (1117) > Brussella (1146) > Brussel Flithersala (864) > Flithersele (976) > Fliethersele (1003) > Vliderzele (1214) > Vlierzele
Chapter 1
36
UUalderinghem (late 10th c.) > Waldrichem (1178) > Woldrekem (1224) > Woudrikem (ca. 1280) > Woerkum (Early MoDu.) = MoDu. Woudrichem h. Personal names. Many personal names are attested in compound place-‐‑names of the type Babanpol ‘Babe’s pool’, Alerdeskirka ‘Alard’s church’, etc. ONW only includes simplex names when they are surnames which (also) occur as appellative nouns, as in Wouterus Alf ‘Walter Alf’, Riquardus blauot ‘Richard bluefoot’, etc. All further personal names in the documents from the abbeys of Ghent are studied in Mansion 1924 (for the period until 1000) and Tavernier-‐‑Vereecken 1968 (1000-‐‑1253). A complete corpus of ODu. personal names is in the making (www.antroponymischwoordenboek.be). 2. Middle Dutch Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek (VMNW), based on the corpus collected between 1960 and 1980 by Maurits Gysseling, contains the entire thirteenth-‐‑century material. The evidence consists of charters (from Ghent from 1236 on, elsewhere mostly after 1260), literary texts and glossaries. Most data from Flanders, Brabant and Holland, less from Limburg and Lower Rhine, none from the North-‐‑East. Late Middle Dutch (1300-‐‑1500) is less well collected in corpora. Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek is outdated when it comes to citing literary forms, but still represents the only general survey. 3. Modern Dutch For some purposes, a distinction can be made between Early Modern Dutch (1500-‐‑1700) and Modern Dutch in general (1500–present). Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (finished end of 20th century) usually gives a good survey of literary (16th and 17th century) and standardized (from the 18th century) Dutch. The lexical source which is most often cited, as it has the largest amount of regional variation and detailed vocabulary, is Kiliaan (1599). 4. Dialects of Modern Dutch Dutch dialects have been relatively well described since around 1870, especially as regards their phonology, morphology and lexicon. For phonology and lexicon, a number of dialect surveys can be consulted: the Willems Enquiry (1880s) which is available online (http://corpora.ctb.kantl.be/CPWNL/CPWNL.xq), the Enquiry Schrijnen-‐‑van Ginneken-‐‑Verbeeten (for southern Dutch), also online, then the RND, which is not yet fully online, and the Goeman/Taeldeman/van Reenen Project (1990s), which has resulted in the atlases FAND (phonology), MAND (morphology), and SAND (syntax). Other dialect atlases, which concentrate on phonology and lexicon, are TNZN, ANKO and Goossens 1988–1994.
Introduction
37
Also important are the regional dictionaries for Zealand (WZD), Flanders (WVD), Brabant (WBD), Limburg (WLD), eastern Gelderland, Twente, Drenthe, and Groningen. Plans are under way to create a website giving access to as many local dialect dictionaries as possible (www.woordenbank.be). 5. Onomastics For Middle Dutch and Modern Dutch: a. Personal names. For non-‐‑literary first names, there is no single collection (it would be huge!). Very basic to our understanding on the development of name-‐‑giving in the course of the centuries, into the Early Modern Dutch period, and for the regional distribution of different types of names, is van Loon 1981. A summary appeared in van Loon 1996. See furthermore Kunze 2004, Goossens 1978, 2011, and www.marynissen.org. The modern stock of surnames is well-‐‑described using telephone books and bevolkingsregisters. The Repertorium van Nederlandse Familienamen gives detailed surveys, but is not easily accessible. Debrabandere 2003 has an etymologized collection of the Dutch surnames occurring in Belgium. There are two websites on which one can map the occurrence of a given surname in The Netherlands (situation of 2007, www.meertens.knaw.nl) and in Belgium (www.familienaam.be). b. Toponyms. Macrotoponyms such as place-‐‑names and larger geographic entities (regions, larger woods, etc.) are comprehensively included in the ONW for Old Dutch (see above) and in the VMNW for Early Middle Dutch. Evidence from later periods can be found in van Berkel/Samplonius 2006 for The Netherlands, and in Debrabandere et al. 2010 for the northern half of Belgium. Gildemacher 2007 has the main place-‐‑names of Friesland. Terminology Coastal Dutch The language of the modern-‐‑day provinces of French Flanders, West
Flanders, East Flanders, Zealand, South Holland and North Holland, and adjacent parts of western Antwerp, North Brabant, and Utrecht, inasmuch as they share (some of) the defining characteristics of their western neighbours.
Dutch The language and dialects defined as Old, Middle and Modern Dutch,
either conjointly or a subset thereof. Flanders Unlike modern administrative usage, I use Flanders not to refer to ‘all
Dutch-‐‑speaking provinces of Belgium’, but only to ‘historical Flanders’, that is, the provinces of West and East Flanders in Belgium
Chapter 1
38
plus the French Flanders region in France. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for the adjective Flemish.
Franconian In name, this refers to the variety of West Germanic which was
supposedly spoken by the tribe of the Franks. In practice, the term is applied to medieval and modern dialects in the northwestern part of the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum, as far as they do not continue an Anglo-‐‑Frisian or Proto-‐‑Frisian stage. Traditionally, Franconian is opposed to Saxon, which refers to the northern part of the dialect continuum (reflected in northeastern Dutch and Low German). The linguistic distinction between Saxon and Franconian is not a meaningful one for the early period (before the 7th or 8th century, see Goossen 2008), but it is unproblematic for our purposes.
Holland The historical region of that name, which emerges in historical sources
after 1100. It does not refer to The Netherlands as a whole. Hollandish The dialect(s) spoken in Holland after the shift of Proto-‐‑Frisian or
Ingvaeonic to Franconian, which is datable roughly to the eleventh century in South Holland, and to the thirteenth century and beyond in North Holland.
Hollandization The spread of the Hollandish variety to regions where it was not
originally spoken. Such was the case in North Holland after 1200 (where Hollandish replaced Frisian), and in several towns in Friesland after 1500 (van Bree/Versloot 2008).
Low Countries The area corresponding with the modern state of The Netherlands, the
northern half of Belgium, French Flanders and the Lower Rhine area in Germany. Geomorphologically, this corresponds to the western fringe of the North German Plain. Hydrographically, it encompasses the southeastern shores of the North Sea, and to the lower basin of the rivers Scheldt, Maas, Rhine, Ems, and some smaller independent streams.
Ingvaeonic Traditionally, the term Ingvaeonic is used to refer: (1) historically, to a
period in the development of the West Germanic languages, viz. for the varieties which come out as Frisian, Anglo-‐‑Saxon and Old Saxon; (2) synchronically, at various stages in the linguistic history, for a collection of languages and dialects close to the North Sea shores, in Britain, the Low Countries, Low Germany and Denmark.
Introduction
39
Inland Dutch The language of the modern-‐‑day provinces of Vlaams Brabant, Antwerp, North Brabant (excluding the westernmost parts which share coastal Dutch features), Belgian and Dutch Limburg, Guelre, eastern Utrecht, Overijssel and Drenthe. Also included is the Lower Rhine area around Cleves, Geldern and Xanten, up to Krefeld, which now lies in Germany.
Lower Rhine The geographic area which in modern Germany is referred to as
Niederrhein, encompassing the districts Cleves, Wesel, Viersen, Neuss, Heinsberg, and the cities of Krefeld, Duisburg, and Mönchengladbach.
Middle Dutch The Germanic dialects spoken and written between 1200 and 1500 AD
in the Low Countries, to the exception of Frisian. Modern Dutch The variety which functions as a standard language in The
Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium (Goossens 2000a: 200). The vernacular dialects which are roofed by this standard are therefore the Modern Dutch dialects. There is a natural external linguistic border with French, and an internal one with Frisian, as spoken in most parts of the province of Friesland. The Dutch-‐‑German state border is no strict linguistic border as far as the dialects are concerned, but is used as an eastern limit of Dutch for practical purposes.
Old Dutch Strictly speaking, this concerns the Germanic dialects spoken and
written between, approximately, 500 and 1200 AD within the Low Countries as defined above. In citing linguistic forms, I mainly use the collection of Old Dutch texts as acknowledged by the ONW. This collection includes texts written further east than the present-‐‑day Dutch border, and which could also be argued to count as Old Low or High German. The main distinction between Old and Middle Dutch is the reduction of unstressed vowels to shwa in the latter variety; this reduction took effect in the second half of the twelfth century. Secondary sources on Old Dutch are, among others, Blok 2003, Bremmer/Quak 1992, De Grauwe 2003, Hofstra 2003, van der Horst 2009, Klein 2003, Pijnenburg 2003, Quak 2006, Quak/van der Horst 2002, Schoonheim 2007a, 2007b, Tiefenbach 2003, Vonk 2005, A first study of the historical phonology was undertaken by Gysseling (1961, 1964), but it was based only on names.
Old Frisian The oldest attested stages of Frisian, until ca. 1600 AD. Proto-‐‑Frisian The last reconstructible stage to which the various Frisian varieties (as
represented in West Frisian, East Frisian, North Frisian dialects) must
Chapter 1
40
go back. This would have to be ultimately in the eighth century. But Proto-‐‑Frisian can also be used to refer to unattested dialects of Frisian which predate the attestation of Old Frisian in the thirteenth century (an alternative term would be Common Frisian, in analogy with Common Germanic as per Van Coetsem).
Rhine delta The area along and between the Rhine, its affluents and its branches
(Waal, Lek and IJssel) west of the modern Dutch-‐‑German state border. Ripuarian A collective name for the modern dialects spoken in Germany between
the Benrather Linie in the north (the isogloss p/t/k > f/ts/ch) and the dorp/dorf isogloss in the south. Linguistically, Ripuarian is a Middle Franconian dialect situated between Low Franconian in the north and Moselle Franconian in the south. Geographically, Ripuarian encompasses the area west of the Rhine between the Lower Rhine area and the Eifel, including the cities of Aachen, Cologne and Bonn. East of the Rhine, a large part of the Land of Berg belongs to Ripuaria.
Westfriesland, Westfrisian The northern part of North Holland, east of Alkmaar, which is
traditionally referred to as West-‐‑Friesland in Dutch usage, and its language. In order to distinguish it from the western part of modern-‐‑day Friesland (Fryslân), I will refer to the latter as West Fryslân. The standardized Frisian language of modern Fryslân will be called Modern West Frisian. If a reference to the western part of medieval Frisia in general is meant (be it only in modern Fryslân or also in what is now Westfriesland), I will use Westerlauwers Frisia(n).
West Germanic The last reconstructed stage of language from which English, Frisian,
Dutch, German and all their dialects inherited their common features. A guess (for it is only a guess) as to the time when the WGm. unity broke up is around 200 AD. The West-‐‑Germanic stage (roughly from 200 to 500 AD) is reconstructed by comparing Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and Old High German.
2. Vowel reduction, intonation a. Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables in ODu. Old High German still distinguished five short vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and their five long counterparts in unstressed syllables in the eighth century. By the eleventh century, they had in most dialects merged in e. The same dates, very roughly, may be assumed for Old Dutch. The Wachtendonck Psalter (around 1000) seems to show a preliminary merger of e, i and u, o. At the end of the ODu. period one can say that the reduced vowel has become /əә/, though it probably had different realizations depending on the dialect and the phonetic surrounding (see below). Syllables with secondary stress, however – usually suffixes which occured in the ODu. third or fourth syllable of words, or suffixes deriving from the second member of original compounds – show retention of their original vowel in MDu., and, in some cases, until the present day. For example, Modern Dutch generally retains the full vowel of the suffixes –dom (rijkdom ‘wealth’, heidendom ‘paganism’), -‐‑heid ‘-‐‑hood’ (waarheid ‘truth’, gezelligheid ‘cosiness’), -‐‑schap ‘-‐‑ship’ (verwantschap ‘kinship’, graafschap ‘county’), -‐‑zaam ‘-‐‑some’ (waakzaam ‘alert’, eerzaam ‘honorable’), -‐‑baar ‘-‐‑able’ (maakbaar ‘makable’, openbaar ‘public’), -‐‑ing ‘-‐‑ing’ (rekening ‘account’, opening ‘opening’), -‐‑nis (droefenis ‘sadness’, kennis ‘knowledge’). An intermediate schwa protects unstressed /a/ in -‐‑enaar ‘-‐‑er’ (molenaar ‘miller’, geweldenaar ‘superman’), -‐‑eraar ‘-‐‑er’, -‐‑elaar ‘-‐‑er’.
The suffixes -‐‑ig ‘-‐‑y’ and -‐‑lijk ‘-‐‑ly’ retain the full vowel in spelling but are usually pronounced as -‐‑[əәχ] and -‐‑[ləәk] in colloquial pronunciation. We do find spellings such as -‐‑ech, -‐‑lek from Early MDu. onwards, which suggest that /əә/ was present. It seems likely that rhythmic factors influenced the earliest distribution. Reduction to schwa may first have occurred in posttonic position (e.g. jaerlek ‘yearly’), whereas postposttonic position (e.g. in redelik ‘rational’) could have preserved /i(:)/ for a longer period. Whether this was so, is uncertain.
Only in some pronouns was the suffix -‐‑lijk /-‐‑ləәk/ reduced and not restored in the language: MoDu. welk ‘which’ (ODu. welik, Early MDu. rarely welek, usually welk < WGm. *xwa/i-‐‑līka-‐‑), zulk ‘such’ (ODu. sulik, Early MDu. swilc, selc, sulc < *swē-‐‑līka-‐‑), mekaar ‘each other’ < Early MoDu. malkaar < MDu. malc ander < mallic ander to Early MDu. manlic, mallic, mallec ’each’ < *man-‐‑līka-‐‑. Probably also in elk ‘each’, MDu. also ellic (MLG elk, ellik; OE ælk) if from *aina-‐‑līka-‐‑, though the stage *-‐‑nl-‐‑ is not attested in any document. b. Syncope of medial vowels Syncope of a word-‐‑internal short vowel takes off somewhere during the twelfth century. Speed and conditions of this syncope seem to have differed per dialect, and, furthermore, intra-‐‑ and extraparadigmatic analogy played a major role in stimulating syncope or, conversely, restoring the elided vowel. In disyllabic words of the structure CVCeC (with V = any stressed vowel and C including consonant clusters), e can be syncopated especially if the syllable -‐‑eC was not a recognizable morpheme. Thus ODu. mānoth ‘month’ > māneth > Early MDu. maent, dat.pl. maenden, MoDu. maand; ODu. thienest > MDu. dienst ‘service’; ODu. *twālif > Early MDu. twelef, twelve > MoDu.
Chapter 2
42
twaalf ‘twelve’; ODu. hovid > Early MDu. hovet, hoeft > MoDu. hoofd; ODu. nachot > Early MDu. naket > naect > MoDu. naakt ‘naked’; ODu. *sagit > Early MDu. seghet ‘says’ but seidi ‘says he’ < *seget-‐‑hī; MDu. paves > paus = MoDu. paus ‘pope’.
The alternation found in some of these words (seghet but seidi, naket nom.acc. but naecte pl.) already suggests that, in fact, we are really dealing with syncope in trisyllabic forms: *nākede > nākte, segedi > *segdi > seidi. In some paradigms, the loss of the second syllable was generalized to the disyllabic members of the paradigm. In other words: there would have been no regular syncope of māneth to maent, and so on, but analogical leveling of Early MDu. nominative *māned versus dative *mānde to Late MDu. maand, maande. This is confirmed by the existence of words which retain posttonic schwa both in the disyllabic forms and in trisyllabic ones: ODu. havek > MDu. havek ‘hawk’, gen. haveks, acc.pl. haveke. Here, then, the medial syllable of haveke must be due to analogical restoration. In trisyllabic words of the structure CVCeCV(C) , that is, before a secondarily stressed suffix such as -‐‑kijn (diminutives), -‐‑dom, etc., syncope of schwa probably applied regularly, though of course the stem could be restored in most occasions. In Late ODu. words of the structure CVCeCe(C), either the second or the third syllable could be syncopated. Most likely, syncope of the first schwa was the phonetic norm, whereas retention of the first schwa and syncope of the second one was due to analogical restoration of the first schwa if it belonged to the stem. The latter, for instance, can be seen in the form havex /haveks/ above, where gen.sg. –es became –s because the first schwa was restored on the model of the nom.acc.sg. Regular syncope can be observed among others in
• isolated nouns such as ODu. bilithe ‘image’ > bilethe > Early MDu. beelde (Fle.), belde (Brab.), bilde (Lim.) > MoDu. beeld;
• comparatives in -‐‑ere and superlatives in -‐‑est: scoonre ‘more beautiful’, coenste ‘most valiant’ (MoDu. –er and –st);
• feminine abstract nouns in *-‐‑iþō > MDu. -‐‑ede > -‐‑de / -‐‑te: MDu. lievede > MoDu. liefde, MDu. scamede > scaemte = MoDu. schaamte ‘shame’;
• adjectives in -‐‑isch > -‐‑sch > MoDu. -‐‑s: MDu. juedesche > Joodsche > Joodse ‘Jewish’; • the weak preterite: Early MDu. makede > maecte, MoDu. maakte ‘made’; • words ending in Early MDu. -‐‑eRe(C): lettere > lettre ‘letter’ (next to apocopated letter
as in StDu., see below), segele(n) > segle(n), in oblique cases of segel ‘seal’, MoDu. zegel (syncope particularly in western Early MDu.); brodre gen.pl. of broeder ‘brother’; etc.
c. Syncope of pretonic schwa in MDu. Pretonic schwa arose from unstressed ODu. prefixes (bī-‐‑ > bi-‐‑ > bəә-‐‑, ga-‐‑ > gəә-‐‑, etc.), from demonstratives which became articles (die > dəә, dat > əәt), and in many French loanwords due to the final accentuation of French, which was retained in borrowings. In MDu., syncope of pretonic schwa was tolerated in writing more often than in MoDu., where the full form is usually restored (if possible). Preserved cases of procope in MoDu. are:
• binnen ‘inside’, boven ‘above’, buiten ‘outside’, Flemish bachten ‘behind’ from be-‐‑ + innen, oven, uiten, achten
• blijven ‘to remain’ (OS bilīban) • grif ‘promptly’ (since 17th c.) < MDu. gerijf, gerief ‘comfort’, cf. E. rife ‘abundant’ • gunnen ‘to grant’ < *ga-‐‑onnan
Vowel reduction
43
• jegen < tgegen < tegégen (see above) • nijver ‘diligent’ < *in ijver ‘with diligence’ • neven ‘beside’ (OS an eban) • onguur ‘sinister, nasty’ < *on-‐‑ge-‐‑hure (G. ungeheuer)
Other examples from Middle Dutch are boef < behoef ‘need’, bouden < behouden ‘to keep’. Procope is regularly found in combinations of article plus noun: dboek ‘the book’, tsuis ‘of the house’ (*des huises), etc. Middle Dutch ors ‘horse’ derives via the combination ‘t ors ‘the horse’ with regular r-‐‑metathesis before dentals from *’t ros (OS hros).
In French loanwords, there was less opportunity to restore the vowel, hence kroon ‘crown’ < couronne, kleur ‘colour’ < couleur, krant ‘newspaper’ < courant, klant ‘customer’ < Picardian *caland, Klaas < (Ni)Cholas, prei ‘leek’ < porrée, floers ‘velvet’ < velous, etc.
Procope of schwa also led to the rise of an initial combination ts-‐‑, which was usually simplified to voiceless s-‐‑ (which was not voice anymore before vowels):
-‐‑ Early MDu. tesamen ‘together’ > tsamen > MoDu. samen; Late MDu. tsedert > MoDu. sedert ‘since’. -‐‑ MDu. (t)sestich ‘60’, (t)seventich ‘70’ > MoDu. zestig, zeventig which are pronounced with
[s-‐‑]. Initial t-‐‑ in tseventich as well as in (t)achtich, MoDu. tachtig ‘80’, Early MDu. tneghentich ‘90’, MoDu. negentig, is what remains of the unaccented prefix found in OS ant-‐‑ (e.g. ant-‐‑ahtoda ‘80’), PGm. *hund ‘decad’. Initial ts-‐‑ of ‘60’ was introduced by analogy with tseventich.
-‐‑ The combination of the genitive article des plus a following word often yielded MDu. ts-‐‑, as in tsiaers ‘of the year’ (also simplified to tsaers), tsdinxendaech ‘of Tuesday’ > ‘on Tuesdays’. Clusters of three consonants were often reduced to two, e.g. tsd-‐‑ > sd-‐‑, and des manendaghes > smaendaghes, MoDu. ’s maandags. Note the voiceless [s]-‐‑ in MoDu. ‘s zaterdags ‘on Saturdays’, ‘s zondags ‘on Sundays’, ‘s woensdags ‘on Wednesdays’.2 d. Apocope of final schwa in MDu. di-‐‑ and trisyllables (this section is a translated summary of Marynissen 2004, with small additions of mine) One of the most striking differences between MDu. and MoDu. is the apocope of word-‐‑final schwa. It is found in various word categories:
- nouns: MDu. lettere > MoDu. letter ‘letter’, MDu. soene > zoen ‘reconciliation, kiss’ - verbs: MDu. ic neme > MoDu. ik neem ‘I take’, MDu. ic brachte > MoDu. ik bracht ‘I brought’, MDu. te doene > MoDu. te doen ‘to do, to be done’
-‐‑ prepositions: MDu. ane > MoDu. aan ‘on, at’ -‐‑ adverbs: MDu. lange > MoDu. lang ‘long‘ -‐‑ adjectives: MDu. simpele > simpel: die simpel man (attributive use) ‘the simple man’, MDu. selsiene > selsien ‘rare’: daer hi selsien wesen can (predicative use) ‘where he can be rare’ -‐‑ articles: MDu. ene > MoDu. een, -‐‑ numerals: MDu. achte > MoDu. acht ‘eight’.
All of this gives the impression of a blind sound law, but there are some categories in which final schwa was not deleted in MoDu.:
- in petrified expressions: met name ‘namely’, in koelen bloede ‘in cold blood’, zegge en schrijve
2 There is no initial s-‐‑ in dinsdags ‘on Tuesdays’, donderdags ‘on Thursdays’, vrijdags ‘on Fridays’.
Chapter 2
44
- in the inflexion of the adjective: het witte huis ‘the white house’, een grote man ‘a big man’ (compare, with semantic differentiation: een groot man ‘a great man’)
- in the inflexion of ordinal numbers: een tweede huis ‘a second huis’, een eerste kind ‘a first child’
- in substantivized adjectives: de blinde ‘the blind (man/woman)’, de dove ‘the deaf (man/woman)’. If the adjective became a weakly inflected noun, -‐‑e could be apocopated: een dwaas ‘a fool’, gek ‘idiot’, vrek ‘miser’, zot ‘fool’ (MDu. een sot / een sotte). Compare surnames such as De Bruine / De Bruin ‘Brown’, De Groot / Groote ‘Great’
- in the weak preterite: hij kookte ‘he cooked’, hij wandelde ‘he walked’ (kept separate from the present forms kookt, wandelt)
- in the nominal suffixes -‐‑de, -‐‑te of abstract nouns: vreugde ‘joy’, kunde ‘ability’, liefde ‘love’, hitte ‘heat’, dikte ‘thickness’, gedachte ‘thought’
- in gendered female nouns in -‐‑e: agente ‘female officer’, studente ‘female student’, echtgenote ‘wife’, erfgename ‘heiress’
- in quite a large number of other nouns, such as linde ‘linden tree’, orde ‘order’, dille ‘dill’, aanname ‘assumption’, vete ‘feud’, hoeve ‘farmstead’, tarwe ‘wheat’, tante ‘aunt’, etc. In many of these cases there is variation between words with and without -‐‑e, sometimes with semantic or sociolinguistic specialization: aanvrage – aanvraag ‘application’, proeve-‐‑ proef ‘test’, keuze -‐‑ keus ‘choice’, leuze – leus ‘slogan’, snede -‐‑ snee ‘cut’. Some have argued that apocope was especially rare after d (lade ‘drawer’, vrede ‘peace’, kudde ‘herd’) but that is certainly wrong: d-‐‑syncope preceded e-‐‑apocope in many dialects, as 17th-‐‑century forms such as la, vree show. Hence, wherever -‐‑e is retained, it must have been retained in high (written) register speech, or have been restored from, for instance, the plural in -‐‑en or -‐‑es. Also, some nouns in –e were borrowed from German (e.g. aanname) or French after e-‐‑apocope run its course, and others kept –e in compounds, from which it could be reintroduced into the simplex (e.g. lindeboom ‘linden tree’ > linde).
Apocope of schwa is attested in Middle Dutch after 1275. Its spread across language and space depended on the following factors: 1. geography: e-‐‑apocope went furthest in the thirteenth century in Utrecht, Holland and Limburg; Brabant and Flanders remained untouched by apocope in this period. 2. phonology: -‐‑e drops first in tri-‐‑ or polysyllabic nouns ending in /-‐‑əәRəә/: MDu. riddere > ridder ‘knight’, rechtere > rechter ‘judge’, lettere > letter ‘letter’, seghele > seghel ‘seal’, scepene > scepen ‘sheriff’. But: mólenáere ‘miller’, wóukeráere ‘usurer’, tóllenáere ‘publican’. 3. morphology: Final -‐‑e was deleted less often and less early when it had morphological value as a case ending (dative) than in the auslaut of the nominative-‐‑accusative. Feminine gender also halted schwa deletion: feminine lettere, with the same phonological structure as masculine riddere or rechtere, did not apocopate in the thirteenth century. 4. chronology: schwa-‐‑apocope starts in the final quarter of the thirteenth century. In Flemish and Brabantish, which did not apocopate in the earliest stage, we find on the contrary syncope of the middle syllable: riddre, lettre, segle. The dialects that did apocopate final schwa in trisyllables from the start (Holland, Utrecht, Limburg) have less instances of syncope of middle schwa.
Vowel reduction
45
The effect in both cases is to reduce a sequence of two schwa’s, separated by a resonant, to a single unstressed syllable. On a larger scale, the rhythmic structure of the language moves more towards an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables in the sentence. This tendency also explains why e-‐‑apocope remains absent in most feminine nouns in the thirteenth century. Most feminines already had the ‘ideal’ structure of stressed plus unstressed syllable, e.g. MDu. vrouwe ‘woman’, strate ‘street’, sake ‘case’. Final schwa thus became a marker of feminine nouns.
In the fourteenth century, e-‐‑apocope follows the same conditions. In polysyllabic masculines in -‐‑ere, -‐‑ene, the final vowel is deleted nearly completely from 1300 on in Holland, Utrecht, East North-‐‑Brabant and Limburg. In view of forms such as letter and kerk, which are still rare in the fourteenth century, one may regard Holland-‐‑Utrecht as the central region where apocope started. The apocope is also very much present in Kleve/Geldern, Achterhoek, Twente and along the IJssel river. Southern Brabant and Flanders remain outside the scope of e-‐‑apocope in the fourteenth century.
Morphological factors intervened in the process. Apocope was slower to conquer feminine nouns (MDu. lettere, kerke). Case was less decisive, as the dative singular also shares in e-‐‑apocope from the beginning. One might conclude that the disappearing dative ending accelerated the process of deflexion in the 14th century. The MoDu. suffixes -‐‑te and -‐‑de from -‐‑ede MDu. -‐‑ede (< PGm. *-‐‑iþō, cf. Go. hauh-‐‑iþa ‘hight’, diup-‐‑iþa ‘depth’) served to form abstracts from adjectives, e.g. hoghede ‘hight’ to hoogh ‘high’, lenghede ‘length’ to lang, lievede ‘love’ to lief ’dear’. MoDu. leng-‐‑te ‘length’ shows a trace of i-‐‑mutation. After MDu. syncope, the suffix –de became –te by assimilation following a voiceless obstruent, as in the case of diep ‘deep’ or schaars ‘rare’: diep-‐‑te, schaars-‐‑te.
By means of analogy, -‐‑te was also introduced in StDu. after voiced consonants, replacing original -‐‑de. Hence we find Early MoDu. lenghde, leeghde (17th century) but MoDu. leng-‐‑te ’length’, laag-‐‑te ‘lowness’. Possibly, the preference for -‐‑te was partly due to the existence of another suffix -‐‑te, viz. in collective nouns which at the same time have the prefix ge-‐‑: ge-‐‑berg-‐‑te ‘mountain range’, ge-‐‑been-‐‑te ‘bones, skeleton’, ge-‐‑beur-‐‑te ‘happening’ (> MoDu. beurt ‘turn’), ge-‐‑ruch-‐‑te ‘what is being called’ (> MoDu. gerucht ‘rumour’). Both formations, the collectives (e.g. gedachte ‘thought, what one thinks’) and the abstracts share a large degree of abstractness. This history means that most of the StDu. words having -‐‑de (e.g. weelde ‘wealth’, vreugde ‘joy’) preserve an old form. But not always: lief-‐‑de won out from expected lief-‐‑te, a form often found in MDu. A similar replacement happened in some deverbal abstracts which never had -‐‑ede but merely -‐‑de (from PGm. *-‐‑þi): MiDu. begeerde >> begeerte ‘lust’, MiDu. beroerde >> beroerte ‘bad state > fit’. (3.1) Early syncope of short vowels after a heavy syllable and after disyllabic first members in West Germanic compound nouns, as shown by names such as OHG Adalberth (*aϸala-‐‑berxta-‐‑), Eburnand (*ebura-‐‑nanϸa-‐‑), Mahthild (*maxti-‐‑hilϸi-‐‑), etc.; OHG kuonheit ‘bravery’ (*kōni-‐‑haiϸi-‐‑), miltherzi ‘merciful’ (*meldja-‐‑hertja-‐‑). If the first syllable was light, the second vowel was usually retained: OHG Kunigund (*kunja-‐‑), Sibigelt (*sibjō-‐‑), Fridurīh (*fridu-‐‑), Aragēr (*ara(n)-‐‑gair-‐‑); tagamuos ‘midday meal’ (*daga-‐‑mōsa-‐‑), heriberga (*harja-‐‑bergō-‐‑). There is
Chapter 2
46
variation in names with a heavy first member: Ruodigēr beside Ruodgēr, Karleman beside Karlman, etc. (Braune & Reiffenstein 2004: 65). (3.2) Syncope of internal vowels in simplexes regularly only affects the suffix vowel i of the weak preterite in Old High German after a heavy syllable: hōrta ‘heard’ (*haurida) but nerita ‘saved’ (*narida). Here it is possible that syncope took place on the model of verbs which lacked a suffix vowel all along, such as *sōxta ‘sought’ and *ϸāxta ‘thought’ (Ringe 2006: 252; pace van Loon 2014: 85). (3.3) In Early Middle Dutch, trisyllabic words of the structure CV1CeCV2(C), in which V2 is a full vowel, that is, before a secondarily stressed suffix such as -‐‑kijn (diminutives), in original compounds, such as in -‐‑dom, -‐‑schap, and in synchronic compounds of all kinds, syncope of schwa probably regularly applied. Of course, a polysyllabic stem could be restored on many occasions. For instance, beside ODu. haribergi (loc., ca. 1000), later hereberga (ca. 1100), Early Middle Dutch usually has herberghe ‘inn’, but hereberghe is also sporadically found. Similarly Early MDu. bodescap becomes boedscap ‘errand, message’. Note that the second syllable of here-‐‑ was apparently syncopated before open syllable lengthening took place, as we have no evidence for *heerberghe, whereas the reverse chronology holds for boodschap. In the latter case, one might invoke analogy with the simplex bode ‘messenger’ which acquired a lengthened vowel throughout. (3.4) In Late Old Dutch words of the structure CVCeCe(C), with e representing schwa, either the second or the third syllable could be syncopated. Most likely, syncope of the first schwa was the norm, whereas retention of the first schwa and syncope of the second one could result from analogical restoration of the first schwa if it belonged to the stem (van Loon 2014: 182–183). In the thirteenth century, syncope can be observed among others in:
• isolated nouns such as ODu. bilithe ‘image’ > bilethe > Early MDu. beelde (Fle.), belde (Brab.), bilde (Lim.) > MoDu. beeld;
• comparatives in -‐‑ere and superlatives in -‐‑est: scoonre ‘more beautiful’, coenste ‘most valiant’ (MoDu. -‐‑er and -‐‑st);
• feminine abstract nouns in *-‐‑iþō > MDu. -‐‑ede > -‐‑de / -‐‑te: MDu. lievede > MoDu. liefde, MDu. scamede > scaemte = MoDu. schaamte ‘shame’;
• adjectives in -‐‑isch > -‐‑sch > MoDu. -‐‑s: MDu. juedesche > Joodsche > Joods ‘Jewish’; • the weak preterite: Early MDu. makede > maecte, MoDu. maakte ‘made’; • words ending in Early MDu. -‐‑eRe(C): lettere > lettre ‘letter’ (next to apocopated letter as
in Standard Dutch), segele(n) > segle(n), in oblique cases of segel ‘seal’, MoDu. zegel (syncope particularly in western Early Middle Dutch); brodre gen.pl. of broeder ‘brother’; etc.
In disyllabic words of the structure CVCeC, unstressed e can be syncopated especially if the syllable -‐‑eC was not a recognizable morpheme. Thus ODu. mānoth ‘month’ > māneth > Early MDu. maent, dat.pl. maenden, MoDu. maand; ODu. thienest > MDu. dienst ‘service’; ODu. *twālif > Early MDu. twelef, twelve > MoDu. twaalf ‘twelve’; ODu. hovid > Early MDu. hovet, hoeft > MoDu. hoofd; ODu. nachot > Early MDu. naket > naect > MoDu. naakt ‘naked’; ODu. *sagit > Early MDu. seghet ‘says’ but seidi ‘says he’ < *seget-‐‑hī.
Yet the alternation found in some of these words (seghet but seidi, naket singular but naecte plural) shows that we are really dealing with syncope in trisyllabic forms: *nākede > nākte, segedi > *segdi > seidi. In some paradigms, the loss of the second syllable was generalized to
Vowel reduction
47
the disyllabic members of the paradigm. This is confirmed by the existence of words which retain posttonic schwa both in the disyllabic forms and in trisyllabic ones: ODu. havek > MDu. havek ‘hawk’, gen. haveks, acc.pl. haveke. The medial syllable of haveke must be due to analogical restoration. (3.5) Variation in the number of syllables and in the syllable boundaries led to differences in the application of word-‐‑internal syncope within paradigms, and hence to paradigmatic alternation (Marynissen 1995, van Loon 1996 passim). For instance, the word kegel ‘cone’ has a genitive kegeles which could undergo syncope to *kegles, which ultimately led to keiles. Both variants were lexified in Dutch as different words, kegel ‘cone’ and keilen ‘to fling’. Since word-‐‑final -‐‑e was subject to apocope around 1300, with the exact chronology differing per region, the order of apocope and syncope determined the outcome. For instance, a dative segele of segel ‘seal’ could be syncopated to segle (which apparently happened more often in western dialects, see Marynissen 1995: 100), it could be apocopated to seghel, or it could remain trisyllabic as seghele. e. The Franconian tone accents The dialects of southeastern Dutch and the western part of Middle German (including Aachen, Cologne, Coblenz and Trier) have two phonological tone accents. These can occur only on stressed syllables (though also on secondarily stressed member of compounds) and are distinguished by their tonal contours. In traditional scholarly literature, they have usually been called stoottoon (‘thrusting tone’) and sleeptoon (‘dragging tone’) in Dutch, or Stoßton and Schleifton in German. It would be more accurate to speak about a falling tone and a level or falling-‐‑rising tone, though the actual realization can be different from dialect to dialect. In order to abstract away from these differences, the terms tone accent 1 and tone accent 2 have in recent years become accepted in the scholarly discussion.
Map 3: The distribution of the Franconian tone accents. From: J.E. Schmidt, ‘Die sprachhistorische Genese der mittelfränkischen Tonakzente’, Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, 2002.
Chapter 2
48
The following table shows six intonational curves for both tone accents in the town of Roermond, in three different positions in the sentences: on a word with sentence focus and in non-‐‑final position in the sentence; in focus and sentence-‐‑finally; and without focus and sentence-‐‑finally. The table also distinguishes declarative from interrogative phrases. The uninterrupted black lines render tone accent 1, the interrupted lines, tone accent 2.
Some of the information that can be gained from the table is that TA1 drops much sooner in declarative sentences than TA2 does, and that their is no final rise for TA1, as there is for TA2. In interrogative sentences, too, – at least when in focus – the movement of TA1 is much more abrupt than that of TA2, but now the contour is sharply rising. In non-‐‑focus position, the contours of declarative and interrogative phrases are very similar to each other.
The three declarative sentences on which the table is based were (for tone accent 1): 1. Focus, nonfinal: Ich höb ’ne SJOON1 gevónje ‘I found a SHOE’. 2. Focus, final: Ich höb twee SJOON1 ‘I’ve got two SHOES’. 3. Nonfocus, final: Ich HÖB gein sjoon1 ‘I don’t HAVE any shoes’.
The three questions with tone accent 1 were: 1. Focus, nonfinal: Zitte dien BEIN1 aan dien veut1? ‘Are your LEGS attached to your feet?’ 2. Focus, final: Is d’r get gebeurd mit dien BEIN1? ‘Did something happen to your LEGS?’ 3. Nonfocus, final: Höbse dan ZJWARTE knien1? ‘So have you got BLACK rabbits?’
In Roermond, the phonological opposition betwene TA1 and TA2 can be found on the following stressed syllables:
1. Syllables with a long vowel or diphthong: i:, e:, ɪ:, a:, ɔ:, o:, u:, y:, ö:, œ:, ei, au, œy. 2. Syllables with a short vowel plus l, m, n or r: an, ɛr, öl, ɔm, ɪŋ, etc. In some other dialects, tone accents can also contrast on short vowels before obstruents; yet in Roermond, such sequences are all interpreted as ‘neutral’, and short. Here are some homonyms or near-‐‑homonyms in many Limburgian dialects, the distinction of which is mainly based on the tone accent:
Source: Carlos Gussenhoven, ‘The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in optimality theory’, in: Prosody: Theory and Experiment, Dordrecht 2000.
Vowel reduction
49
TA1 TA2 wies /wi:s1/ ‘tune’ wies /wi:s2/ ‘wise’ oug /aux1/ ‘eye’ ouch /aux2/ ‘also’ wins /wɪns1/ ‘gain’ wins /wɪns2/ ‘wish’ graaf /gra:f1/ ‘count’ graaf /gra:f2/ ‘grave’ sjtein /ʃtɛin1/ ‘stones’ sjtein /ʃtɛin2/ ‘stone’ erm /ɛrm1/ ‘arms’ erm /ɛrm2/ ‘arm’ teen /te:n1/ ‘toe’ (Roermond) teen /te:n2/ ‘ten’ Lies /li:s1/ ‘Lies’ lies /li:s2/ ‘frame’ hoed /hu:t1/ ‘hat’ (Maastricht) hoed /hu:t2/ ‘skin’ (Maastricht) hae drink1/drɪŋk/ ‘he pushes’ hae drink /drɪŋk2/ ‘he drinks’ In morphology, the tone accent opposition also plays an important role, for instance in the distinction between the following categories: 1. Singular and plural of a number of nouns: the sg. has TA2, the plural has TA1. Thus, in Roermond: waeg2 ‘road’ – waeg1 ‘roads’, sjtein2 ‘stone’ – sjtein1 ‘stones’, knien2 ‘rabbit’ – knien1 ‘rabbits’, daag2 ‘day’ – daag1 ‘days’. With words that have a recognizable plural ending, the relationship between the tone accents is often the opposite: the singular has TA1, the plural, TA2: sjaaf1 ‘plane’, haos1 ‘stocking’, doef1 ‘pigeon’, sjeer1 ‘scissors’, huls1 ‘pod’, as against their plurals sjaave2, haoze2, doeve2, sjeere2 and hulze2 with the suffix -‐‑/ǝ/ and TA2. 2. The different forms of a number of adjectives. They have TA1 in the masculine singular, the feminine singular and in the plural, but TA2 in the neuter singular and in the predicative form. Thus, in Roermond: ’ne broene1 man ‘a brown man’, ’n broen1 vrouw ‘a brown woman’, e broen2 kiendj ‘a brown child’; broen1 luuj ‘brown people’; dae man is broen2 ‘that man is brown’. Other adjectives showing this alternation are e.g. sjtief ‘stiff’, vol ‘full’, króm ‘crooked’, kaaj/kaat ‘cold’. 3. The comparative and superlative of a number of adjectives. The positive has TA2, the comparative and superlative, TA1. Examples are sjtief2 ‘stiff’ – sjtiever1 ‘stiffer’ – sjtiefst1 ‘stiffest’, vol2 – volder1 – volste1 ‘full -‐‑ fuller -‐‑ fullest’. 4. In verbal inflexion, the infinitive and the first and third person plural often have TA2, e.g. in Roermond sjoele2 ‘to take shelter’, but TA1 in the singular and 2nd person plural of the present (ich sjoel1, doe sjoels1, hae sjoelt1, geer sjoelt1), the imperative plural (sjoelt1!), the preterite (ich sjoelde1, etc.) and the past participle (gesjoeld1). There are a number of historical conditions under which a stressed syllable could acquire TA1. These rules are by and large the same for all dialects within the area termed “Regel A” on the map above, though in one particular case, the spread of TA1 is more restricted in Limburgian than in the German Rhineland. a. Words containing a WGm. mid or low long vowel (WGm. *æ , *ē, *ō) or a diphthong (*ai, *au) which was monophthongized to /e:/, /o:/ in Old High German, get an unconditioned TA1. Such words would have StDu. aa, ie, oe, ee or oo: thus, the dialectal
Chapter 2
50
correspondences of StDu. hoed ‘hat’, goed ‘good’, moe ‘tired’, brief ‘letter’, ziek ‘sick’, schaap ‘sheep’, kaas ‘cheese’, heel ‘whole’, groot ‘great’, horen ‘to hear’, etc. b. Other long vowels (WGm. *ī, *ū), diphthongs which remained OHG diphthongs, WGm. short vowels which underwent OSL, and short vowels before a resonant plus consonant (including geminate resonants), all receive conditioned tone accent 1. That is: in such sequences TA1 regularly arises in Limburgian if two conditions are met: (1) the words were di-‐‑ or polysyllabic in Middle Dutch, but an unstressed vowel was lost in the posttonic syllable during the (Late ODu. or) MDu. period, and (2) the consonant(s) between the stressed and unstressed syllable was/were voiced. Hence, we find TA1 in the dialectal counterparts of Dutch oog ‘eye’, muizen ‘mice’, delen ‘parts’, boog ‘bow’, vandaag ‘today’, dagen ‘days’, stoof ‘stove’, vore ‘furrow’, tong ‘tongue’, kan ‘jug’, stem ‘voice’, val ‘trap’, tang ‘pliers’. Compare the German words: Auge, Teile, Bogen, dem Tage, Tage, Stube, Furche, Zunge, Kanne, Stimme, Falle, Zange. Exercise Not only is the distribution of the TA dependent on the language history, but, conversely, the tone accents themselves sometimes have repercussions for the subsequent phonological changes. Thus, in a number of Limburgian dialects, vowels with TA1 underwent different changes than vowels which have TA2. Compare the following forms containing WGm. *ī and *ū, and give the condition for the different vowel reflexes in Maastricht
Dutch Maastricht dialect
bijl – bijltje ‘axe’ biel2 – bijlke1 bijten ‘to bite’ biete2 bruine (m.) – bruin (ne.) ‘brown’
broune1 – broen2
duif – duiven ‘pigeon’ douf1 – doeve2 duren ‘to last’ doore1 duur ‘duration’ doer2 huren ‘to hire’ heure1 konijn – konijnen ‘rabbit’ knien2 – knijns1 muis – muizen ‘mouse’ moes2 – muis1 prijs – prijzen ‘prize’ pries2 – prijze1 schuur ‘shed’ sjeur1 stijve (m.) – stijf (ne.) ‘stiff’ stijve1 – stief2 schuren ‘to scour’ sjoore1 vijl ‘file’ vijl1 vuur ‘fire’ vuur2
3. Consonants in Dutch 3.1 Velar consonants Phonetics and phonology of the standard language: phoneme pronunciation spelling k [k] k: kind ‘child’, roker ‘smoker’, ik ‘I’ kk: likken ‘to lick’ g [χ] g: goed ‘good’, vragen ‘to ask’, boog ‘bow’ gg: ruggen ‘backs’ ch [χ] ch: chaos ‘chaos’, lachen ‘to laugh’, toch ‘however’ h [h] h-‐‑: heeft ‘has’, haas ‘hare’ The main regional variation in /k/ concerns the fricative realization in the utmost southeast of the linguistic area of Dutch. Southeast of the Uerdinger Line (line 2 on the map), ik ‘I’ and ook ‘also’ are realized with final /x/. To the southeast of line 3 on the map, the suffix -‐‑lijk of adjectives corresponds in form with German -‐‑lich. In the Middle Dutch period, this line must originally have run parallel to the present Uerdinger Line. Line 1 on the map is the Benrather Line, the northern border of the main body of High German obstruent changes (postvocalic p > ff, t > ss, k > ch, initial t-‐‑ > ts-‐‑). This line leaves a few Dutch towns east of it (Vaals, Kerkrade).
Map 4: Isoglosses between Dutch and German
Chapter 3
52
3.2 Palatalization of velars West Germanic *k and *g have on the whole been preserved as velar obstruents in Dutch. Usually, we find a voiceless stop [k] for *k. WGm. *g can have different phonetic realizations in modern dialects: in the west, it is mostly voiceless and of a velar or uvular quality [x] or [χ], in the central south and the southeast it is mostly voiced palatal [ʝ], with voiceless [ɕ] in word-‐‑final position. In a variety of forms throughout the Dutch dialects – with a numerical preponderance in
the coastal dialects from Flanders to Groningen –, as well as in some categories of the standard language, WGm. *k and *g surface or seem to surface as a palatal glide j, a palatal stop [c] written tj, a sibilant s, or they have merged with other consonants into tj. Some scholars imply that most of the Dutch palatalizations of *k and *g are interconnected, and term them Ingvaeonic elements of Dutch. The Ingvaeonic question is one of the core issues in the early history of Dutch.
Toponymical evidence from the Old Dutch period and dialectal variation in Middle and Modern Dutch suggest that the coastal zone of the Low Countries originally spoke a dialect which was closer to Frisian than to the dialects of the interior. Some scholars have termed the non-‐‑Franconian characteristics of the coastal dialects collectively as “North Sea Germanic” or “Ingvaeonic” features. If the Dutch palatalizations of k and g are to be viewed as “Ingvaeonic elements” in a linguistically meaningful way, they must be understood as a possible result of the language contact between Proto-‐‑Frisian and Franconian. They would be due to the imposition of palatalized allophones from Proto-‐‑Frisian into Franconian, or to the borrowing of words with palatalized velars into Franconian. Some scholars have even suggested that the palatalized velars in Dutch are manifestations of a more encompassing West Germanic phenomenon of palatal allophones of WGm. k(k) and g(g) in the neighbourhood of front vowels or j. While in English and Frisian, the palatal phonemes were phonemicized (E. cheese, OFr. tsiis), in Dutch the unpalatalized phonemes would have mostly won the day with the exception of the occasional palatalized reflexes of k and g. A renewed investigation of this evidence shows none of this to be likely. Most if not all
Dutch palatalizations of velars belong to two categories of forms: 1. cluster simplification of dg, tg, k; 2. redistribution of the allophones of *g and *j before or after front vowels. Compare the following Old Frisian words and their PGm. ancestors containing k [k], g [g], gg [gː]. Describe the changes which you find in OFri. and their conditioning factors. Proto-‐‑Germanic Old Frisian Proto-‐‑Germanic Old Frisian
*kībō-‐‑ tsīve ‘fight’ /tsi:ve/ *kinnu-‐‑ tsin ‘chin’ /tsin/ *keuk-‐‑ tsiāk ‘jaw’ /tsja:k/ *kerla-‐‑ tserl ‘man’ /tsɛrl/ *geutan > *giāta iāta ‘pour’ /ja:ta/ *gelda-‐‑ ield ‘money’ /jɛld/ *gasta-‐‑ >*gæst iest ‘guest’ /jɛst/ *(hama-‐‑)marki hemmertse ‘green’ *bruki-‐‑ bretse ‘breach’ /brɛtse/ *spræki sprētse ‘speech’ *langi-‐‑ lendze ‘length’ /lɛndze/ *hugi-‐‑ hei ‘thought’ /hɛj/ *dīkjan dītsa ‘make a dike’ *mangjan mendza ‘mix’ *raikjan rētsa ‘reach’ /re:tsa/ *saggjan sedza ‘say’ /sɛdza/ *skankjan skenza ‘pour’ *segla-‐‑ > *segl seil ‘sail’ /sɛjl/ *wagna-‐‑ > *wægn wein ‘wagon’ /wɛjn/ *daga-‐‑ > *dæg dei ‘day’ /dɛj/ *wega-‐‑ wei ‘way’ /wɛj/
Consonants
53
3.2 .1 tg > tj and tk > tj In compound personal names: ODu., EMDu. -‐‑gardis > -‐‑iardis in Flanders (10th c.+): ODu. Aliarden ‘Adalgard’, Hildiardis ‘Hildegard’, Idisiardis ‘Idisgard’, Luiardis ‘Liutgard’, Wlfiardis ‘Wolfgard’, etc.; Early MDu. also Zealand + Holland: Eliaerden (Dordrecht), Saxiardis (Egmond). Also Roetjar (Bruges 1263) ‘Rutger’ < *hrōd-‐‑gēr. Variants for the female name *Leut-‐‑gardis in Flanders, 12th and 13th century: • Luiardis, Luiardis, gen. Lujarde. With g: Lutgardis, Lugardis. • Litiardis, Lieiardis, Letdiart, Liardis, Lijard, Lieiart, Liejardis, Lieart. With g: Lietgardis,
Ligardis. Palatalization -‐‑tg-‐‑/-‐‑dg-‐‑ > -‐‑ti-‐‑/-‐‑tj-‐‑ > -‐‑i-‐‑/-‐‑j-‐‑ (next to simplification in -‐‑tg-‐‑/-‐‑dg-‐‑ > -‐‑g-‐‑). The prepositions tegen ‘against’, jegens ‘towards’: PGm. *gagin ‘toward, against’ > ODu. gege/an, once (Leid.Will.) iegen. Early MDu.: te gegen, tgegen, tjegen, tsjegen, seghen; tegen; jeghen. jeghen is found in Holland and Zealand; tsj-‐‑, ch-‐‑, s-‐‑ is concentrated in southern areas. 14th c.: tgeghen next to tieghen in eastern dialects.
MoDu. tegen ‘against’ < tshegen, cf. Dutch tijns next to cijns ‘rent’ < French cens. MoDu. jegen(s) ‘toward’.
Two competing explanations for jegen: (1) gegen > jegen (dissimilation?), whence a compound te-‐‑jegen > ts(j)egen > tegen. But: tieghen and ts(j)egen are attested earlier than jegen. (2) Palatalization tg > tj. Hence te gégen > tgegen (loss of schwa) > tjegen (palat.) > tegen (cluster simplification), or > jegen (metanalysis of the preposition as te+jegen).
Chapter 3
54
The diminutive suffix *-‐‑ikīn > -‐‑ekijn > -‐‑eken > -‐‑(e)tje The diminutive suffix has a relatively large amount of allomorphs in Modern Dutch. The basic morpheme is often said to be –je -‐‑/jəә/, beside which we find -‐‑pje, -‐‑tje, -‐‑etje and -‐‑kje.3 In the dialects of Holland, the suffix -‐‑je has usually further evolved to -‐‑ie /-‐‑i/ or -‐‑chie /-‐‑xi/.
In central and eastern dialects, we find different systems. There, the suffix -‐‑ke(n) plays a major role. A typical distribution in North Brabant, for instance, is the following:
-‐‑je after words in -‐‑t, -‐‑d -‐‑tje after words in -‐‑n, sometimes also after -‐‑l -‐‑ske after words in k, g, ng, ch -‐‑(e)ke in the remaining cases
See the following map:
Map 5: Diminutive suffixes in Dutch. From: J. Goossens, Dialectgeografische grondslagen van een Nederlandse taalgeschiedenis. 2008, p. 166.
The map also shows some peripheral dialects where -‐‑ke is the sole variant. And this was still the case in all of Dutch in the thirteenth century: only -‐‑(e)kin > -‐‑(e)ken existed (see lecture 10 for other suffixes). The present situation is due to palatalization of k via a palatal affricate or fricative to j. This change probably first happened when the stem ended in t or d, e.g. poortken ‘little gate’ > poortje. Thus, the situation as exemplified by the North Brabant distribution is closer to the original distribution than what we find in the standard language. 3 See Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (http://www.let.ru.nl/ans/e-‐‑ans/12/03/01/04/02/01/body.html) for the distributional rules.
Consonants
55
Indeed, the palatalization seems to have happened at different moments in Late MDu. and Early MoDu. dialects. Historical data: Holl. -‐‑tgin, -‐‑tgen, -‐‑gen, -‐‑tiaen from 14th c.: keteltgin ‘little kettle’, stiertgin ‘little bull’ (StDu. stier), vennetiaen ‘small lake’ (StDu. ven ‘lake on a moor’), etc.; Groningen -‐‑kijn, -‐‑ken > -‐‑gijn, -‐‑gin, -‐‑gen first part of 16th c.: ffantghen ‘little banner’ (StDu. vaan; Drente Reyntyen ‘Reineke’ (1447); West-‐‑Flanders 1450 up t pannegrachtkin, 1686 het panne grachtjen (StDu. gracht ‘canal’); East-‐‑Flanders 1530 stretien, 1540 straetjen (StDu. straat ‘street’); Limburg 1436 straetghen Older theory (Kloeke, Schönfeld): k was palatalized before *ī, in particular after t. The resultant palatal stop /c/ in -‐‑tje was spread from Holland to the east and south. Rival theory (W. de Vries, Kern): -‐‑ken palatalized in contact with preceding t, d: *hōdekīn ‘little hat’ > hoetken > hoetgen > hoetje, phonetic [c]. Several different areas of origin, with different chronology. This theory was proven right by Marynissen 1998. Thus: -‐‑t/d-‐‑ke > -‐‑t(s)je is a polygenetic change, with (at least) four different centers of innovation: (1) (North) Holland: from 14th c. (2) northeastern Dutch: from 14th c. (3) southern Flanders: from 16th c. (4) Limburg: from 15th c. Chronology: (1) dg > dj first in compound names (>4 syllables): Aliarden late 10th c. (2) tg > tj in t/jegen (during 13th c.) with loss of pretonic /əә/ (3) tk > tj in diminutives after syncope of /əә/, from early 14th c.
Chapter 3
56
3.2.2 Palatalization of word-‐‑internal *a/eg to ei A. word-‐‑internal *-‐‑VgC-‐‑ ALL DIALECTS SOME DIALECTS breidel (*bregdila-‐‑) ‘bridle’ zeinen (CDu.) // segghenen (*segnōjan-‐‑) ‘to
bless’ breien (*bregdan-‐‑) ‘to knit’ leide (*lagd-‐‑ or *legd-‐‑) ‘laid’ zeide (*sagd-‐‑ or *segd-‐‑) ‘said’ steil (*staigla-‐‑) ‘steep’ teil, Teilingen (CDu.) (*tagla-‐‑) ‘tail’ B. word-‐‑internal *-‐‑VgC-‐‑ alternating with *-‐‑VgV-‐‑ NONE SOME deger (*digra-‐‑) ‘thick’ brein (CDu.) // bregen, bragen (*bragna-‐‑) ‘brain’ leger (*legra-‐‑) ‘lair’ dein (Fle.) // degen (*þegna-‐‑) ‘thane’ rein (Fle.) // regen (*regna-‐‑) ‘rain’ zeil (CDu.) // segel (*segla-‐‑) ‘sail’ C. word-‐‑internal *-‐‑VgV-‐‑ in simplexes ALL NONE SOME eizen ‘be afraid’ (*agisōjan-‐‑) degel, diggel (*digula-‐‑)
‘platen, shard’ dweil (CDu.) // dwegel (*þwagilō-‐‑ // -‐‑a-‐‑) ‘towel’
meisen (*magad-‐‑sīn-‐‑) ‘maiden’ egel (*egila-‐‑) ‘hedgehog’ eide (CDu.) // egede (*agiþō-‐‑) ‘harrow’
teil (*tigulō-‐‑) ‘trough’ ekster (*aga/istrjōn-‐‑) ‘magpie’
heydisse (CDu.?) // egedis (*agwi-‐‑þahs(j)ōn-‐‑) ‘lizard’
zeis (*sagisnō-‐‑) ‘scythe’ jegen (*gagin) ‘toward’ ijl (CDu.) // echel (*egilō-‐‑/*egalō-‐‑) ‘leech’
zijl (*sī g(i)la-‐‑) ‘canal’ kegel (*kagila-‐‑) ‘cone’ heinen (CDu.) // hegenen (*haginōn-‐‑) ‘to fence’
kregel (*krigila-‐‑) ‘touchy’ keilen (CDu.) // kegelen (*kagilōn-‐‑) ‘to throw’
regel, reggele (*rigulō-‐‑) ‘rule’
geleid (passim) // geleged (*agi) ‘laid’
rigel, richel (*rīgulō-‐‑) ‘cross-‐‑bar’
leit (passim) // leget (*egi) ‘lies’
tegel, tichel (*tigulō-‐‑) ‘tile’ meid (CDu.) // maagd (*magaþi-‐‑) ‘maid’
zegel (*sigila-‐‑) ‘seal’ peil(en) (CDu.) // pegel(en) (*pagila-‐‑) ‘level’, ‘to measure’
zege (*sigu-‐‑) ‘victory’ vleil (CDu.) // vlegel (*flagila-‐‑) ‘flail’
gezeid (CDu.) // gezeged (*sag(i)d) ‘said’
seit (CDu.) // seget (*sagit)
Consonants
57
‘says’ seine (CDu.) // seegen
(*sa/eginō-‐‑) ‘net’ D. word-‐‑internal *-‐‑Vgi-‐‑ in compounds ALL SOME Eil-‐‑ (Fle.) // Egil-‐‑ (Rip.) (*agil-‐‑) egislikes but eiselika Mein-‐‑ (Fle. OS) // Megen-‐‑ (*magin-‐‑) Rein-‐‑ (Fle. OS) // Regen-‐‑ (*ragin-‐‑) Sij-‐‑ (passim) // Sege-‐‑ (*sigi-‐‑) Thein-‐‑ (Fle., 1x OS) // Thege/an-‐‑ (*þegna-‐‑) Frilingim (< Frigel-‐‑) 11th c. Fla. Pendrecht (< *Pagin-‐‑) Hol. Tilroda < Tigelroda 11th/12th c. Flanders Gheinmar (Fle.) < *Gagin-‐‑? E. word-‐‑internal *-‐‑Vgi(V) ALL Leie (941) < Legia river kei (*kagi) ‘stone’ F. word-‐‑final *-‐‑Vg# SOME -‐‑Dei (CDu.) // dag (*daga-‐‑) ‘day’ -‐‑ei < -‐‑ege f. agent noun Relative chronology: 1. ODu. and OS *egi > ei and *igi > ī at an early stage in compound names, from 800 in OS. 2. Late ODu. *egC > Early MDu. eiC. If it occurred throughout the paradigm, it is found in all dialects (breien, leide, etc.); if *egC occurred only in some forms of the paradigm, generally only the western Dutch dialects generalized ei. 3. Late ODu. *a/e/igVC could syncopate to *a/e/igC in Early MDu. if followed by one or more syllables. The result could be palatalization to eiC or īC (before obstruents and resonants) or fortition of the fricative to a geminate gg or ch (before l, n only). Palatalization is more frequent in western dialects, though some forms occur across all dialects (e.g. geleid ‘laid’). 4. Sporadic palatalization of word-‐‑final -‐‑a/e/ig in CDu. (-‐‑Dei, -‐‑ei). Geography: The preponderance of gC > jC in CDu. is unexplained from the phonetics of g, since the forms in A occur everywhere. Rather, paradigmatic analogy took a different course in the west. In EMDu. trisyllabic forms, Flemish has syncope more often, against apocope in central Dutch (dat. segele > segle vs. segel). Thus: different rhythmic factors giving CD. regenet > regnet > reinet ‘it rains’), vs. eastern Dutch (regenet > regent). Why this would be so, is unclear. Maybe different dates of phonemicization of OSL, whence /rēgəәn/, /sēgəәl/, etc.4
4 The reflex teil of *tagla-‐‑ ‘tail’ is striking in view of retained g in nagel ‘nail’ < *nagla-‐‑, hagel ‘hail’ < *hagla-‐‑, and wagen ‘car’ < *wagna-‐‑. Possibly, the latter words represent the Franconian forms which
Chapter 3
58
3.2.3 The prefix *ga-‐‑ WGm. *g-‐‑ normally remains before *e and *i: Early MDu.: ge(e)rne ‘readily’, geven ‘to give’, gelt ‘money; infertile’, ge/isteren ‘yesterday’, etc. Similarly for *gai-‐‑ > gee-‐‑. One exception: *ga-‐‑ in western Dutch. In the ODu. Leidener Willeram, once iegiuan ‘given’, normally ge-‐‑. Je-‐‑ may have been the genuine speech of the translator. In Early MDu., palatal reflexes occur only in West Flemish: ie-‐‑ in iewaschen ‘washed’,
ieloven ‘to believe’, ynoech ‘enough’, often i-‐‑, j-‐‑. Note furthermore *ga-‐‑unnan ‘to grant’ (G. gönnen) > EMDu. jonnen Hol. Fle.; MoDu. gunnen has restored ge-‐‑. The usual explanation is: *ge-‐‑ > *gi-‐‑ > ji-‐‑ > i-‐‑. But there is no evidence for a stage /gi-‐‑/ in Coastal Dutch (unlike in OS). The sources rather point to ge-‐‑ > je-‐‑ > i-‐‑. MoDu.: ǝ-‐‑ in CDu. of Flanders, Zealand, Holland; also in the east (Twente). Zero in North
Hollandish and Frisian.
Map 6. Simplified representation of the map “ge-‐‑ in voltooid deelwoord” in TNZN vol. 2, Map 9. From: De Vaan 2017, p. 163.
were adopted by the speakers of coastal dialects when they switched from Proto-‐‑Frisian to Franconian. Was teil ‘tail’ not replaced because its Franconian counterpart was the different lexeme MDu. stert, MoDu. staart?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
zero prefix prefix əә- zero prefix in specific verbs prefix æ- beside əә- prefix əә- beside gəә- prefix həә- prefix gəә-
1
1
2 2 1
2
2
Consonants
59
The zero prefix is ambiguous. In the north, it may have developed phonetically from the reduction and finally the loss of ge-‐‑ > e-‐‑; but, alternatively, it may simply represent the generalization of the variation between absence and presence of *ga-‐‑ in WGm. for semantic reasons (*ga-‐‑ indicating perfectivity). The southern area (nr. 2 on the map) where the prefix is mainly absent in a number of stative and fientive verbs is a petrification of just such a distribution. Prefix ǝ-‐‑ either from i-‐‑ (thus in WFlanders?) or via *je-‐‑ > ǝ-‐‑. The former scenario is not reflected in written records. Compare OFris. *ga-‐‑ > *je-‐‑ > e-‐‑, with simple loss of *j-‐‑. E.g. edēn ‘done’, enōch ‘enough’, unidēld ‘undivided’. CDu. e-‐‑ from Frisian substrate?
3.2.4 Fricativization of initial j-‐‑ to g-‐‑ ODu. *ji-‐‑, *jī-‐‑, *je-‐‑ > Low German + Dutch g-‐‑ /γ-‐‑/. No forms in j-‐‑ from original *je-‐‑, *ji-‐‑ or *jī-‐‑. Before other vowels, j-‐‑ remains: jagen, joeg ‘to hunt’, jaar ‘year’, jong ‘young’, juk ‘yoke’, jeuken ‘to itch’. WGm. area with g-‐‑ With *j-‐‑: geden ‘to weed’ gen, gene ‘yon’ gij ‘thou’ gest, gist ‘yeast’ gicht ‘arthritis’ giën ‘to confess’ gichte ‘confession’ Gulik ‘Jülich’
*jetan *jena-‐‑ *jīz *jesta-‐‑ *jihti-‐‑ *jehan, *jihti-‐‑ Juliācum
all of Dutch
Frisian loan: gier ‘manure’
*jēzō-‐‑
Holland, Utrecht (Fri. jarre)
With *eo-‐‑: gieman ‘someone’ gier, geer ‘udder’ get ‘something’
*eoman *eodur *eowiht
passim (MDu. ieman, MLG jummant) central eastern Dutch, within a j-‐‑area eastern Limburgian (MDu. jet/iet)
Relative chronology: 1. WGm. *eo-‐‑ > MDu. ie-‐‑ > resyllabification je-‐‑, 2. je-‐‑ > ge-‐‑. Fricative /γ/ was palatal(ized) in S and SE Dutch, hence je-‐‑, ji-‐‑ was very close to ge-‐‑, gi-‐‑. Excursus: Gij and jij ‘you’ WGm. nominative *jīz > MDu. gi / gi:/, southeastern gir; accusative *iu / *ju > MDu. u /y:/ beside jou /jou/, dial. joe /ju:/. MoDu. northern nominative jij /jεi/, oblique jou / jau/, unaccented je /jǝ/, versus southern Dutch gij /γεi/, unaccented (d)e /(d)ǝ/, obl. u /y/.
In MDu., syntactic inversion causes palatalization in the cluster *tg (see section a.1 above) and reduction of the pronoun to -‐‑i : gevet gi ‘give-‐‑you’ > *gevedji > attested ghevedi /γe:vǝd’i/, unstressed *ghevedje /γe:vǝdjǝ/.
Chapter 3
60
The modern j-‐‑forms in the casus rectus first appear in the fourteenth century (unstressed je: Onrecht hebje ‘you are wrong’, Wil ye horen, ghi scepenen ‘Will you listen, you aldermen’, in Flanders) and in the later sixteenth century (stressed jij, first in Holland). These forms must have originated secondarily. Unstressed -‐‑je arose from metanalysis of Early MDu. *ghevedje /γe:vǝdjǝ/ as having a nom. pronoun je (next to oblique jou). Stressed jij arose later by analogy with tonic mij next to enclitic me ‘me’, zij next to ze ‘she, her’, and wij next to we ‘we’. 3.2.5 Phonetics and phonemics of g Palatalization in the clusters dg, tg and tk is trivial. It was not restricted to Coastal Dutch, nor did it depend on the quality of the surrounding vowels. The changes affecting g and j form part of a large Dutch-‐‑Low German-‐‑Middle German complex. Phonetics: 1. /g/ became a fricative [γ] early in ODu. 2. It probably had a palatal allophone [ʝ] before i, e and a velar allophone [γ] before a, o, u. Likely also palatal [ʝ] after i, e, a before C. 3. Stressed *j-‐‑ before i, ī, e was fricativised and merged with /ʝ-‐‑/. 4. *a/eg [eʝ] before C merged with /ei/. 5. In Coastal Dutch, unstressed *ge-‐‑ developed into *jəә-‐‑. 6. The indiscriminate palatalization of g before a consonant in western and eastern dialects, and the fricativization of j-‐‑ before front vowels in all dialects, point to all dialects having a palatal allophone before front vowels up to Early MDu. That includes western and northern dialects which now typically have a uvular allophone. Hence, the modern distribution of allophones must be due to a later reorganization: the west generalized the velar allophone (which became pharyngeal in parts of Flanders and Zealand, uvular in parts of Holland and the northeast), the southeast generalized the palatal pronunciation (Goeman 1998: 217). WGm. *ft > Dutch cht Standard Dutch shares with Low and Middle German the change of ft to <cht> /xt/, compare: Du. lucht ‘air’, stichten ‘to found’, kocht ‘bought’ with G. Luft, stiften, kaufte. Whereas cht first appears in Middle Franconian in the eighth century and in OS in the tenth, the first certain attestations in Dutch date from the twelfth century: Lichtervelde < *luftar-‐‑feld-‐‑ (1127), achtinghe ‘confiscation’ < *haft-‐‑ (Ghent, 1176–1200). This geographic distribution suggests that xt spread from central Germany to the north and reached Dutch relatively late. Holland preserved ft in the 13th century, and traditional dialects of Holland in the twentieth century still did so. WGm. *xs > Dutch ss
Consonants
61
The assimilation of xs to ss is typical of Dutch and Low German, as against the retention of the cluster as /ks/ in Frisian, English and High German: Dutch vos, was, Middle Low German vos, was, versus MoWF foks, waaks, E. fox, wax, MoHG Fuchs, Wachs.
In the Wachtendonck Psalter (ca. 1000 AD), we find assimilation in uusso ‘foxes’ (gen.pl.) beside retained hs in wahsan ‘to grow’, wihsel ‘change’, ohsson ‘oxen’. In Dutch, the assimilation seems to have taken place earlier in western dialects than in eastern ones, because in Ghent no trace is left of *x before s by the eleventh century. By 1200, ss has become general in Dutch. In the Westphalian Freckenhorster Heberegister, the older parts preserve hs, but s becomes normal in the younger parts: Thahsbeki, Thasbiki ‘Badger’s Creek’, ses ‘six’, etc. Further evidence from the Dutch lexicon: MDu. asse ‘axis’, assele ‘shoulder’ (G. Achsel), bosse ‘box’, brasem ‘bream’ (G. Brachsen), das ‘badger’ (G Dachs), egedisse (MoDu. hagedis, G. Eidechse), (osse)haas ‘haunch’ (G. Hachse), los ‘lynx’ (G. Luchs), Sasnem = Sassenheim < *Sahsa-‐‑, Tessel ‘Texel’, vlas ‘flax’, vos ‘fox’, was ‘wax’, wassen ‘to grow, G. wachsen’, wissel ‘exchange’ (G. Wechsel). 3.3 Lenition and fortition As a point of reference, I will provide a reconstruction of the West Germanic consonant system as I assume it to lie at the basis of the later developments:
labial dental velar labialized
*f *ff *þ *þþ *x *xx *xw
*p *pp *t *tt *k *kk
*’p *’pp *’t *’tt *’k *’kk *’kw *’kkw
*s *ss *z *w *ww *j *jj *m *mm *n *nn *r *rr *l *ll For Proto-‐‑Germanic I assume a series of voiceless fricatives (*f etc.), one of voiceless lenis stops (*p) and one of preglottalized stops (*’p), which correspond with the traditional reconstructions *f, *b and *p (< PIE *p, *bh, *b) respectively. Apart from geminate *ss, which arose from PIE clusters of dental stops, geminate obstruents arose from Kluge’s Law (*Cn > *CC in pretonic position, Kroonen 2011), from the West Germanic gemination before *j, and from analogical gemination of single fricatives within Germanic paradigms. Geminate resonants arose through various assimilations.
The reconstruction of the PGm. stop system as *f : *p : *’p deviates from mainstream reconstructions as e.g. in Ringe 2006, but this is not the place to discuss all the relevant
Chapter 3
62
arguments for proposing an alternative system. I will shortly address two main features of my reconstruction.
(1) The existence of a glottalized series. Kortlandt has argued on several occasions that we must reconstruct a series of preglottalized stops for Proto-‐‑Germanic (e.g. Kortlandt 2010a, 2010b). One of the relevant facts for Dutch is the existence of a tone accent opposition in the southeastern dialects of Limburg, an opposition which continues into Ripuarian and Moselle Franconian (de Vaan 1999). The hypothesis that the loss of preglottalization caused the rise of phonological tone on preceding vowels was put forward by Kortlandt 2010d. This explanation would be more in line with universal tendencies of tonogenesis than other proposals made so far for the Franconian tone accents.
(2) The absence of distinctive voicing in *f, *p and *’p, or, in other words, the reconstruction of a voiceless stage for the PGm. reflex of the PIE voiced aspirates (*bh etc.). This has a theoretical and a distributional background. Structurally, the presence of voiceless preglottalized stops and voiceless fricatives does not require voicing as a distinctive feature of the third series of stops, but merely the absence of fricativization and glottalization. Distributionally, voiceless stops are the reflexes of PIE *bh etc. in varieties such as southern High German and Icelandic, which can then be explained as the peripheral dialects which preserve the older situation (viz., unvoiced reflexes of the lenis stops), whereas Gothic and the central dialects have (re)introduced voicing (Kortlandt 2010b: 194). The voiced reflexes found e.g. in Dutch and English can be regarded as the result of lenition (fed by the loss of glottalization in part of the fortis stops) or of substrate influence (e.g. of Celtic or Romance in southern Dutch). I see no compelling reason to assume that the lenis stops were phonemically fricatives (*ƀ, *đ, *ǥ) in Proto-‐‑Germanic, as is often assumed in the communis opinio; see directly below. The following two developments happened during the (late) WGm. period: Lenition (voicing) of word-‐‑initial WGm. lenis *p, *t, *k to b-‐‑, d-‐‑, g-‐‑, and of word-‐‑internal, prevocalic *p, *t, *k to -‐‑v-‐‑, -‐‑d-‐‑, and -‐‑g-‐‑ (whence Dutch γ): geven ‘to give’, bieden ‘to offer’, drinken ‘to drink’, graven ‘to dig’, liegen ‘to lie’. The lenition is also found in Low German, Frisian and English. It may therefore have been an areal feature of northern West Germanic. Gemination of WGm. *’p, *’t, *’k before l and r, and of *’k before w, in particular after short vowels (Simmler 1974). Found in all West Germanic languages but generalized to different degrees. In some cases, languages retain traces of paradigmatic alternations, as in ODu. -‐‑akkar, MoDu. akker ‘acre’ versus the toponym Aker-‐‑sloot, Du. appel ‘apple’ but (the town of) Apel-‐‑doorn. In the framework of the PGm. obstruent system as reconstructed above, the gemination may be interpreted as the oralization of the glottal stop preceding p/t/k (Kortlandt 2010a: 173). The alternating paradigms to which forms with and without gemination point (appel vs. Apel-‐‑) suggest a date of the gemination after the vocalization of word-‐‑final resonants. As the deglottalized stops did not merge with the lenes (compare the intervocalic result in Du. appel, G. Apfel versus the lenis in Du. geven, G. [kepen]), the gemination must post-‐‑date (or be contemporary with) the lenition of lenes. Assimilation *-‐‑bn-‐‑ > -‐‑mn-‐‑. Paradigmatic alternations between m and v arose from the alternation between *bn and *bVn within paradigms (van Loon 1986: 126). Thus, PGm. *hrapna-‐‑ ‘raven’ is attested as chramnus (745) but ravon (ca. 850) in the oldest Dutch personal
Consonants
63
names; full assimilation of mn to m is seen in several toponyms, e.g. Hramasdung (821, copy 941), Ramnesbecca (966 copy 15th c.). As is well known, this change is also found in Old High German (Braune/Reiffenstein 2004: 121): nom. raban, gen. rammes. The appellative is MDu. raven, MoDu. raaf. Other words affected by this alternation are Dutch even ‘even’ next to effen ‘plain’ < *ebna-‐‑ (OS eƀan, OE efen, emn), stem, ODu. stemma ‘voice’ < *stebnō-‐‑ (Go. stibna), steven ‘ship’s stem’ (OS stamn, OIc. stafn). The prehistory of Du. hemel ‘sky’ (OHG himil, OFr. himul) next to Go. himins and OS heƀan, OE heofon (< *heb(u)n-‐‑) is not clear. One option is to reconstruct a PGm. l/n-‐‑stem (*hem-‐‑l, *hem-‐‑n-‐‑) as in the word for ‘sun’, from which some languages generalized an l-‐‑stem, others, a stem in *-‐‑ena-‐‑. In that case, the word would not belong to the words with *-‐‑bn-‐‑ > -‐‑mn-‐‑. a. Old Dutch lenition of fricatives I. Voicing of word-‐‑internal *f, *þ, *s to /v/, /ð/, /z/: Du. over ‘over’ < *ufar, lezen ‘to read’ < *lisan. This can be dated in the tenth or eleventh century on the basis of written evidence. The voicing must post-‐‑date the lenition of intervocalic *x(w) (which otherwise would have become *γ) to ODu. /h/, which is subsequently lost between vowels: ODu. jehan ‘to say’, MDu. giën. The dental fricative becomes a stop soon after: broeder ‘brother’ < *brōþar. The new /v/ and /d/ merged with the outcomes of the WGm. lenis stops *p, *t, whereas /z/ was not phonologized until the degemination of /s:/ in Early Middle Dutch. II. Voicing of word-‐‑initial fricatives: ODu. fader, sian, that > MDu. vader ‘father’, zien ‘to see’, dat ‘that’. In principle, this represents the same change as in I. In writing, voiceless f-‐‑, s-‐‑, and th-‐‑ are retained in anlaut longer than in inlaut, viz. until Late Old Dutch, but this retention may be due to the fact that voiceless allophones managed to survive word-‐‑initially in word sandhi, viz. after a preceding voiceless obstruent (van Loon 1986: 132). The voicing of initial þ-‐‑ to [ð-‐‑] can be dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries for the Old Ghent personal names (Tavernier-‐‑Vereecken 1968: 580f.). Exercise Compare the following MoDu. words with initial s-‐‑ and f-‐‑, and their etymology. Explain why they do not have z-‐‑ or v-‐‑: samen ‘together’ < tezamen, sedert ‘since’ < *te-‐‑sedert, [s]estig ‘60’ < MDu. tsestig soep ‘soup’, sein ‘sign’, fier ‘proud’, fruit ‘fruit’ from French, fris ‘fresh’ from German schrijven ‘write’, schoppen ‘kick’, schieten ‘shoot’ < WGm. *skrīban, *skuppōn, *skeotan spoelen ‘flush’, sproeien ‘splash’, staan ‘stand’, strooien ‘strew’ < WGm. *spōljan, *sprōan, *stē-‐‑, *straujan slapen ‘sleep’, slot ‘a lock’, smeken ‘beg’, smal ‘narrow’, snijden ‘cut’ < *slēpan, *sluta-‐‑, *smaikjan, *smala-‐‑, *snīþan III. Fricativization of lenis g. The fricativization is shared with Old Saxon, and must at least post-‐‑date the emigration of the Anglo-‐‑Frisians. In Flemish, the fricative character of /g/ is indirectly attested from the eleventh century by the spelling <ch> for a voiceless fricative in auslaut: Isburch ‘Is-‐‑burg’, Thietwich ‘Thiet-‐‑Wig’. Geminate gg, however, retained its occlusive pronunciation, only to be simplified to /g/ by the Early MDu. degemination. In most dialects
Chapter 3
64
and in the standard language, gg has merged with g, but East and South Limburgian retain the occlusive pronunciation [g] until today.
Map 7: a velar stop in ‘bridge’ (/brœk/ and variants). Data: MAND. IV. MDu. syncope of v, d, γ After Open Syllable Lengthening had taken place in Late ODu., the intervocalic lenis obstruents <b, d, g> started to be lost after the new and old long vowels and after diphthongs. Loss has proceeded much further with d than with v and g, possibly for structural reasons (van Loon 1986: 143): after OSL, short vowels plus geminate obstruent correlated regularly with long vowels plus single obstruents. But whereas ff /v , ch / g and ss / z formed fixed pairs of geminate versus single fricatives, single d (or its predecessor ð) was lacking a geminate counterpart, since geminate *þþ had become ODu. ss around 1100: ff/v *þ/ð *xx/γ ss/z gem.: heffen ‘to heave’ – lachen ‘to laugh’ kussen ‘to kiss’ sing.: gēven ‘to give’ nēder ‘down lāgen ‘lay’ kōzen ‘chose’ Intervocalic d In StDu., the loss of d is generally tolerated if the second syllable did not possess morphological value: MDu. moede, MoDu. moe ‘tired’, MDu. roeder, MoDu. roer ‘rudder’, MDu. prediken, MoDu. preken ‘to preach’, MDu. gestadig, MoDu. gestaag ‘steady’, MDu. weder ‘again’, ‘weather’, MoDu. weer, MDu. lade, MoDu. la ‘drawer’, MDu. blijde, MoDu. blij ‘glad’, broer ‘brother’ next to broeder ‘brother, monk’, etc. In woensdag ‘Wednesday’ < *Wōdensdag, intervocalic d is absent from the earliest MDu. attestations. Another early instance is leerse, laerse ‘boot’ < *leder-‐‑hose, of which forms preserving d are also absent from 1200 onwards.
If the next syllable was of morphological importance, d was mostly restored from other paradigmatic forms: bieden ‘to offer’, raden ‘to guess’, bloeden ‘to bleed’, een dode ‘a dead person’, draden ‘threads’, leidden /lεidəәn/ pret. ‘they led’, etc. Exceptions like zei < zeide ‘said’, zou < zoude ‘would’ tolerate d-‐‑syncope because they stand next to the presents zeggen and
Consonants
65
zullen. In vader, moeder the syncopated forms are relegated to minor meanings: bestevaar lit. ‘best father’, ‘grandfather’, moer ‘female screw’, parelmoer ‘mother-‐‑of-‐‑pearl’; apparently, the forms with d were retained as higher-‐‑register forms of address (next to colloquial pa(pa) and ma(ma)). The first examples of d-‐‑syncope occur in the twelfth century, and it spread across the Dutch area in the following centuries. Hypercorrect d was sometimes inserted into perceived hiatuses: MoDu. belijden << MDu. beliën ‘to confess’ (OFri. bihlīa), geschieden << MDu. gesciën ‘to happen’ (G. geschehen), wijden ‘to devote’ << MDu. wiën (G. weihen).
In the dialects of Brabant and Utrecht, d often gave j, which sometimes has entered StDu.: ooievaar ‘stork’ (OHG odobero), rooien ‘to fell trees’(MDu. roden), dooier ‘eggyolk’ (OS dodro), luier ‘diaper’ (OS lūđara).
In Modern Dutch colloquial pronunciation, the replacement of intervocalic d by j (after aa, oo, oe) and by w (after ou) is accepted in frequent verbs and adjectives: raaien = raden ‘to guess’, een goeie vent ‘a good bloke’ = goede, een ouwe vrouw ‘a old woman’ = oude, twee dooien ‘two dead people’ = doden.
For the regional variation, compare the distribution of the surnames de Roo (left) and de Rooij (right), both from *de Rode ‘the Red’ in The Netherlands:
Map 8: the name de Roo in NL Map 9: the name de Rooij in NL Intervocalic v In MDu. this syncope can sporadically be found, e.g. in heet ‘has’ (< hevet), hoot ‘head’ (MoDu. hoofd) < hovet, in names such as Haastrecht (< Havekes-‐‑dreht), Bamesse < sente Bavenmesse ‘Sint Bavo’s mass’. In StDu. it has been canonised in proost ´dean´ < MDu. provest, -‐‑ost < Old French provost, prévost ‘inspector’, heus ‘real’ < heuvesch ‘courteous’, oozie ‘overhanging part of a sloping roof, eaves’ < MDu. *ovese (OHG obasa, Goth. ubizwa). In Limburg we find the place-‐‑name Urmond < *Euver-‐‑mont ‘Over-‐‑mount’. Intervocalic g Syncope of g was somewhat more frequent than of v but less so than of d. Examples from MDu. are lede ‘lay’ < legede, geseet ‘said’ < geseget, swijt ‘is silent’ < swiget. Word which survive
Chapter 3
66
in MoDu. are altoos ‘always’ from *al-‐‑toges, and verdedigen ‘to defend’ from Early MDu. ver-‐‑dege-‐‑dingen ‘to claim in court’. b. Word-‐‑final devoicing Word-‐‑final obstruents are generally written as voiceless ones in Old Dutch and Middle Dutch, and the exceptions are regarded as analogical on the model of word-‐‑internal instances, e.g. wereld next to werelt ‘world’. The devoicing must post-‐‑date the loss of postvocalic *-‐‑z and the split-‐‑off of Anglo-‐‑Frisian. If one regards the WGm. obstruent system as originally consisting of voiceless phonemes only (see the introduction to this lecture), then the word-‐‑final voiceless obstruents could also be interpreted as archaisms which escaped word-‐‑internal voicing. Toch and toen There is no initial devoicing of stops, but as MoDu. continuations of MDu. doch ‘though’ and doe ‘then’, we find toch and toen. These are due to devoicing of d-‐‑ after a word-‐‑final voiceless obstruent in a preceding word, e.g. noch doe > noch toe ‘then still’. The combination with preceding MDu. ende ‘and’ also causes devoicing of doch and doe, viz. after syncope: ende doch > *entoch = en toch ‘and yet’, ende doe(n) > endoe(n) > entoe(n) = en toen ‘and then’. The final –n was probably added to toen on the model of dan ‘then’. Another instance of this sandhi devoicing is Early MDu. nochtan(s) ‘nonetheless’, also nogtanne, from noch ‘still’ + dan ‘then’. The Leiden Willeram (ca. 1100) still has nohthanne with the dental fricative th. c. Old Dutch fortition (≈ Von Bahder’s Law) By ‘Old Dutch fortition’ I mean the devoicing of fricatives in syllable coda before resonants. A number of lexemes with intervocalic voiced fricatives in Dutch and Low German have allomorphs with a voiceless fricative before l, m and n. A similar devoicing of b (v) to f is found in Old High German, but on a smaller scale (von Bahder 1903, Braune/Reiffenstein 2004: 133). In Dutch, the change involves the fricative pairs s/z, f/v, and g/ch, compare MoDu. bezem / bessem ‘broom’ < *besman-‐‑, gavel / gaffel ‘fork’ < *gablō-‐‑, even / effen ‘even’ < *ebna-‐‑, leugen ‘a lie’ but loochenen ‘to deny’ < *laugnjan. The alternation d/s from a cluster *þm has the same background, see below. Devoicing was productive before derivational suffixes in l or n in Late Old and Early Middle Dutch: compare MoDu. lieflijk ‘lovely’ to the stem lief, lieve-‐‑ ‘dear’, schuifelen ‘to shuffle’ to schuiven ‘to shove’, begrafenis ‘burial’ to begraven ‘to bury’. The syllable coda position of the fortified fricative may be inherited from WGm., or it may result from vowel syncope in Late Old Dutch, as in the toponym Stenhufle, Steenhuffle ‘Steenhuffel’ (1112) < *-‐‑huvele ‘hill’, which happens to be the oldest certain attestation within Dutch. Compare the ODu. simplex huuela ‘hills’ (accusative plural, ca. 1100) without syncope. The cause of the devoicing may have been a syllable-‐‑final phonetic change, as is sometimes observed in Late Old English (e.g. áhnian for ágnian ‘to own’, fuhlas for fuglas ‘birds’, Luick 1903: 155). Alternatively, the voiceless reflex could be ascribed to the absence of a contrast with voiced fricatives in the same position. In other words, when the fricatives in question ended up before a resonant (e.g. due to syncope), they adopted the voice
Consonants
67
distribution of words of the type bezem/bessem, adem/asem, in which the preresonantal fricatives had always been voiceless. In dialects, alternations of the Bahder type are more frequent than in the standard language. Some examples instances which did survive into StDu. – other than the productive types of adjectives in -‐‑lijk, nouns in -‐‑nis and frequentative verbs in -‐‑elen – have been given above. Some others are echel ‘leech’ < *egalō-‐‑ (next to egel ‘hedgehog’ < *egila-‐‑), bloesem ‘blossom’ < *blōsma(n)-‐‑, MDu. oeven / oefenen ‘to practice’ < *ōb(j)an-‐‑ / *ōbnjan-‐‑ (G. üben / OFris. ōfnia), wafel ‘wafer’ to weven ‘to weave’. Note that fortition must originally have displayed paradigmatic alternation, for instance, in nouns in which WGm. *-‐‑R was vocalized to *-‐‑VR in the nom.acc.sg., but not elsewhere. For instance, nom. *ebnaz and acc. *ebna would give ODu. *evan, but gen. *ebnes and nom.pl. *ebnōs would give *evnes, *evnas, in which -‐‑vn-‐‑ could fortify to -‐‑fn-‐‑, hence effen. It seems likely that such alternations remained productive until well into Middle Dutch or even – locally – MoDu., judging by the fact that MDu. syncope plays a role in the distribution of the variants. For instance, the voiceless ch in echel ‘leech’ from *egalō-‐‑ requires contact between g and l, which presupposes word-‐‑internal syncope. It must be said, however, that the details of the history of the Dutch fortition of fricatives before resonants have not been well researched yet. 3.4 Removal of dental fricatives WGm. *þ-‐‑ was voiced to [ð-‐‑] in Ghent in the tenth or eleventh century. The same date may roughly be assumed for the voicing of word-‐‑internal -‐‑þ, written <th>. At the beginning of the twelfth century, the fricative turns into an occlusive d (van Loon 1986: 139-‐‑141): dat ‘that’, broeder ‘brother’. The WGm. geminate *þþ regularly turns into Late ODu. voiceless s(s), spelled <s> after long vowels and <ss> after short ones. It merges with geminate /s:/ < WGm. *ss and *xs. This s(s) was the only regular Dutch reflex of *þþ, and it arose in the early twelfth century. The evidence includes Flemish bessen ‘to dab a wound’ (< *baþjan, StDu. betten), smisse ‘smithy’ (*smiþjō-‐‑; besides StDu. smidse), and klis ‘tangle, burdock’ (*kliþþan-‐‑). The sequence *þm underwent a similar development, in that *þ was not voiced to [ð], but remained voiceless and merged with /s(:)/ in Late Old Dutch. This only happened when the two phonemes were in close contact. Hence, we find western Dutch asem versus central and eastern adem ‘breath’ (OS āđom, OHG ātum) as the result of levelling within an alternating paradigm with nom.acc.sg. *æ:þam, and gen.dat. *æ:þm-‐‑. Both asem and adem survive in the standard language, though asem is well on its way to becoming a literary word only. Similar alternations between d and ss appear in Dutch vadem ‘fathom’ (< *faþma-‐‑) versus vessemen ‘to fathom’ (< *faþmjan-‐‑), wede ‘(willow) twig’ (< *wiþi-‐‑) versus wisse ‘stere; twig, belt’ (< *wiþþjōn-‐‑ ‘willow twig’), and dialectal pedem(e) versus pessem(e) ‘root, field horsetail’ (< *piþma(n)-‐‑). The alternation d/s before m fits in well with the voice alternations v/f, z/s, g/ch before l and n, which were productive until Middle Dutch.
Since *þ(þ) did not yield s(s) in any other medieval West Germanic language, we must ask why it did happen in Dutch. Let us compare the phonetics of single *þ in Dutch and Frisian. Old Dutch initial þ-‐‑ was voiced to [ð-‐‑] in the tenth and eleventh century and merged with d-‐‑ in the early twelfth century. In Old Frisian, the fricative pronunciation of th-‐‑ was initially retained, but in Late Old West Frisian, it became a voiceless stop t-‐‑. In the other positions, the changes in Dutch and Frisian run parallel:
Chapter 3
68
Dutch Frisian
*þ-‐‑ ODu. th > MDu. MoDu. d
that, thri(e) > dat, drie
Early OWFris. th > Late OWFris., MoWF t
thrē, thiānia > trije, tsjinje
*-‐‑þ-‐‑ ODu. th > MDu. d > MoDu. Ø
bruother > broeder > broer
OFris. th > MoWF Ø
brōther > broer
*-‐‑þ ODu. th > MDu. d [t]
smith ‘smith’ > smid/-‐‑t
OFris. th > MoWF d/Ø
smith/-‐‑d > smid
ODu. *þþ did not share the voicing of single *þ to *ð but remained voiceless until the further change to s took place in the early twelfth century. The assibilation to s may have been contemporaneous with the change of /ð/ to d. After all, as long as *ð existed, *þ could be paired with it in the phonological system; but when *ð had become d, voiceless *þ was the only dental fricative remaining, found in only a limited number of lexemes. Thus, the disappearance of voiceless /þ/ may have been due to systemic pressure. For ODu. *þm we must similarly assume that the fricative remained voiceless and was then reinterpreted as /s/. 3.5 Proto-‐‑Germanic *x before vowels WGm. *x and *xw were probably retained as fricatives in all positions in the Merovingian period. At least, Germanic names and words are rendered with Ch-‐‑ before vowels and consonants in the (Latin) sources, e.g. Childericus (*xildi-‐‑rīka-‐‑), Chlotchildis (*xlud-‐‑xildi-‐‑). Probably not long after, the fricative was lenited to [h] before vowels, yielding modern h-‐‑ in anlaut (hart ‘heart’, hoed ‘hat’, hoe ‘how’) but disappearing in word-‐‑internal prevocalic position: ODu. sian ‘to see’, MoDu. zien (OHG sehan, PGm. *sexwanan), ODu. beuelen ‘to command’, MoDu. bevelen (OS bifelhan, PGm. *felxanan). By the 11th century, hypercorrect cases of h-‐‑ in Flanders show that the consonant had started to disappear altogether in this region. In initial position before l, m, n, w, PGm. *x-‐‑ was retained somewhat longer, as was the case in Old Saxon, Old High German and Old Frisian. The consonant disappeared in Old Dutch in the course of the ninth century (Quak 2000). Among the scarce written traces of the fricative are the toponyms Hrineshem in Guelders (855 copy 10th c.), and Hlithum next to Lidum in North Holland (10th c.). The modern language has several homonyms due to the merger of *xR-‐‑ and R-‐‑: MoDu. lid ‘body part’ < *liþu-‐‑ vs. oog-‐‑lid ‘eye-‐‑lid’ < *xlida-‐‑, MoDu. rijm ‘hoar-‐‑frost’ < *xrīma-‐‑ vs. rijm ‘rhyme’ from French rime, MoDu. (ver)welken ‘to wither’ to *welka-‐‑ ‘humid’ vs. welk ‘which’ < *xwalīka-‐‑. In word-‐‑final post-‐‑vocalic position, the fricatives were regularly retained as -‐‑[x]. The modern language retains usually spells <g> here, e.g. hoog ‘high’ (*xauxa-‐‑), zag ‘(I, you, he) saw’ (*saxw), sloeg ‘slew’ (*slōx), ruig ‘rough’ (*rūxa-‐‑). The main exception is MoDu. toch, doch ‘yet, however’ < *þaux. A spelling doublet has led to semantic differentiation in the particles nog ‘still, yet’, noch ‘nor’, both from PGm. *nux. In paradigmatic variants where *x was intervocalic, it disappeared regularly, and by analogical extension the uninflected forms could also lose their -‐‑ch. Hence we find MDu. scoech but usually scoe ‘shoe’ (replaced in MoDu. by schoe-‐‑n), MDu. doech ‘do!’, siech ‘see!’, replaced by modern doe, zie. Whereas most stems generalize either -‐‑ch or zero auslaut, we find ho retained in hovaardig ‘haughty’ < *hoge-‐‑
Consonants
69
vardig, and the inflected forms of ruig ‘shaggy, hairy’ have given rise to a separate adjective ruw ‘rough, rugged’. MDu. wrijch ‘instep’ (< *wrīhan-‐‑) has become MoDu. wreef by an acoustic sound change -‐‑ch > -‐‑f (and maybe the influence of wrijven ‘to rub’) and introduction of different dialectal vocalism. 3.6 ODu. resonant assimilations and d-‐‑epenthesis (1) mb > mm: ODu. heimer (ca. 1170), Early MDu. eemer, MoDu. emmer ‘bucket’ < *ain-‐‑bar-‐‑; ODu. umbe, EMDu. omme ‘around, about’ < WGm. *umbi; EMDu. dom(p), -‐‑me ‘dumb’, lam(p), -‐‑me ‘lamb’, EMDu. Lambrecht / Lammerecht ‘Lambert’, EMDu. tombe/tomme ‘tomb’. (2) ng > ŋ: vinger > MoDu. /vɪŋəәr/, koning ‘king’ /-‐‑ɪŋ/; but petrified with /k/ in De Koninck /-‐‑ɪŋk/ and koninklijk ‘royal’. In adjectives in -‐‑lijk, this devoicing has remained productive in MoDu. ontvankelijk ‘acceptable’ (already 13th-‐‑c. ontfankelik) to ontvangen ‘to accept’, onvergankelijk ‘perennial’ (already 13th-‐‑c.) to vergaan, pret. verging ‘to perish’, etc. (3) nl > ll: Early MDu. banlinc next to ballinc, MoDu. balling ‘exile’, MDu. ellef, elleven, MoDu. elf ‘eleven’ < *ainlif(an), MDu. spille, MoDu. spil ‘spindle’ < *spenn(i)lō-‐‑), Linlo (1157) > Lille (1181) ‘Lille’ (prov. Antwerp). Early MDu. manlic, mallic, mallec ’each’ < *man-‐‑līka-‐‑; probably also in elk ‘each’, MDu. also ellic (MLG elk, ellik; OE ælk) if from *aina-‐‑līka-‐‑, although the stage *-‐‑nl-‐‑ is not attested in any document. There is little evidence for these changes before 1200 but their dialectal appearance in the thirteenth century suggests that they did develop somewhat earlier. The reverse assimilation took place in MDu. elne (West Flanders) > elle, MoDu. el ‘elbow, yard’ (< *alinō-‐‑). (4) Other resonant assimilations: pm > m in Early MDu. coepman > coeman ‘merchant’ (MoDu. koopman), ampman > amman ‘official’, tn > n in vontnesse > vonnesse ‘judgement’ (MoDu. vonnis), dn > n in woensdag ‘Wednesday’ < *Wōdensdag, dl > ll in Zellik (974 Sethleca, 1108 Selleca), Qualburg (1050–1100 Quadalburg, 1143 Qualburg), dr > r in Adriaen > Ariaen, laerse ‘boot’ (1240), MoDu. laars < *leder-‐‑hose. (5) Insertion of d in MDu. lr, nr, rr If (through vowel syncope) stem-‐‑final -‐‑r and suffix-‐‑initial r-‐‑ coincided, an epenthetic d was inserted between the two r’s in Late MDu. This is still the productive rule in MoDu. for comparatives in -‐‑er (originally MDu. -‐‑re < ODu. -‐‑iro) and agent nouns in -‐‑er (MDu. -‐‑(e)re), which usually get the morpheme -‐‑der: MDu. meerre ‘more’ > MoDu. meerder ‘several’ (next to meer ‘more’), MDu. swaerre > MoDu. zwaarder ‘heavier’, claerre > MoDu. klaarder ‘clearer’, hoerre > MoDu. hoorder ‘listener’, and MoDu. alternations such as besturen ‘to drive’ -‐‑ bestuurder ‘driver’, huren ‘to rent’ -‐‑ huurder ‘tenant’, duur ‘expensive’ -‐‑ duurder ‘more expensive’, boer ‘farmer’ -‐‑ boerderij ‘farm’, ver ‘far’ -‐‑ verder ‘farther’ (but een verre vriend ‘a far friend’), etc. In lr and nr, epenthesis of d has ceased to be productive, but it has left quite some traces, again in agent nouns in -‐‑er, in some comparatives and also in old r-‐‑stems: mulder ‘miller’ (G. Müller), MDu. dienre ‘servant’ > MoDu. diender ‘a copper’ (next to productive dienaar ‘servant’), polre > polder ‘polder’, bunre > bunder ‘measure of land’, Denre > Dender ‘river in Flanders’, MDu. solre > MoDu. zolder ‘attic’ (Lat. solārium), kelre > MoDu. kelder ‘cellar’, elre ‘elsewhere’ > MoDu. elders, donre ‘thunder’ > MoDu. donder, also Donderdag ‘Thursday’, minre
Chapter 3
70
‘less’ > MoDu. minder, Heinric > Hendrik, Gelre -‐‑ MoDu. Gelderland, furthermore hoen -‐‑ hoenderen ‘hen -‐‑ hens’, been -‐‑ beenderen ‘bone -‐‑ bones’, staan ‘to stand’ -‐‑ buitenstaander ‘outsider’, tonen ‘to show’ -‐‑ toonder ‘shower’. Productively formed comparatives and derivatives in MoDu. lack d: vol -‐‑ voller ‘full -‐‑ fuller’, dun -‐‑ dunner ‘thin -‐‑ thinner’, zien -‐‑ opziener ‘to see -‐‑ attendant’, etc. (6) Dissimilatory loss of the velar nasal in /ŋg/ > /g/ when preceded by another nasal in the same word: coninghinne > conighinne ‘queen’, maninghe > manighe ‘admonition’, penninghe > peneghe ‘penny’ (inflected forms), honech beside honing (here, the nasal is absent already in the Wachtendonck Psalter honog), woninghe > wonighe ‘dwelling’, etc. In koningin, the nasalless pronunciation has entered the modern standard, which says [konɪ'ɤɪn]. Here are some examples of more radical reduction of original compounds: MDu. mach scien ‘may happen’ > MoDu. misschien /mǝˈsxin/ ‘maybe’; MDu. lijcteken ‘body-‐‑mark’ > MoDu. litteken ‘scar’; MDu. joncfrouwe ‘young lady’ > MoDu. juffrouw > juffer ‘mademoiselle’; MDu. veemnoot ‘companion’ > MoDu. vennoot ‘id.’ > vent ‘bloke’; MDu. wintbraew, winkbraew ‘eyebrow’ > MoDu. wimper ‘eyelash’ (next to restored wenkbrauw ‘eyebrow’). ODu. skolt-‐‑hēti lit. ‘debt-‐‑demander’ > MDu. scoutete > scoute > MoDu. schout ‘bailiff’; ODu. *ban-‐‑māde ‘pasture belonging to the community’ > MDu. bamt, beempt > MoDu. beemd ‘wet meadow’ 3.7 Final -‐‑m > -‐‑n Around 800 AD, a sound change -‐‑m > -‐‑n takes place in Old High German: habēm ‘I have’ > habēn, tuom ‘I do’ > tuon, nāmum ‘we took’ > nāmun, tagum ‘in the days’ > tagun, blintēm ‘for the blind’ (dat.pl.) > blintēn, dēm ‘for them’ > dēn. Note that adnominals with final -‐‑m in Modern High German (dem Mann, mit blindem Vertrauen) had an extra vowel in OHG: demo, blintemo.
In Middle Dutch, we find an alternation between -‐‑m and -‐‑n: • nouns and adjectives with -‐‑m after a stressed vowel always keep -‐‑m: gram ‘angry’,
boom ‘tree’, lam ‘lamb’ • nouns and adjectives with -‐‑m after unstressed vowel also always keep -‐‑m, e.g. in
bezem ‘broom’, bodem ‘bottom’, adem ‘breath’, boezem ‘bosom’, Willem, -‐‑dom ‘-‐‑dom’ • hem, ‘em ‘him’ • hen, ‘en alternating with hem, ‘em ‘them’ • ic ben alternating with ic bem ‘I am’ • dative pl. m.n. den, dien of the demonstrative pronoun and article • dative sg. m.n. goeden, selven, etc. of adnominals
It seems likely that the change to -‐‑n originally took place only after unstressed vowels. Final -‐‑m was then restored in bezem etc. from the oblique case forms (genitive bezemes, etc.), and the variation between hem / hen ‘them’, bem / ben ‘am’ may be due to these words occurring both with and without phrasal stress. The theoretical possibility of a development
Consonants
71
to -‐‑n after stressed vowels is unlikely, since no variants in -‐‑n of boom, -‐‑dom etc. are ever found. 3.8 Degemination OSL led to a correlation between stressed long vowel plus following single consonant, versus stressed short vowel plus following consonant cluster or geminate. This paved the way for the simplification of geminates to single consonants, as the semantic opposition was not in danger: it was now conveyed by the vowel difference. Degemination must also post-‐‑date *xs > ss and *þþ > s(s). It is difficult to decide on the basis of graphic evidence when degemination first set in in Dutch, but a rough date in the thirteenth century seems plausible. Through degemination of the geminate /g:/, the phoneme /g/ was reintroduced into the language (e.g. in Early MDu. secghen ‘to say’), though this, too, soon changed in /γ/ at least in western dialects. i. As a result of the aforementioned changes, Early Middle Dutch had (after degemination) aquired the following consonant system: labial dental velar glottal
p b t d k g
f v s z x ɤ h
w j m n r l 3.9 wr > vr In the sixteenth century, at the latest, initial wr-‐‑ acquired the pronunciation vr-‐‑: MoDu. wreken ‘to avenge’, wreef ‘instep’, wringen ‘to wring’, wrat ‘wart’, wroeten ‘to root’. A possible cause may be seen in the fact that w-‐‑ occurred in no other consonant cluster. Compare the loss of w-‐‑ in German (rächen ‘to avenge’, ringen ‘to wring’) and, at least in pronunciation, in English. As a close parallel, the combination -‐‑rw in auslaut developed to -‐‑rf: gerf-‐‑schaaf beside gerwen ‘to prepare (hides)’, nerf ‘rib, vein’ from MNl. nerwe ‘scar’ (G. Narbe), verf ‘paint’ from MDu. varwe, verwe (G. Farbe), murw [mœrf] ‘soft’ from MDu. merwe, morwe (G. mürbe), dialectal tarf, terf beside StDu. tarwe ‘wheat’. Excursus: PGm. *-‐‑z PGm. was lost *-‐‑z after stressed short and long monosyllables (Boutkan 1995: 43–51, van Loon 1986: 117). ODu. he ‘he’, gi ‘you’, mi ‘me’. This change was shared with Anglo-‐‑Frisian and Low German. Possibly, *-‐‑z > -‐‑r was originally retained in posttonic syllables (OFris. -‐‑er
Chapter 3
72
‘he’). In historical times, the isogloss between enclitic -‐‑(h)ī and -‐‑er ‘he’ and enclitic -‐‑gī and -‐‑iur ‘you’ roughly runs between Brabant and Limburg. Similarly, *-‐‑z was lost in pretonic prefixes. This explains the forms Old and Middle Dutch ā-‐‑ ‘out’, te-‐‑ ‘apart’ (ODu. āluhti ‘enlightens’, MDu. tebrecan ‘to crush’) versus OHG ar-‐‑ < *uz-‐‑, zur-‐‑ < *tuz-‐‑. This r-‐‑loss is shared with Old Saxon and Anglo-‐‑Frisian. All Dutch dialects have (or rather, had) the prefix te-‐‑, whereas ODu. ir-‐‑, MDu. er-‐‑ is restricted to sporadic occurrences in Limburg. In contrast, the stressed variant of *uz-‐‑ retained its r and yields MoDu. oor-‐‑. Compare the following pairs: oorlog ‘war’ < *úz-‐‑laga-‐‑ verbs: OHG irleggen, OE ālecgan oordeel ‘judgement’ < *úz-‐‑daili-‐‑ OHG irteilen, OE ādælan oorkonde ‘charter’ < *úz-‐‑kundī(n)-‐‑ MoHG erkennen oorbaar ‘allowed’ < *úz-‐‑bāra-‐‑ OHG irberan oorzaak ‘cause’ < *úz-‐‑saka-‐‑ – oorsprong ‘origin’ < *úz-‐‑sprunga-‐‑ OHG irspringan, OE āspringan oort ‘left-‐‑overs’ (Hij heeft zijn laatste oortje versnoept), Early MoDu. or(a)ete < *úz-‐‑ētan-‐‑ cf. Goth. uzeta ‘crib’, ME orte ‘fodder’ It has been suggested that the ODu. gloss turnichal in Lex Salica 18 represents a prefixed noun *tuz-‐‑nih(w)al ‘destruction’ to MDu. tenielen ‘to destroy’, in which case stressed *tuz-‐‑ would originally have preserved -‐‑r in Dutch too, te-‐‑ later being generalized from unstressed position.
4. Vowel system(s) 4.1 Vowel systems from ODu. to MoDu. Here are the stressed vowels of Old Dutch:
Short i u e o a
Diphthongs: io (> iəә), uo (> uəә), iu (> y:), ei, ou. In the early stages of Old Dutch, all short vowels could also occur in unstressed position. Reduction rendered this impossible in later ODu., where the number of unstressed vowels was reduced, until, in Early MoDu., we find only <e> (probably /əә/). In postposttonic syllables, full vowels were retained longer, and they survive in some suffixes until today. E.g. -‐‑ing ‘-‐‑ing’, -‐‑schap ‘-‐‑ship’, -‐‑dom ‘-‐‑dom’, -‐‑nis ‘-‐‑ness’, and others. At the end of the ODu. period some changes greatly influence the system: • ū > ȳ, first of all in Flemish, but spreading to Western Brabant by the thirteenth century. This made ū disappear from the system: ODu. hūs > MDu. huus /hy:s/ ‘house’, *mūs > muus /my:s/ ‘mouse’. A separate development is found for ū + w and word-‐‑final ū in Brabant and Utrecht: in these positions, ū became ou. Hence ODu. *þūwen > douwen ‘to push’ (next to StD. duwen), nū > nou ‘now’. • As a counterpart of the previous change, short *u was fronted to y in Coastal Dutch, first of all in Flemish. • Open Syllable Lengthening, whereby short a, e, i, o, u, y became MDu. ā, ē, ē, ō, ō, ȫ: name > nāme (MoDu. naam) ‘name’, geven > gēven (MoDu. geven ‘to give’), himil > hēmel ‘heaven’, opan > ōpen ‘open’, sumar > zōmer ‘summer’, *hypi > heup ‘hip’. • Short vowels became lax, and were lowered somewhat with regard to their (long) tense counterparts: i > ɪ, u > o/ɔ, y > ʏ. The first and third change are invisible in spelling. The second change made short u disappear: jung [juŋ] > jong [jɔŋ]. • WGm. ald/old-‐‑, alt/olt-‐‑ > Late ODu. o + ld/lt > Early MDu. oud/t in western and central dialects. Examples: malt > mout ‘malt’, kald > koud ‘cold’, holt > hout ‘wood’. See map 10 for the distribution.
Long ī ū ē ō ā
Vowel systems
75
Map 10: The vocalization of a/old in modern dialects. From: Van Loon (1986), p. 148. We get the following stressed vowel system for (south)western Middle Dutch:
Short ɪ ʏ ɛ ɔ ɑ
Plus the diphthongs: iəә, uəә, ei, ou. The following changes are typical of Late MDu. and Early MoDu.:
§ Monophthongization of iəә > ī and uəә > ū reduces the number of diphthongs and reintroduces a phoneme ū. In the case of iəә <ie>, the spelling cannot tell us, which pronunciation was used: riet ‘reed’, bieden ‘to offer’, wieden ‘to weed’. In the case of <oe>, the realization uəә (in central dialects) competed with oəә and monophthongal o: in western and southeastern dialects. In any case, the spelling <oe> again does not tell us whether the vowel was pronounced a monophthong or a diphthong: buek/boek ‘book’, brueder/broeder ‘brother’, soeken > zoeken ‘to seek’.
§ ou > au (but the spelling retains <ou>, as opposed to <au> from *-‐‑aw-‐‑ and *-‐‑āw-‐‑). § Diphthongization of ī > ɛi and ȳ > œʏ, except in front of r: MDu. vige > MoDu. vijg ‘fig’,
rigen > rijgen ‘to string’, bule > buil ‘bump’, muul > muil ‘snout’. But: vieren ‘to celebrate’ (G. feiern), muur ‘wall’ (G. Mauer). As maps 11 and 12 show, it is again the southwest and the east of the Dutch language area that do not partake in the change, or in less environments.
Long ī ȳ ē ø ō ā
Chapter 4
76
Map 11: ī from WGm. *ī in the dialects. From: Van Loon 1986: 104.
Map 12: WGm. *ū in the dialects. From: van Bree 1996: 232.
§ Apocope of all word-‐‑final schwa’s: hase > haas ‘hare’, ic neme > ik neem ‘I take’, helle >
hel ‘hell’. Flanders, Zealand and a large chunk of the northeastern dialects did not take part in this change, as map 13 shows:
Vowel systems
77
Map 13: e-‐‑apocope in Dutch. From: van Loon 1986: 100.
We now reach the vowel system of Early Modern Dutch:
Short ɪ ɛ œ ɔ ɑ
Plus the diphthongs: <ij> /ɪi/, ei> /ɛɪ/, <ui> /œʏ/, <au, ou> /au/. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a few further changes occur in northwestern Dutch. They determine the MoDu. standard pronunciation in The Netherlands:
§ The merger of <ij> [ɪi] and <ei> [ɛɪ] in [ɛɪ]: een weide ‘a pasture’ = een wijde ‘a wide one’, vermijden ‘to avoid’ = meid ‘maid’, beiden ‘both’= bijden ‘to await’.
§ Shortening of high and mid long vowels (which were qualitatively already different from the lax ones) except before r. Hence, biet ‘beet-‐‑root’ /bit/ = [bit] but bier ‘beer’ /bir/ = [bi:r], groot ‘great’ /grot/ = [grot] but door ‘through’ /dor/ = [do:r], etc. Length thereby disappears as a distinctive feature from the vowel system.
§ In dialects of Brabant and Holland, the tense mid vowels /e/, /o/ and /ö/ are diphthongized to various extents. E.g. heet ‘hot’ can be [heit], [hεit], [hait] vel sim.
Hence the following contemporary MoDu. system: i y u ɪ e ø o ε œ ɔ a ɑ Plus the diphthongs: εi, ɑu, œy
Long ī ȳ ū ē ø ō ā
Chapter 4
78
Comparison Here is a number of ODu. words with their MDu. and MoDu. equivalents. Formulate rules summarizing the changes affecting ODu. /ū/ en /ī/: Old Dutch Middle Dutch Modern Dutch
hūs [huːs] huus [hyːs] huis [hɶʏs] *būr [buːr] buer [byːr] buur [byːr] sūgan [suːgɑn] sugen [syːgǝn] zuigen [zɶʏɣǝn] *mūs [muːs] muus [myːs] muis [mɶʏs] dūva [duːva] duve [dyːvǝ] duif [dɶʏf] sūr [suːr] suer [syːr] zuur [zyːr] thūsint [θuːsɪnt] dusent [dyːsǝnt] duizend [dɶʏzǝnt] mūra [muːr] mure [myːrǝ] muur [myːr] *sūpan [suːpɑn] supen [syːpǝn] zuipen [zɶʏpǝn] lūt [luːt] geluut [gǝlyːt] geluid [ɣǝlɶʏt] fīron [fiːrɔn] vieren [viːrǝn] vieren [viːrǝn] wīsen [wiːsǝn] wisen [ʋiːsǝn] wijzen [ʋɛɪzǝn] *grīs [griːs] grijs [griːs] grijs [ɣrɛɪs] gīrega [giːrǝga] gireg [giːrǝg] gierig [ɣiːrǝx] sīgan [siːgɑn] sigen [siːgǝn] zijgen [zɛɪɣǝn] bītan [biːtɑn] biten [biːtǝn] bijten [bɛɪtǝn] fīf [fiːf] vijf [viːf] vijf [vɛɪf] wīrōk [wiːroːk] wierooc [ʋiːrok] wierook [ʋiːrok] wīen [wiːǝn] wiën [ʋiːǝn] wijden [wɛɪdǝn]
Vowel systems
79
4.2 Coastal and Inland Dutch The most important, old structural difference between western and eastern dialects concerns i-‐‑mutation: 1. Primary i-‐‑mutation of *a to *ä is found in all dialects. In most western dialects, including the standard language, *ä merged with WGm. *e: Dutch West-‐‑Germanic dak ‘roof’ *thaka-‐‑ dekken ‘to thatch’ *thakjan hals ‘neck’ *halsa-‐‑ omhelzen ‘to embrace’ *halsjan baten ‘to avail’ *batæ:jan beter ‘better’ *batizan bed ‘bed’ *badi, -‐‑ja-‐‑ 2. Secondary i-‐‑mutation is only found in dialects to the east of a line stretching, very roughly, from Geraardsbergen (Grammont) via Antwerp and Utrecht to the Zuiderzee, that is, in all dialects except Hollandish, Zealandish and Flemish. This mutation affected all back vowels at a Late ODu. stage. In eastern dialects, as in German, this i-‐‑mutation is a productive morphological process (see isoglosses 2 tot 5 on map 14): Coastal Dutch Inland Dutch West-‐‑Germanic groen /grun/ /grø.n/ *grōni ‘green’ geloven /gəәlo.vəә/ /gəәlø.vəә / *galaubjan ‘to believe’ voet -‐‑ voeten /vut – vutəә/ /vo.t – vø.t/ *fōt – *fōti ‘foot -‐‑ feet’ huis -‐‑ huisje /hœys – hœyšəә/ /hu.s – hy.skəә/ *hūs – *hūsikīn ‘hous -‐‑ little house’ kom -‐‑ komt /kom – komt/ /kom – kœms/ *kwemō – *kwemiþ ‘I come -‐‑ he comes’ bakken -‐‑ bakker /bàkəә -‐‑ bàkəәr/ /bàkəә -‐‑ bɛkəәr/ *bakkan -‐‑ *bakkarja ‘to bake -‐‑ baker’
Chapter 4
80
Map 14: Umlaut borders in Dutch dialects. From: Guus Kroonen, Comparative Phonology of the Germanic Languages. Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics, 2010. Legenda of map 14: 1. western unrounding of put(te) to pit(te) or pet(te) 2. eastern i-‐‑mutation of PGm. *ō 3. eastern i-‐‑mutation of PGm. *au 4. eastern i-‐‑mutation in diminutives 5. eastern i-‐‑mutation in 2sg. of strong verbs 4.2.1 Different vowel systems of Inland and Coastal Dutch Due to secondary i-‐‑mutation, Inland Dutch developed the phonemes *ü, *ǖ, *ö, *ȫ, *öü, *üö, *ä, *ǟ. In Coastal Dutch, these were originally absent. Later developments (as sketched above) caused the rise of /y/, /y:/, and /ø:/, but Inland Dutch *ö, *öü, *ä, *ǟ mostly remain without a CDu. counterpart. Another major difference was caused by the behaviour of ODu. *i, *ü and *u when lengthened in open syllable. In Coastal Dutch, they yielded the same result as OSL of *e, (*ö) and *o. But in many eastern dialects, as in German, the lengthened vowels kept their difference: G. sieben, geben, Tür. 4.2.2 Frisian and Franconian It seems likely that the history of the western Low Countries ultimately caused the linguistic differences observed between coastal and inland Dutch. The clearest demographic factor which can be discerned before 1200 in this area is the opposition between “Frisian” and “non-‐‑Frisian”. According to historical sources, the coastal areas, certainly of Holland and Zealand, were “Frisian” until ca. 1100 AD. After that time, they share the ‘Franconian’ speech of the Inland Dutch dialecs:
Old Dutch Middle Dutch Modern Dutch
Frisian Franconian
1100 It appears that the replacement of an (Anglo-‐‑)Frisian variety by a Franconian variety in the Coastal Dutch area may have taken as much as 500 years to reach completion. In Flanders, the process may have started in the eighth century. It reached parts of North Holland only in the thirteenth century, with Frisian pockets possibly remaining for a few more centuries. These chronological differences have obvious consequences for our reconstructions: in principle, different periods of language contact apply to different regions, and, also, each region may have witnesses a different kind of language contact process. For instance, in Flanders the linguistic systems of Frisian and Franconian of the eighth century are basic to
Vowel systems
81
the comparison, whereas for South Holland, one would have to look at the system of around the year 1000, and for North Holland, at that of the thirteenth century. The type of language contact which we must posit for the shift from Frisian to Franconian is largely that of imposition of L1-‐‑features (viz. of Frisian) onto the L2 (Franconian) which was adopted by the inhabitants of the coastal provinces. Hence, one may expect features mainly of phonetics and syntax to show substrate effects. This theory was elaborated on by Anthony Buccini in various publications. 4.2.3 To what extent did Frisian and Franconian differ around 1100? Phonological innovation of Anglo-‐‑Frisian: Old Frisian: StDu.:
1. Centralisation of low vowels before nasals mōna maan 2. Vn > V: before fricatives; ã > ō mūth, ōther mond, ander 3. *ai > ā twā twee 4. *a > *æ often feder, thek vader, dak 5. palatalisation of *k, *g before e, i tsin, jeld kin, geld 6. *æ: > *ē skēp schaap
Other Proto-‐‑Frisian changes:
7. *au > ā bām boom 8. i-‐‑mutation epen, blēda open, bloeden 9. Unrounding of *ü, *ö etc. kening, bregge koning, brug 10. *e > *iu before x-‐‑clusters riucht recht
Proof for Frisian in Western Dutch place-‐‑names Frisian phonology: Franconian phonology: WGm. Muiden -‐‑monde *munþa ‘mouth’ Zierikz-‐‑ee Brabantse Aa *ahwō ‘water’ Kaag Koog (a/d Zaan) *kauga ‘land’ Suetan, Zwieten Soten, Zoeterwoude *swōti ‘sweet’ Horenbregge Hoornbrug *brugjō ‘ bridge’ Zwette Zwade *swaþþō ‘border, ditch’
Translation of place-‐‑names: Radenburch (12th c.) → Roomburg *rauda ‘red’ Zweten (10th c.) → Zoeter-‐‑woude *swōti ‘sweet’ Nordcha (9th c.) → Northgo (11th c.) → Noordwijk *gawi ‘region’
Chapter 4
82
Map 15: Medieval place-‐‑names in southern Holland with Frisian phonology 4.2.4 The legal system in the Hollandish coastal area
• asega: public prosecutor in Frisia until 1200 (Old Frisian ā-‐‑sega ‘law-‐‑sayer’, ā ‘law’ < *aiwō-‐‑), a supra-‐‑local bailiff in parts of Holland (Leiden, Bodegraven, Woerden, ‘t Gooi) until 1500. Variants: asige, asich, azing, azink, etc.
• bottinge ‘count’s tax’ in South and North Holland. From OFr. bod-‐‑thing ‘lawsuit (thing) to which one is summoned (bod-‐‑)’. Became a tax around 1050, in the area then under Frisian control.
• deimt ‘land measure’ north of Amsterdam. From OFr. dei-‐‑mêth ‘amount which can be mowed within a day’. In Franc. dialects: dagmaat, dammaat, dammet
4.2.5 Dutch ie instead of aa from PGm. *ǣ:
Frisian ‘Frisian’ form in Dutch Standard Dutch
miede miede, meet, meede in toponyms made ‘field to be mowed’
wiel wiel ‘eddy’, Fle. Zeal. Hol. weel waal ‘pond left after a dam-‐‑burst’
skriel schriel ‘lean, thin’ schraal ‘poor, rough’
jarre gier ‘liquid manure’ Low German gaare
The usual development of WGm. *ǣ is into Franconian aa, Old Frisian ē, Modern West Frisian ie /iǝ/: Dutch schaap, jaar, raad, MoWF skiep, jier, ried ‘sheep, year, counsel’.
Vowel systems
83
Western Dutch miede, wiel, schriel, gier first shared the Frisian development to /e:/ when Frisian was still spoken in what became Holland and Zealand, and then they were adopted into Franconian(ized) Hollandish. 4.2.6 WGm. *ai in Frisian and Coastal Dutch WGm. *ai yields western and central Dutch /e:/ (StDu. kleed ‘cloth’, twee ‘two’, steen ‘stone’), unless an i-‐‑mutation factor determined the outcome, in which case we find /εi/: klein ‘small’, rein ‘pure’, heide ‘heath’. In Old Frisian, WGm. *ai yielded Old Frisian ā before WGm. back vowels (OFr. ā ‘law’, tāne ‘toe’, etc.), otherwise, OFr. ē : bēn ‘leg, bone’, hēm ‘home’, etc. A third reflex is short a before CC: OFr. aft ‘lawful’, mast ‘most’, etc. Two groups of western Dutch forms occur which show traces of the Frisian development: 1. Western a, shortened from aa before CC: aft ‘lawful’, loanword from OFri. ā ft, eft ‘in accordance with the law; married’ < *aiwō-‐‑hafta-‐‑ ‘law-‐‑ful’ (OHG ēhaft). asighe, azing ‘officer of the law’ to OFri. ā-‐‑sega/-‐‑siga ‘law-‐‑sayer’ (OS eosago) atter ‘pus’ < *aitra; StDu. etter ladder ‘ladder’ < *hlādre < *hlaidrō; other Dutch dialects have leeder etc.
vracht ‘freight’ < *fra-‐‑aihti ‘reward’; Flemish vrecht These words are restricted to Zealand and Holland (only vracht became more wide-‐‑spread). Aft, asighe and vracht are closely related to the juridical and economical system of medieval Frisia, and were borrowed as part of that jargon. 2. North Hollandish oo /o:/:
MDu. oghen, hoogen ‘to lawfully possess, own’ in North Holland (OFri. āga ‘to own’) roop ‘rope, strip’ in North Holland, vs. usual Dutch reep ‘id.’ < *raip-‐‑ (OFri. –rāp) toon ‘toe’ in North Holland and Groningen, vs. usual teen < *taihwō(n)-‐‑ (OFri. tāne)
Both groups are probably due to the borrowing of Old Frisian words. The first group has a shortened vowel in Frisian, too, and may therefore directly reflect Old Frisian. The second group represents the borrowing of Old Frisian ā as a low, rounded back vowel in North Holland. The reflex oo has sometimes been regarded as a “derailed” frisianism. In 1950, Heeroma assumed that OFri. */a:/ (< *ai, *au) was wrongly substituted by OFra. *ō (*au) instead of *ē (*ai) in a number of cases, when speakers of Proto-‐‑Frisian switched to Franconian. But the theory is unconvincing, and the data can mostly be explained otherwise. For instance, Du. moot ‘a slice of fish or meat’ is usually compared with English meat and derived from PGm. *maitō-‐‑ ‘portion’. But the Early MoDu. spelling moete suggests WGm. *ō, and a reconstruction as *mōtō-‐‑ ‘portion, slice’ to the verb *mōtan-‐‑ ‘to find room, be allowed’ is conceivable. 4.3 Unrounding of *ü in Coastal Dutch At the heart of Buccini’s theory on the linguistic development of Coastal Dutch is the
Chapter 4
84
observation that western dialects lack secondary i-‐‑mutation. Buccini’s explanation starts from the assumption that reduction of unstressed vowels had proceeded further in Anglo-‐‑Frisian than in Franconian at the time of the first major linguistic contacts and the shift from (Proto-‐‑)Frisian to Franconian, that is, around 800 in Flanders. Buccini assumes that the i-‐‑mutation factors had already been reduced to schwa or zero in Frisian, thus causing phonologization of the i-‐‑mutated vowels, among which were the front rounded vowels /y/, /y:/, /ø:/. That this was so can with some likelihood be deduced from the fact that Proto-‐‑Frisian, including these front rounded vowels, must be dated to the eighth century, at the latest, since the North Frisian dialects migrated away from the Frisian mainland ultimately by that time. In Franconian, however, the i-‐‑mutation factors i and j remained in tact for a longer period, j until the ninth century, i until the tenth or eleventh century. Hence, the stressed vowels before such mutation factors were fronted only in the allophonic sense, but had not become phonemes. Buccini now supposes that language contact led to relationships such as the following: Proto-‐‑Frisian Old Franconian *fōt -‐‑ *fe:tǝ *fōt -‐‑ *fōti ‘foot -‐‑ feet’ *bridža *bruggja ‘bridge’ The speakers of Proto-‐‑Frisian adopted Franconian *fōt -‐‑ *fōti as *fōt -‐‑ *fōtǝ, since they did not have unstressed i anymore. The absence of suffixal /j/ (or: of palatalized velar stops) would have caused the adoption of ‘bridge’ as CDu. *brugga, and so on. In such ways the development of an i-‐‑mutated vowel was blocked in the newly arisen coastal dialects. The following map shows the areas in which unrounded reflexes of ‘pit’, ‘back’, ‘thin’, ‘bridge’ and ‘piece’ are traditionally found in western Dutch dialecs.
Map 16: unrounding of *ü in Coastal Dutch. From: van Loon 1986: 67. Assuming that stik shows the maximal original spread of this phenomenon in Flanders, and that the coastal villages in South Holland preserve variants which once were found in all of
Legenda: 1. Pit/pet ‘pit’ 2. Rig/rik/reg ‘back’, cf. MoWF rêch, E. ridge 3. Dinne ‘thin’ 4. Brigge ‘bridge’ 5. Stik ‘piece’
Vowel systems
85
Holland, we find that, again, Flanders, Zealand and Holland show this unrounding. In fact, the texts of the thirteenth century already show this geographic spread. Here is a near-‐‑complete collection of unrounded forms of *ü, both with modern short vowels (i.e., the development in closed syllables) and with lengthened vowels (from Open Syllable Lengthening): WGm. ja-‐‑stems: StDu. PGm. unrounded forms in (mostly) MDu. hul ‘hill’ *xulja-‐‑ m. hil, pl. -‐‑s (Fla.), hil (Hol.) kunne ‘kin’ *kunja-‐‑ n. >> f. kinne (Fla.) put ‘pit’ *putja-‐‑ m. pit, pl. -‐‑s (Fla.), pet (Hol.) rug ‘back’ *xrugja-‐‑ m. ric (Fla.), rig (Zea.), regge (ZH), rec (NH) stuk ‘piece’ *stukja-‐‑ n. stik, pl. -‐‑s/-‐‑er (Fla.), stik (Hol.) dun ‘thin’ *þunnja-‐‑ adj. dinne (CDu.) WGm. jō-‐‑stems: brug ‘bridge’ *brugjō-‐‑ f. brigge (Fla.), bregge > breg (Hol.) gruppe ‘ditch’ *grupjō-‐‑ f. greppe(le), grippe(le) (Fla. Zea. Hol.) kruk ‘crutch’ *krukjō-‐‑ f. cricke, Crick, krikke (Fla.), kri/ek (Hol.) -‐‑mulde ‘vessel’ *muldjō-‐‑ f. -‐‑melde, -‐‑milla mug ‘midge’ *mugjō-‐‑ f. mig, meg (NH) schutte(n) ‘barrier’ *skutjō-‐‑ f., -‐‑jan-‐‑ v. -‐‑skitte (Fla.), Schittingh-‐‑ (Fla.) zulle ‘sill’ *suljō-‐‑ f. sille (WFla.) In open syllable: deuvel ‘dowel’ *dubila-‐‑ deur-‐‑develt ‘pierced with dowels’ (NH), devel (Fla.) euvel ‘bad, evil’ *ubila-‐‑ evel (Fla., WBrab., Zeal., Hol.) heup ‘hip’ *hupi-‐‑ hepe (Hol., Fle.) heuvel ‘hill’ *hubila-‐‑ MDu. hevele (Fle.) knekel ‘bone’ *knukila-‐‑ knekel (Hol.) kreupel ‘lame, crippled’ *krupila-‐‑ krepel (WFla., Zeal., SH, Gooi) meuzie, mezie ‘midge’ *musjō-‐‑ messien (WFla. 1285). peluw ‘bolster, pillow’ pulwīna-‐‑ pelu(w) (Fla.) Rupelmonde *rupila-‐‑? Repelmonde (14th-‐‑16th c.) reuzel ‘lard’ *rusila-‐‑ rezel (Hol.) sno(e)del ‘mean’ *sn(a)udila-‐‑ snedel (Hol. 15th c.) veulen ‘foal’ *fulīna-‐‑ velen (Holl.), dim. velken (WFla.) volik ‘foal’ *fulika-‐‑ velik, vilk (Hol. Zeal. Fla.) vleugel ‘wing’ *flugila-‐‑ vlegel (Hol. Fla. Brab.) Surnames often confirm the dialectological data, as in the following two cases, with names containing ‘bridge’. Beside unrounding, they also confirm the usual distribution of unrounded i in Flanders, unrounded e in Holland:
Chapter 4
86
Map 17: Verbrigghe in Flanders Map 18: Bregman in The Netherlands Resuming the evidence, we find that unrounding in closed syllable is restricted to PGm. ja-‐‑ and jō-‐‑stems, where it is found across all coastal dialects. There is clearly a direct link with the effect of j-‐‑gemination, viz. the rise of a geminate consonant. It has already been hypothesized on the basis of the Anglo-‐‑Frisian dialects that the Germanic ja-‐‑stems went through stage with endingless nominative-‐‑accusative forms with final *-‐‑CC(’), a palatalized geminate; and the existence of apocopated Dutch hil, pit, stik, rik, net, rek confirms that we may assume the same stage for Old Franconian. It follows that Coastal Dutch brigge, pit etc. had Old Franconian *ü plus a, probably palatal, geminate consonant, but no synchronic umlaut factor. The vowel was therefore unrounded due to systemic pressure: either because the language had very few words with front rounded vowels at the time (this would presumably have been the case in Old Franconian) or because the language had no front rounded vowels at all (in Ingvaeonic or Proto-‐‑Frisian, where front rounded vowels had already been unrounded at an early stage). The unrounding in open syllable in evel, krepel, etc. is mainly found before and after labial obstruents. It can be interpreted as labial dissimilation and it has a more recent origin, post-‐‑dating unconditioned fronting of *u. There is no link to an Ingvaeonic substrate. 4.4 Unconditioned fronting of *u in Coastal Dutch The West Germanic vowels *u and *o were allophones of /u/, with *o arising through a-‐‑mutation or “lowering mutation”. In Standard Dutch, both vowels have merged, so that we find Dutch vos, hond, bot, krom, gebonden and bok, wolf, kop, vol with the same vowel /ɔ/, whereas Standard German shows an opposition between /u/ in Fuchs, Hund, Butt, krumm, gebunden versus /ɔ/ in Bock, Wolf, Kopf, voll. Some modern dialects of Dutch distinguish between two short rounded back vowels, e.g., between /υ/ and /ɔ/, or between /o/ and /ɒ/. It is unclear in which dialects this distinction directly reflects the West Germanic allophony and in which dialects, on the contrary, the extant distinction arose at some later stage by a split of an earlier unitary phoneme /o/. Furthermore, within specific dialects, some of the words with closed vs. open o may directly continue the inherited allophones *u and *o whereas other lexemes obey to a conditioning which arose at a later stage.
It is unclear what the exact distribution of *u and *o in Old Low Franconian was. Old
Vowel systems
87
Saxon shows u rather than o when the stressed vowel is followed by nC (hund ‘hundred’), a single m (sumar ‘summer’) or n (wunon ‘to live’), and also after labial consonants (ful ‘full’, wulf ‘wolf’). Some u-‐‑forms may be due to paradigmatic alternations. Similar conditions may probably be assumed for Old Franconian.
In western Dutch, *u and *o can have four outcomes, viz. oo, o, eu and u, depending on whether the vowel was lengthened in open syllable or not, and on whether it was (“spontaneously”) fronted or not. We often find regional variation, e.g., between StDu. boter and dialectal beuter ‘butter’, StDu. wonen and dialectal weunen ‘to live, inhabit’, StDu. sleutel, dialectal slotel ‘key’, StDu. bok, dialectal buk ‘he-‐‑goat’, StDu. ochtend, dialectal uchtend ‘morning’, etc. The investigation of ca. 360 etyma with *u and *o has revealed that the erstwhile presence of an i-‐‑mutation factor in the second syllable was of no direct consequence to the vowel fronting in these words. Rather it appears that mainly words with *u, that is, words in which PGm. *u was not lowered to *o, which show fronting to modern u (in closed syllables) or eu (in open syllables). Of course, before a following i-‐‑mutation factor, as in sleutel ‘key’ < *slutila-‐‑, and before *u, as in dial. zeun, StDu. zoon ‘son’ < *sunu-‐‑, *u was not lowered. Also a preceding labial consonant (as in Flemish wulf , StDu. wolf ‘wolf’ < *wulba-‐‑, buk ‘he-‐‑goat’) and a following single nasal consonant (as in dial. zeumer, StDu. zomer ‘summer’, dial. keumen ‘to come’, StDu. komen) seem to have favoured vowel fronting. In general, lengthened vowels are relatively more frequent than short vowels in fronting their vowel *u, but this may just be an indirect reflex of the fact that i-‐‑mutation and u-‐‑mutation are much more frequent in open syllables than in closed ones, e.g. in light i-‐‑stems and u-‐‑stems, in ila-‐‑derivatives, in jan-‐‑verbs (at least in part of their paradigm). Another, more systematic reason may be that, in Old and Middle Dutch, the long-‐‑vowel system was more crowded than the short-‐‑vowel system. In such a situation, it can easily happen that one or more of the back vowels starts to centralize and front. See the next paragraph.
Map 19: Front vowel reflex in noot ’nut’ < PGm. *xnut-‐‑. In the east, we find regular i-‐‑mutation (in some dialects), in West Flanders, Zealand and parts of Holland, there is unconditioned fronting to neut.
Chapter 4
88
4.5 Unconditioned fronting of *ū in Coastal Dutch Around the twelfth century, ODu. /u:/ was fronted to /y:/ or diphthongized to /ow/ in western and central dialects. The new /y:/ merged with the product of WGm. *iu (see above) in Brabant and Utrecht, but not in the coastal dialects, where *iu was unrounded to ie (western vier vs. central vuur ’fire’). The vowel *ī also yielded /y:/ in Flemish and Hollandish, viz. before *w: spuwen ’to spit’ < spīwan. In the same position, however, *ū had become /ow/: bouwen ’to build’ < *būwan. In Brabant and Utrecht, both *īw and *ūw yielded ouw, and word-‐‑final *ū also become ou: Brab. nou, Fle. nu ’now’ (both of which survive in StDu.). The dialectal details are even more intricate. Here is a survey of the main developments per region (based on van Loon 1986: 78–79): ODu.: WMDu. > MoDu. Brab./Utr. Limburg ū in inlaut: hūs ’house’ būk ’belly’ thūsint ’1000’
huus > huis buuc > buik dusent > duizend
hoes boek doezend
ū in auslaut: nū ’now’ *jū ’you’
nu > nu ju >> jou
nou jou
noe(w) [uch]
ū before hiatus: OHG bedūhen ’push’ OHG grūen ’shiver’ OS būan ’to build’
duwen > duwen gruwen > gruwen buwen >> bouwen
douwen grouwen bouwen
[duje] boewe
iuw: niuwi ’new’
nuwe >> nieuwe
nouwe // nije
niej
īw: hīwian ’to marry’ spīwan ’to spit’ wīwo ’kite’ wīwari ’pond’
huwen > huwen spuwen >> spugen wuwe >> wouw wuwer >> vijver
houwen spouwen wouwe wouwer
spieje wieër
eww: brewwan ’to brew’ trewwa ’loyal’ blewwan ’to blow’ *skeuha-‐‑ ’shy’
bruwen >> brouwen trouwe > trouw blouwen > blouwen scu > schuw
brouwen trouwe blouwen scu, schouw
broewe troew sjoew
auw: *frauwō(n) ’lady’ *skauwōn-‐‑ ’to see’ *hauwwan-‐‑ ’to hew’
vrouwe > vrouw scouwen > schouwen houwen > houwen
vrouwe scouwen houwen
vrouw houwe
In modern dialects, /u:/ has remained unpalatalized largely in Limburg, eastern Gelderland, and the northeastern provinces. It appears that, in the Late Middle Ages, eastern Brabant also had /u:/, and it seems likely that the palatalization altogether was a coastal phenomenon, which has conquered Brabant and Utrecht under the impetus of Flemish and Hollandish
Vowel systems
89
speech. Traces of /u:/ can be found in toponyms (Zoersel with zuur ’sour’, prov. Antwerp), Doesburg (prov. Gelderland, cf. Duisburg in Germany) and in surnames (western Bruins vs. southeastern Broens = Brouns to bruin ’brown’, Hoebrechts = Huibrechts, etc.). The Dutch standard language also contains a number of words in /u/ which alternate with semantic counterparts in regular ui (or uu before r). Some of these can be regarded as ’secondary vocabulary’, that is, local vocabulary which is more easily borrowed from lower registers: boer ’farmer’ vs. buur ’neighbour’, doffer (MDu,. duver < *dūbran-‐‑) ’male pigeon’ vs. duif ’pigeon’, knoest ’knot’ vs. knuist ’fist’, loeren ’to leer’ vs. gluren ’to peep’, sproet ’freckle’ vs. spruit ’sprout’, smoel ’mug’ vs. mee-‐‑smuilen ’to smile ironically’, stoer ’sturdy’ vs. stuurs ’surly’, etc. This suggests that at least part of these oe-‐‑words survived in Holland during the Middle Ages, and that, in origin, Hollandish did not undergo the palatalization of /u:/ to /y:/ as did Flemish. Other traces of /u:/ in Holland and Zealand are the toponyms Soeburg < *sūþ-‐‑burg ’South-‐‑burgh’ in Zeeland, Boekesloot > Buiksloot lit. ’Belly-‐‑Ditch’, Doevendrecht > Duivendrecht near Amsterdam.
The palatalization in Flanders may ultimately have been caused by the shift of *ō to uo and further to uǝ, which encroached on the vowel space of /u:/. Since *ō was retained as /o:/ in eastern dialects (until the present day), and, originally, also in the westernmost coastal areas, it is understandable that they did form the center of innovation for the change of /u:/ to /y:/.
Source: van Loon 1986: 82.
4.6 The reflexes of *au and *aw Like in Old Saxon, the diphthong *au always became a monophthong in ODu., regardless of the following consonant, except before a following *w, where the diphthong was retained. Hence MoDu. oor ‘ear’, rood ‘red’, stoten ‘to thrust’, hoog ‘high’, ook ‘also’, oog ‘eye’, lopen ‘to walk’, geloven ‘to believe’, boom ‘tree’, but schouwen ‘to watch’, houwen ‘to hew’ from WGm. *ausan-‐‑, *rauda-‐‑, *stautan-‐‑, *xauxa-‐‑, *auk, *augan-‐‑, *hlaupan-‐‑, *ga-‐‑laubjan-‐‑, *bauma-‐‑, *skauwon-‐‑, *xauwan-‐‑. Yet the uniform reflex /o:/ of the standard language is originally only that of the western dialects: in the centre and east of Dutch, i-‐‑mutation applied if an i-‐‑mutation factor was present. If *au landed in word-‐‑final position in ODu., we can expect paradigmatic alternation between the vocalization as *-‐‑aw in final and *au in non-‐‑final position. Examples are MDu. vro ‘cheerful’ (used only predicatively; MoDu. vrolijk) vs. vrouwen ‘to be glad’ < WGm. *frawa-‐‑, stro ‘straw’ vs. gen. strous, dat. strowe < WGm. *strawa-‐‑. The adj. *xauxa-‐‑ ‘high’ regularly yielded MDu. nom.acc.sg. hooch /ho:x/ but dat.sg. *hoë /ho:ǝ/; subsequently, the stem has mostly been generalized as hoog, dat. hoge, but a new nom.sg. ho /ho:/ is also attested, which must be based on the oblique forms which lost intervocalic *h.
Before *i and *j a paradigmatic alternation between *aw and *au could similarly arise, with monophthongization applying only in the sequence *auj. Thus, prevocalic *awi yields MDu. MoDu. ouw(e)-‐‑, whereas *auj-‐‑ is reflected as ooi. Inner-‐‑paradigmatic alternation explains attested doublets such as MDu. touwen next to tooien ‘to prepare hides’, MoDu. voltooien ‘to finish’ (*taujan-‐‑), houwe next to hoye ‘hay’, MoDu. hooi (*hawi-‐‑), strouwen next to strooien (also MoDu.) ‘to strew’, MoDu. gouw ‘district’ (G. Gau) but Gooi (district east of Amsterdam).
Another instance of this alternation is found in the word for ‘island’, ‘river meadow’. PGm. nom.sg. *agwī, oblique cases *agwjō-‐‑ ‘watery, (land) by the water’ was derived from PGmc *axwō-‐‑ ‘water’. With loss of the velar occlusion, the stem became WGm. *awī vs. oblique *aujō-‐‑. In German, this alternation was mostly leveled in favour of *aw-‐‑: OHG ouwa, MHG ouwe, MoHG Au, Aue. In Old Dutch, however, both variants are attested: West Flemish Holtauua (1003) ‘Houtave’ and Saltanawa (11th century) ‘Zoutenaaie’ as against Hardoia (847 copy ca. 1300) ‘Ardooie’, Ambersoi (ca. 1150) ‘Ammersooien’. Middle and Modern Dutch have both variants of the simplex side by side: ouw(e), usually cited in the etymological dictionaries under StDu. landouw ‘mead, pasture’, is found as an appellative and in toponyms (probably also in the district name Betuwe, earlier Betouw), while ooi is mainly found in toponyms. 4.7 The reflexes of *ai WGm. *ai was monophthongized to /e:/ in Old Dutch (ca. 750 AD) far more often than in OHG. In fact, the unmarked reflex of *ai is MDu. ee, MoDu. /e/ in all cases in which no i-‐‑mutation factor followed: MDu. vleesch ‘flesh’, steen ‘stone’, een ‘one’, weet ‘knows’, bleek ‘bleak’, heten ´to be called’. Included is also *ai before r, w, *h(w) and in auslaut, where OHG also has monophthongization (i-‐‑mutation factors are irrelevant in this case): mee(re) ‘more’, MoDu. meer, MDu. see ‘sea’, keeren ‘to turn’ (*kairjan), leeren ‘to learn’ (*laisjan-‐‑).
In front of WGm. *i, *j, a preceding *ai remains a diphthong, MDu. MoDu. ei: MDu. heide ‘heath’, gheite ‘goat’, eigen ‘own’, beide ‘both’, bereiden ‘to prepare’, -‐‑heim ‘home’, arbeit ‘work’, kleine ‘small’, reine ‘pure’, ey ‘egg’ (*ajja-‐‑), cley ‘clay’ (*klajja-‐‑), wei ‘whey’ (*hwaja-‐‑).
Vowel systems
91
This distribution is characteristic for the central dialects. In the southeast, East Limburg has a similar distribution as High German, with *ai remaining a diphthong in most cases but monophthongizing before r, w, *h(w): MDu. stein ‘stone’, deil ‘part’, teiken ‘sign’, but ere ‘honour’, ewich ‘perennial’. In Flemish, on the contrary, nearly all *ai’s monophthongized to /e:/ except in *-‐‑ajj-‐‑: MDu. clene ‘small’, eghen ‘own’, bede ‘both’, Eeklo ‘Oak-‐‑leigh’, surname Vereecken ‘Oaks’, etc. In Holland, we note a reflex <ie> before nasals: stien ‘stone’, gien ‘none’, bien ‘bone’, etc. In fact, ie may have been the general Hollandish reflex for *ai when not followed by *i, *j.
These dialectal differences explain why the standard language has a number of deviations from the central Dutch distributional rules. For instance, we have eik ‘oak’ (*aikō-‐‑) next to eekhoorn ‘squirrel’ (*aikwerna-‐‑ vel sim.), with ei-‐‑ in the simplex probably from the adj. eikijn ‘oaken’ < *aikīna-‐‑ with regular i-‐‑mutation. We find scheiden ‘to separate’ but MDu. also scheden (< *skaiþan-‐‑). Leveling between semantic cognates explains e.g. verbreden ‘to broaden’ to breed ‘broad’ (verbreiden ‘to spread’ has the expected reflex of *braidjan-‐‑), helen ‘to heal’ < *hailjan-‐‑ (to heel ‘whole’ < *haila-‐‑; note heil ‘welfare’ < *haili-‐‑). The suffix –heid in the singular of abstracts (waarheid ‘truth’, valsheid ‘meanness’, mogelijkheid ‘possibility’, etc.) becomes -‐‑heden with /e:/ in the plural; the latter may have developed from *ai because it became unstressed.
The loss of word-‐‑final ODu. *-‐‑w (as in stro ‘straw’ < *strawa-‐‑, MDu. blā ‘blue’ < *blāwa-‐‑) gave rise to paradigmatic alternation between nom.acc.sg. *-‐‑ē and oblique *-‐‑ēw-‐‑. Hence, from *saiwi-‐‑ ‘sea’ (Go. saiws) we have ODu. sēo, gen. seuues but MDu. see, dat.pl. zewen (13th c.), MoDu. zee. Note the province Zee-‐‑land (already in the 12th century), with the adjective Zeeuws ‘Zealandish’ < *saiwiska-‐‑. ‘Snow’ *snaiwa-‐‑ alternated with the verb *snīwan-‐‑ ‘to snow’, which explains why the reflexes of the noun are sometimes different from usual *aiw. For ODu. sneo, we find MDu. snee, verb snuwet ‘it snows’. It must be supposed that the oblique cases of the noun retained the form /sne:w-‐‑/ throughout MDu., as in Early MoDu., sneeuw becomes the new norm.
4.8 MDu. ei from unrounding Next to the diphthong ui /œy/ which arose from diphthongization of /y:/ < /u:/, Early MDu. had already acquired ui /œy/ from a few other sources, none of them very frequent. This sound is sometimes called “ui2” in Dutch linguistics. One source was the WGm. combination *-‐‑uj-‐‑, as in lui ‘lazy’ < *luja-‐‑, bui ‘shower’ < *bujō-‐‑, spui ‘lock, sluice’ < *spujōn-‐‑, and sluier ‘veil’ (maybe borrowed from G., cf. G. Schleier). We find various spellings of the vowel, typically with oei or oy (MDu. loei, loye ‘lazy’), with uy (luy, lui) and with unrounded ey, ei (Early MoDu. ley). A second source were French loanwords with Old French ui /yj/ or ehu, ahu /əәy/, /ay/, such as fruit ‘fruit’, fluit ‘flute’, pui ‘front of a house’, buitelen ‘to tumble’ (Early MoDu. buytelen, beytelen, beutelen). In some cases, an unrounded OFre. diphthong became ui : wambuis, MDu. also wambeis ‘vest’ (OFre. wambais), fornuis, MDu. also forneise ‘stove’ (OFre. fornaise).
The sequence *-‐‑īwa-‐‑ could also contract to ui, as in MoDu. spuiten ‘to squirt, gush’ < *spīwatjan-‐‑ (MDu. speiten, spoyten, spouten).
Finally, the sequence *-‐‑olt/d-‐‑, which was normally vocalized to out, oud in Early MDu., is sometimes found to yield Flemish –oi-‐‑ (due to i-‐‑mutation), and this oi can be unrounded to ei or fronted to ui: Baldwin > Boidins > Buyens, Walter > Woyte / Weyte > Wuyts, Weyts, Arnold > Noyte / Neyt > Nuyts / Neyts. The unrounding is more typical for Flemish, whereas ui is more frequently found in Brabant.
Chapter 4
92
Map 20: The surname Neyts in Belgium Map 21: The surname Nuyts in Belgium 4.9 The reflexes of *eo and *iu WGm. *eo was raised to ODu. io and then /iəә/, before yielding /i:/ somewhere in MDu. In eastern dialects, however, io yielded /e:/. The vowel merged with (or: remained the same as) what is traditionally called “Germanic ē2”: MoDu. lief ‘dear’, bieden ‘to offer’, liegen ‘to lie’, diep ‘deep’ with *eo and brief ‘letter’, hier ‘here’, verliet ‘left’, wieg ‘cradle’ with “ē2”. In reality, the latter vowel may have always been a diphthong /ea/ > /eo/ from WGm. onwards, eventually merging with *eo from PIE *eu. The regular reflex of *eo in auslaut is MDu. MoDu. ie, as in wie ‘who’, die ‘that’, drie ‘three’. Yet in dialects, MDu. /iəә/ in hiatus and word-‐‑finally often merged with /i:/, which explains a number of words in ij of the standard language: bij ‘bee’ (MDu. bie, OHG bīa < *bi(j)ō-‐‑), dij ‘thigh’ (ODu. thio, MDu. die, OE þēoh < WGm. *þeuxa-‐‑), lij ‘lee(side)’ (MDu. lie, OS hleo, OFr. hlī < *xlewa-‐‑; cognate MoDu. luw ‘protected’ < *xlewja-‐‑), betijen ‘to move on’ (MDu. tien, OHG ziohan < *teuxan-‐‑). The i-‐‑mutated diphthong iu /iy/ became /y:/ in central dialects but was unrounded to /iəә/ (or: never became /iy/ but remained /io/) in coastal Dutch. Where we find ie in StDu. it is supposed to have entered via Flemish, though ie was also at home in Holland. Examples are Flemish vier ‘fire’ next to StDu. vuur, dial. dier ‘expensive’, StDu. dierbaar ‘dear’for StDu. duur ‘expensive’, whereas both variants cooccur in the standard language in bestieren next to besturen ‘to govern’ (*stiurjan-‐‑), kieken next to kuiken ‘chicklet’ (*kiukīna-‐‑), Diets ‘Dutch’ next to Duits (now) ‘German’ (*þiudiska-‐‑), lieden ‘people’ next to lui(den) (from *liudi pl.). In Old Frisian, WGm. *eo became *ia and, in Late OFr., iā. After ca. 1450, West Frisian started to raise /a:/ to /e:/ and, around 1700, to /ɪ.ǝ/, spelled ea: tsjeaf ‘thief’ (OFr. thiāf) < *þeuba-‐‑, tsjeak ‘jaw’ (OFr. tziāke) < *keukōn-‐‑, tsjea ‘thigh’ (OFr. thiāch) < *þeuha-‐‑. Some words in North Holland also presuppose the OFr. development to /ja:/ but they lack the further raising to /e:/. Thus, they confirm the previously Frisian character of North Holland. The evidence consists of the adjective tjad/tjat ‘lively, agile’, adv. tjats ‘dartel’ from WGm. *þeuda-‐‑, cf. Go. þiuþs ‘good’ (the expected OFr. reflex would be *tiād), the noun jaar ‘udder’, also jadder, from Old Frisian *jāder < WGm. *eudur (paradigm with nom. *jāder gen. *jādres > vowel shortening before dr), and vlaar, vlaardeboom ‘elder tree’, also the surname Vlaar, from OFr. *flār < *fleoþra-‐‑ (MoDu. vlier, dial. vlieder, vleer, etc.). The loss of *j in OFr. jā is regular after l as shown by leaf
Vowel systems
93
‘dear’ (OFr. liāf < PGm. *leuba-‐‑), fleane ‘to fly’ (OFr. fliān < *fleuhan-‐‑).
Map 22: Elder in the 20th-‐‑century dialects. From: van Sterkenburg 1975: 203, afbeelding 20.
4.10 Open Syllable Lengthening (OSL) It is difficult to say when OSL started in phonetic terms, but its reflexes have probably become phonemic through the reduction of unstressed vowels into schwa, in the early twelfth century. The vocalic product of OSL was originally different for each of the six short vowels involved (i, e, a, u, o, ü) but in western and central Dutch (and, hence, in the standard language), i and e have yielded the same vowel /e:/. In the same way, lengthened u and o coalesced into /o:/. In Modern Dutch, after 1700, /e:/ and /o:/ further merged with MDu. ē and ō from WGm. *ai and *au, and lengthened /a:/ merged with old ā from WGm. *æ . Until the Second World War, one can often find etymological spelling of the ‘old’ long vowels (from WGm. *ai and *au) with <ee> and <oo>, e.g. beenen ‘legs’ (now benen), boomen ‘trees’ (now bomen), etc. Here is a survey of the main MDu. vocalic developments from OSL: With *i OS biliđi, niđar, hinana, himil, biti, sivun, gripun, gigripan /i/ MDu. beelde, neder, henen, hemel, bete, seven, grepen, gegrepen /e:/ MoDu. beeld, neer, heen, hemel, beet, zeven, grepen, gegrepen /e/ E. ‘image’, ‘down’, ‘to’, ‘heaven’, ‘bite’, ‘seven’, ‘grasp’, ‘grasped’ With *e OS neval, breken, feni /e/ MDu. nevel, breken, vene /e:/ MoDu. nevel, breken, veen /e/ E. ‘mist’, ‘break’, ‘moor’ With *a OS ađali, fadar, makon /a/ MDu. = MoDu. adel, vader, maken /a:/ = /a/ E. ‘nobility’, ‘father’, ‘make’ With *u OS suna, sumar, kuman, buđun, slutun, mugan, OE hnutu /u/ MDu. sone, somer, comen, boden, sloten, moghen, note /o:/ MoDu. zoon, zomer, komen, boden, sloten, mogen, noot /o/ E. ‘son’, ‘summer’, ‘come’, ‘offered’, ‘shut’, ‘may’, ‘nut’ With *o OS opan, bođam, lovon /o/ MDu. = MoDu. open, bodem, loven /o:/ E. ‘open’, ‘bottom’, ‘praise’ With *ü OS hugi, bruki, kuning, furi, slutil, lugina, *duri [ü] MDu. hoge, bro(e)ke, coninc, vore, slo(e)tel, loghene, do(e)re /ø:/ MoDu. heug, breuk, koning, voor, sleutel, leugen, deur /ø/ (and /o/) E. ‘memory’, ‘breach’, ‘king’, ‘for’, ‘key’, ‘lie’, ‘door’ An important difference with (eastern Dutch and) German is the lowered quality of the lengthened products of *i, *ü and *u: as against German sieben, Tür, Jude with /i:/, /y:/, /u:/ we have Dutch zeven, deur, Jood with /e:/, /ø:/, /o:/. Van Loon (1986: 89) concludes on this basis that the products of OSL were not phonologized until after the lowering and laxing of i > ɪ, y > ʏ, u > o/ɔ as discussed in Lecture 3. The new long vowels were then associated with the quality of these high-‐‑to-‐‑mid lax vowels, and can hence be reconstructed as Early MDu. /ɪ:/,
Vowel systems
95
/ʏ:/, /ʋ:/. Their lower quality facilitated the later merger with the lengthened products of the mid vowels *e and *o. It is clear that paradigmatic alternation between closed and open syllables had to lead to vocalic alternations. Thus, nom.acc. weg ‘road’ kept its short vowel, but gen. weges and dat. wege became /we:γǝs/ and /we:γǝ/, respectively. Some such alternations have survived up to the present day, in particular in the plural of nouns: blad -‐‑ blade(re)n ‘leaf’, slot -‐‑ sloten ‘lock’, weg -‐‑ wegen ‘road’, dag -‐‑ dagen ‘day’, dak -‐‑ daken ‘roof’, spel -‐‑ spelen ‘play’, gebed -‐‑ gebeden ‘prayer’, god -‐‑ goden ‘god’, hol -‐‑ holen ‘den’, vat -‐‑ vaten ‘barrel’, staf -‐‑ staven ‘staff’, and others. With additional vowel difference we find schip -‐‑ schepen ‘ship(s)‘, lid -‐‑ leden ‘member(s)’, and with i-‐‑mutation stad -‐‑ steden ‘town(s)’. In some cases, the diminutive also takes the long vowel, and long vowels can be preserved in petrified derivations: dagelijks ‘daily’ and vandaag ‘today’ with /a:/, ten getale van ‘to the number of’ with /a:/ to getal ‘number’, scheep gaan ‘to board ship’ and scheepje ‘little ship’ with /e:/, zijns weegs gaan ‘to go one’s way’ with /e:/ to weg ‘road’. Lexical specialization has taken place for veen ‘moor’ and ven ‘lake on a moor’, both from MDu. vēne, gen. vennes. Also in vat ‘barrel’ vs. vaat ‘the dishes’, and in staf ‘staff’ versus staaf ‘bar’ from a single MDu. noun staf, gen. stāves. Whenever leveling has taken place, the standard language has usually generalized the short vowel, in nouns and, especially, in adjectives: juk -‐‑ jukken ‘yoke’, gras -‐‑ grassen ‘gras’; MDu. smal -‐‑ smāle ‘narrow’ but MoDu. smal -‐‑ smalle, MDu. hol -‐‑ hōle ‘hollow’ but MoDu. hol -‐‑ holle, etc. In dialects, however, the situation can be different. In the southeast, for instance, the long vowel has been generalized in many adjectives (ene smale ‘a narrow one’) and also in many singulars of nouns which had a lengthened vowel in oblique case forms: daag ‘day’, daak ‘roof’, sjloot ‘lock’, etc. The opposite of OSL is vowel shortening before consonant clusters which occurred up to a certain degree in forms of the standard language (mainly in extraparadigmatic forms) but was and is much more regular in many dialects. Thus, with a WGm. long vowel or diphthong: OS brāhta > MDu. brachte ‘brought’, thāhta > MDu. dachte ‘thought’, sōhta > MDu. sochte, ferkōft > verkocht ‘sold’, lioht > *līht > MDu. licht ‘light’, twēntig > MDu. twintich ‘twenty’, friund > MDu. vrint, vrunt (but MoDu. vriend), sāfto > MDu. zachte ‘soft’, OS ūhta > MoDu. ochtend ‘morning’, ODu. stuont > MDu. stont, MoDu. stond ‘stood’, ODu. gieng > MDu. ginc > MoDu. ging ‘went’, vet ‘fat’ < *fētid, gen. *fettes < WGm. *faitida-‐‑, etc. With shortening of an Early MDu. long vowel from OSL: MDu. hemede ‘shirt’ > hemde > MoDu. hemd (OS hemithi). Shortening was also more frequent before m: blom beside bloem ‘flower’, verdommen beside verdoemen ‘to curse’, jammer ‘pity’ < MDu. jāmer, duim ‘thumb’ vs. dommekracht ‘jack-‐‑screw’, etc. For shortening in names, compare cases such as Brussel < Bruocsella (*brōk-‐‑sali-‐‑), and surnames such as Thijssen > Thissen (from Mathijs), Houben > Hubben (from Huib = Hubert), Kleuskens > Kluskens (from Nicolaas + demin. suffix -‐‑ken).
Chapter 5
98
5. Treatment of loanwords 5.1 Latin loanwords From the beginnings of the Roman occupation of Belgia and Germania Inferior, in the first century BC, there has been an unbroken influx of Romance loanwords into West Germanic. The exact linguistic situation in the Roman Era is unknown. Most of the Low Countries must have spoken a variety of Celtic, except for the Northeast. Gradually, a contact zone between Celtic and Germanic had arisen, which, in our region, probably centered around the Rhine delta. Archaeology shows a heavy degree of cultural-‐‑material Romanization until the third century AD. After ca. 270 AD, until the end of the fourth century, there was a period in which many settlements become uninhabited, and people and commerce seem to have concentrated along the limes and in some more southernly and westernly cities. Latin loanwords borrowed in Antiquity (and maybe still in the first centuries thereafter, in the Merovingian period) were incorporated with the word-‐‑initial stress of indigeneous Germanic words. Furthermore, the velars k and g are reflected without any palatalization before front vowels. Examples are StDu. kelder ‘cellar’ < cellarium, southern Du. kennep, kemp ‘hemp’ < cannabis, StDu. keizer ‘emperor’ < caesar, StDu. kelk ‘chalice’ < calic-‐‑, StDu. kist ‘chest’ < cista. Other words from this period are kaas ‘cheese’ (caseus), boter (butyrum), vork ‘fork’ (furca), kers ‘cherry’ (cerisia), straat ‘street’ (strāta), wijn ‘wine’ (vinum), pers ‘press’ (pressa), vlegel ‘flail’ (flagellum), keuken ‘kitchen’ (cocina), pek ‘pitch’ (picem), zolder ‘attic’ (solarium), venster ‘window’ (fenestra), zerk ‘sarcophagus’, munt ‘coin’ (monēta), schrijven ‘to write’ (scrībere), ijken ‘to verify’ (aequare), and many others. An important source is ecclesiatical Latin, which accounts for words such as kerk ‘church’, Pinksteren ‘Pentecoste’, Pasen ‘Easter’, MDu. outer ‘altar’ (with Dutch alt-‐‑ > out-‐‑). Some words were borrowed twice, for instance, Dutch pijler ‘pillar’ vs. pilaar id., both from Latin pīlāre, but the first one with initial stress, and the second one, borrowed much later, with final stress. Also ‘altar’ was borrowed a second time, as altaar, this time with initial stress (at least in the modern standard). The oldest layer of loanwords, from before the Merovingian period, sometimes shows that it was the Latin nominative form rather than the accusative which was taken as the basis for the borrowing: StDu. les ‘lesson’, MDu. lesse, from Latin lectio, Dutch dial. un ‘onion’ < unio, dial. pepel, piepel ‘butterfly’ < papilio. Latin ē was incorporated as the high vowel /i:/ in the oldest layer of loanwords, since at that time, West Germanic did not have a mid vowel /e:/: krijt ‘chalk’ < crēta, pijn ‘pain’ < pēna < poena, mijt ‘pile’ (of grain, hay)’ < mēta, ijken ‘to verify’ < aequare, also tichel ‘tile’ (from *tīgel) < tēgula At a later stage, Latin or Romance ē was incorporated as /eo/ or /e:/, yielding MoDu. ie, as in biet ‘beet(-‐‑root)’ from Latin bēta, riem ‘oar’ < rēmus. Another indication of early borrowing is the retention of intervocalic t, which became *d in Latin around the fifth century: StDu. ketel ‘kettle’ < catillus, keten ‘chain’ < catēna, schotel ‘dish’ < scutella. The presence, in Latin loanwords, of i-‐‑mutation on *a, a process taking place in West Germanic around 600 AD, also points to an early date of borrowing: cf. ketel, and further keuken < cocīna, eastern Dutch meulen < molīna, MDu. evene ‘oats’ < avēna, peter ‘godfather’ < patrīnus, meter < matrīna. Old loanwords with Latin pt or ct joined the change of
Loanwords
99
Gm. *kt to /xt/, as in pacht ‘bail’ < pactum, trachten ‘to try’ < tractare, krocht ‘cavity’ < crupta (as opposed to later Dutch crypte ‘crypt’), dichten ‘to compose a poem’ < dictare. 5.2 French loanwords The definition of ‘French’ encompasses more than ‘Modern Standard French’, not least because words have been entering into Dutch from the Gallo-‐‑Romance area since its earliest times. Some of the caveats to observe are: French words may stem from different dialects, such as Walloon and Picardian (the two dialect areas in direct contact with southern Dutch), Normandian, Provençal, etc.; loanwords may have participated in Dutch sound changes to various degree; their morphology may have been adapted to Dutch patterns, or a specific “loanword pattern” may have arisen; loanwords may have been influenced by written French or written Latin; words may only be bookish loans. As to the place of the stress, in general French words retain their French (word-‐‑final) stress placement, so that they are readily differentiated from inherited Germanic words or Latin loanwords. Still, there are several exceptions. Nouns with the French suffix -‐‑aard, partly reduced to -‐‑erd, have acquired word-‐‑initial stress: bastaard ‘bastard’, buizerd ‘buzzard’, lommerd ‘lombard’, luipaard ‘leopard’, mosterd ‘mustard’. Pretonic vowels sometimes disappeared, due to the rarity of unstressed vowels other than schwa (in morphological prefixes) in Dutch, e.g., klant ‘customer’ from Pic. *caland ‘protector’, krant ‘newspaper’ from courant, pruik ‘wig’ from perruque, Klaas from (Ni)colas, etc. French vowels are usually incorporated in a transparent way in Dutch. Here I will only discuss some of the more interesting exceptions. Short e before rT has sometimes joined the western Dutch change to aarT, viz. in MoDu. lantaarn from Fr. lanterne, parel ‘pearl’ from perle, paars ‘purple’ from Fr. pers. In all cases, the MDu. forms preserve e(e): lanterne, perle, peers. French words in Old French -‐‑el(le) preserve the liquid in Dutch (as opposed to the replacement by -‐‑eau in French): bordeel ‘brothel’, kaneel ‘cinnamon’, penseel ‘brush’, truweel ‘trowel’. French /i/ has been incorporated as ie in more recent loanwords, of the type kliek (clique), ethiek (éthique), foutief (fautif), plezier (plaisir), servies (service). But older loanwords show the diphthongization to MoDu. ij, e.g., kandij ‘candy’ (candi), partij (partie), the suffix -‐‑ij(e), French -‐‑ie, as in Hongarije (Hongrie), galerij (galerie), soldij (sold + -‐‑ie), specerij (espicerie), etc. Furthmore in patrijs ‘partridge’ (pertris), tapijt ‘carpet’ (tapis), Parijs ‘Paris’, prijs ‘price’, spijt < despijt (dépit), bijbel (bible), cijfer (OFre. cifre), etc. Similarly, French /o/ before word-‐‑final nasal is incorporated as MDu. /o:/, MoDu. oe in old loanwords, but as MoDu. o in more recent ones: MoDu. kampioen ‘champion’, legioen ‘legion’, plantsoen ‘park’, seizoen ‘season’, sermoen ‘sermon’, but gazon ‘lawn’, perron ‘train platform’, station ‘station’, etc. French oi, MoFr. /wa/, is rendered as /o:/ in older loanwords: Fransoos ‘Frenchman’ (françois), framboos ‘raspberry’ (framboise), kantoor ‘office’ (comptoir). Old French ai is rendered by the Dutch diphthong ei, as in fontein ‘fountain’ (fontaine), kapitein ‘captain’, plein ‘square’ (plain), terrein ‘terrain’, feit ‘fact’ (fait), etc. The abstract suffix MoFre. -‐‑té from Latin -‐‑tatem is normally rendered as -‐‑(i)teit, as in brutaliteit, loyaliteit, rariteit, souvereiniteit, etc. French words with au which were borrowed before the 16th century retain the diphthong in Dutch, whereas it become /o:/ in French: fout ‘fault’ (faute), saus ‘sauce’, pauze (pause) next to poos ‘a while’, flambouw ‘torch’ (flambeau).
Chapter 5
100
As to the consonants, one of the differences with Standard French is in initial k-‐‑, where we find a number of Dutch loans having k-‐‑ although French has ch-‐‑. Here it was Picardian, non-‐‑palatalized k before and after a which was borrowed into Dutch: kamp ‘field’ (Fr. champ), kampioen ‘champion’, kans ‘chance’, kasteel ‘castle’, kous ‘stocking’ (Fr. chauss-‐‑ette), taak ‘assignment, Fr. tâche’, etc. Whereas French has epenthetic e-‐‑ before the clusters sp-‐‑, st-‐‑, sk-‐‑, sl-‐‑, sm-‐‑, sn-‐‑, which then lost its s yielding é-‐‑ (éponge ‘sponge’, état ‘state’, école ‘school’), older Dutch loanwords reflect the original sC-‐‑sequences without initial vowel: sluis ‘(ship-‐‑)lock’, spinazie ‘spinach’, stof ‘textile’. The same applies in inlaut: kasteel versus château, feest versus fête. French j-‐‑, spoken [ʒ-‐‑], has been incorporated as j-‐‑ [y-‐‑] in Dutch except in very recent loanwords: jaloers ‘jealous’, juist ‘right’, juweel ‘jewel’, majoor ‘major’, all with [y]. Palatalized li and gn get reinterpreted as a sequence of two phonemes in Dutch, as in Spanje ‘Spain’ (Espagne), kastanje ‘chestnut’, biljet ‘ticket’ (billet), miljoen ‘million’. Word-‐‑initial s-‐‑ of French before vowels has only been voiced to z-‐‑ in zavel ‘sand’ and zot ‘foolish’. The remaining words were apparently borrowed after the Dutch voicing of word-‐‑initial fricatives, e.g., sint ‘saint’, suiker ‘sugar’, som ‘sum’. Old French /tʃ/, MoFr. ch /ʃ/, has sometimes been incorporated as /s/, and sometimes as /ts/: sier ‘decoration’, bres ‘opening’, mars ‘march’, but plaats ‘place’, fatsoen ‘good manners’ (Fr. façon), flits ‘flash’ (Fr. flèche), rots ‘rock’ (Fr. roche). More recent loanwords leave French ch-‐‑ as [sy-‐‑], e.g., champagne, hachee, sjalot, pluche. Finally, the close contact with French is also shown by the larger number of French suffixes which became productive in Dutch, e.g., -‐‑age for collectives (tuig-‐‑age, band-‐‑age), -‐‑és for female persons (eigenar-‐‑es ‘owner’, zanger-‐‑es ‘singer’), -‐‑ier for male agent nouns (valken-‐‑ier ‘falconer’, herberg-‐‑ier ‘innkeeper’), -‐‑éren /-‐‑e:r�n/ for verbs, and many others.
6. Verbal morphology 6.1 Simplification of verbal inflexion In Old Dutch, the plural of the present tense had three different forms for the three different persons. Thus, in the Wachtendonck Psalter we find wi gevon ‘we give’, gi gevet ‘you give’, sia gevunt ‘they give’. In Modern Dutch all differences have been lost, and the form geven is used after wij ‘we’, jullie ‘you’ and zij ‘they’. There is no phonetic cause for the merger of these persons. Compare ODu. gev-‐‑an ‘to give’, he giv-‐‑it ‘he gives’, gev-‐‑and ‘giving’, whence MoDu. geven, geeft, gevend. Hence, analogy must be the cause of the said merger. Already in Early MDu. the third person plural is usually geven ‘they give’, without -‐‑t. It is assumed that this merger with the 1pl. ending was caused by other parts of the verbal system, in which 1pl. and 3pl. shared the same form. Thus, for instance, in the subjunctive (which only died out in MoDu.), and in the preterite. Again we give the forms of the Wachtendonck Psalter: subj. wi geven, gi gevet, sie geven, preterite wi gāvon, gi gāvet, sia gāvon. In some dialects, by the way, something else has happened: the 1pl. was leveled with the 2pl. and now ends in -‐‑t, as does the 3pl. (viz. in Achterhoek, Overijssel, Drente). The ending of th 2pl. was -‐‑t in the standard language until around 1850, when it was leveled to -‐‑en as in the 1pl. and 3pl. The later date of this leveling is also clear from the dialectal distribution, where gij leeft is preserved in all southern and eastern dialects; see map 23.
Map 23: The ending -‐‑t in ‘you (pl.) live’ 6.2 Strong and weak verbs The basic representation in Dutch of the Old Germanic strong verb classes is as follows: Class I: *ī -‐‑ *ai -‐‑ *i Goth. steigan staig stigum stigans MDu. stigen steech steghen ghestegen MoDu. stijgen steeg stegen gestegen
Chapter 5
102
Class IIa: *eu -‐‑ *au -‐‑ *u Goth. biudan bauþ budum budans MDu. bieden boot boden gheboden MoDu. bieden bood boden geboden Class IIb: *ū -‐‑ *au -‐‑ *u Goth. lūkan lauk lukum lukans MDu. luken looc locen ghelocen MoDu. (ont)luiken -‐‑look -‐‑loken -‐‑loken Class IIIa: *iNC -‐‑ *aNC -‐‑ *uNC Goth. bindan band bundum bundans MDu. binden bant bonden ghebonden MoDu. binden bond bonden gebonden Class IIIb: *eRC -‐‑ *aRC -‐‑ *uRC Goth. wairpan warp waurpum waurpans MDu. werpen warp worpen gheworpen MoDu. werpen wierp worpen geworpen MoDu. smelten smolt smolten gesmolten Class IV: *e -‐‑ *a -‐‑ *ē -‐‑ *u Goth. niman nam nemum numans brikan brak brekum brukans MDu. nemen nam namen ghenomen breken brak braken ghebroken MoDu. nemen name namen genomen breken brak braken gebroken Class V: *e -‐‑ *a -‐‑ *ē -‐‑ *a Goth. giban gaf gebum gibans MDu. gheven gaf gaven ghegheven MoDu. geven gaf gaven gegeven Class VI: *a -‐‑ *ō -‐‑ *ō -‐‑ *a Goth. faran for forum farans MDu. varen voer voeren ghevaren MoDu. varen voer voeren gevaren Class VII: reduplication in the preterite Goth. letan lailot MDu. laten liet MoDu. laten liet haitan haihait heeten hiet heten heette hlaupan haihlaup loopen liep lopen liep haldan haihald houden hielt houden hield slepan saislep slapen sliep slapen sliep hvopan hvaihvop roepen riep roepen riep
The verb
103
A number of shifts within and between the strong and the weak verb classes can be observed in MDu. and MoDu.: a. From one strong class to another:
• replacement of oe by ie in the preterite (VI > VII): hoef >> hief ‘lifted’ (to heffen < *hafjan), scoep >> schiep ‘created’ to scheppen < *skapjan, etc.
• replacement of short a by short o in the preterite singular (= extension of the pl.pret. to the sg.pret., as these had acquired the same or nearly the same stem vowel in all other verb classes): band >> bond ‘bound’, barg >> borg ‘hid’, etc.
• replacement of ar, al by ier, iel in the preterite (IIIb > VII): halp >> hielp ‘helped’, starf >> stierf ‘died’, warp >> wierp ‘threw’, etc. Through this and the preceding replacement, short a has disappeared from the preterite of Class III.
b. From strong to weak: MDu. saien – zieu / saide – gesait > MoDu. zaaien – zaaide -‐‑ gezaaid ‘to sow’ (VII > weak) MDu. waien – wieu / woei >> MoDu. waaien – woei >> waaide – gewaaid ‘to blow (of the wind)’ (VII > VI > weak) ODu. pret. antsof >> MDu. beseffen – besief – beseven >> MoDu. beseffen – besefte – beseft ‘to realize’ (VI > VII > weak) c. From strong to partly weak (in the preterite): IV: wreken – wrak – ghewrocen >> wreken – wreekte – gewroken ‘to take revenge’ VI: lachen – loech – gelachen >> lachen – lachte – gelachen ‘to laugh’ VI: laden – loet – geladen ‘to burden’ >> laden -‐‑ laadde – geladen d. From weak to strong (mainly to Class I): wijsen – wijsde – ghewijst >> wijzen – wees – gewesen ‘to indicate’ senden – sendde / sande – ghesent >> zenden – zond – gezonden ‘to send’ e. From weak to partly strong (pret. of Class VI): jagen – jaagde – gejaagd >> jagen – joeg – gejaagd ‘to chase’ vragen – vraagde – gevraagd >> vragen – vroeg – gevraagd ‘to ask’ 6.3 The preterite of weak verbs In the past tense of weak verbs, the usual endings in the thirteenth century were 1sg. -‐‑ede, 2sg. -‐‑edes, 3sg. -‐‑ede, 13pl. -‐‑eden, 2pl. -‐‑edet. Syncope of the first schwa led to assimilation of the d to the stem-‐‑final obstruent, in the same way as in the abstract nouns in -‐‑ede: levede > leefde ‘lived’, tellede > telde ‘told’, but makede > maakte ‘made’, hopede > hoopte ‘hoped’. This phonological distribution of allophones has remained productive until the present day: -‐‑te is found after voiceless obstruents, -‐‑de in all other cases. The ending had no initial vowel in ODu. (only *-‐‑ta) in the preterito-‐‑presents of the type moeste, wiste (see below) and in a number of other weak verbs, which can sometimes have vocalic ablaut. Most of them have a stem-‐‑final velar, some have a stem-‐‑final labial: MDu. denken – dachte ‘think – though’, brengen -‐‑ brachte ‘bring – brought’, dunken – dochte ‘think’, copen – cochte ‘buy – bought’, soeken – sochte ‘seek – sought’, werken -‐‑ wrachte ‘work – wrought’, roeken – rochte ‘to care about’, plukken – plochte ‘to pick’, cnopen – cnochte ‘to knot’,
Chapter 5
104
dopen – dochte ‘to baptize’ (all of these have a heavy root syllable); hebben – hadde ‘to have’, seggen – seide ‘to say’ (ptc. ghesacht), leggen – leide ‘to lay’ (ptc. dial. ghelacht) (with a light root syllable).
Map 24: The suffix of the weak preterite in southern dialects 6.4 The semantics of Dutch modal verbs Many of the so-‐‑called ‘preterito-‐‑present’ verbs of Old Germanic are preserved in Dutch as main verbs, but some are also found as auxiliaries: Gothic Middle Dutch Modern Dutch wait, witum, wissa weet, weten, wiste weet, weten, wist ‘knows’ aih, aigum, aihta ‘to possess’ (eigen ‘own’) daug ‘is fit’ dooch, doghen, dochte deugt, deugen, deugde (weak) kann, kunnum, kunþa ‘know’ can, connen, conde / conste kan, kunnen, kon (dial. ko(n)s) ‘is able’ ann an, onnen, onde / onste gun, gunnen, gunde ‘grants’ þarf, þaurbum, þaurfta ‘need’ darf, dorven, dorfte / dorste durf, durven, durfde ‘dares’ gadars, gadaursta ‘to dare’ dar, dorren, dorste (extinct) skal, skulum, skulda ‘shall’ sal, solen, soude zal, zullen, zou ‘will’ mag, magum, mahta ‘be able’ mach, moghen, mochte mag, mogen, mocht ‘is allowed’ gamot, gamosta ‘finds room’ moet, moeten, moeste moet, moeten, moest ‘has to, must’ wili, wileima, wilda ‘want’ wille, willen, wilde / woude wil, willen, wilde / wou ‘want’
The verb
105
6.5 Productive prefixes One of the most frequent verbal prefixes in Dutch is ver-‐‑. WNT distinguishes 32 different meanings for this prefix! The most important ones are:5 1) verbs which express removal, e.g. ver-‐‑bannen ‘to banish’, ver-‐‑dwijnen ‘to disappear’ (cf. MoE dwindle), and by extension also movement, loss, change of form, etc. Thus, for instance, verbouwen ‘to cultivate; to convert’ to bouwen ‘build’, verbuigen ‘to twist’ to buigen ‘bend’, verkleden ‘to change one’s clothes, dress up’ to kleden ‘to clothe’, verleggen ‘to move, transfer’ to leggen ‘lay’, verwaaien ‘to blow away’ to waaien ‘to blow’, etc. Without synchronic derivational basis we find e.g. verbasteren ‘to be corrupted’ (of words; historically from bastaard ‘bastard’) and verminken ‘to mutilate’ (from the same root as mank ‘lame’). 2) verbs which do not add any meaning, but strengthen the simplex or stress the result of the action, e.g. in verblijven ‘to stay, sojourn’ to blijven ‘to stay’, verschillen ‘to be distinct’, vereren ‘to honour’, verbergen ‘to hide’, verhullen ‘to veil’, verschuilen ‘to hide oneself’ to schuilen ‘take shelter’. 3) verbs which express destruction, usage, spilling, damaging, etc. In this function the prefix is old (cf. Goth. fra-‐‑slindan ‘to devour’) and still productive in Dutch: verdobbelen ‘to gamble away, lose at gambling’ to dobbelen ‘to throw dice, gamble’, verdoen ‘to waste’ to doen ‘do’, verkletsen ‘to chatter away’ to kletsen ‘to chatter’, verspelen ‘to forfeit’ to spelen ‘play’. Without synchronic basis: verkwisten ‘to squander’ (note kwistig ‘lavish’; Goth. qistjan ‘to destroy’), verkwanselen ‘to bargain away’ (from MHG quantzeln) and verspillen ‘to waste’ (note spilziek ‘extravagant’; OE spillan ‘to destroy’). 4) verbs which stress semantics of undesirability or contempt, or which add these meaning to a verb, e.g. in ver-‐‑achten ‘to despise’ to achten ‘to esteem’. 5) In combination with nouns or adjectives, ver-‐‑ is productive and means ‘become X’ or ‘make into X’ or ‘provide with X’, as in verkalken ‘to calcify’ to kalk ‘calcium’, verstenen ‘to petrify’ to steen ‘stone’, verwoorden ‘to put into words’ to woord ‘word’, vergulden ‘to overgild’ to goud ‘gold’, verslavend ‘addictive’ to slaaf ‘slave’, etc.
The history of these MoDu. meanings is quite complicated. In principle, three different PGm. prefixes have merged in unstressed ver-‐‑, viz. *fra-‐‑ (< PIE *pro ‘before, up front’), *fur-‐‑ (unstressed variant of *furi-‐‑ and *fura-‐‑ ‘for’) and *fer-‐‑ (< PIE *per(i) ‘over, around’). In Gothic these can still be distinguished: fra-‐‑ ‘away from’, faur(a)-‐‑ ‘for, before’ and fair-‐‑ (with unclear meaning, only in a few words). Some ancient derivatives have vr-‐‑ before a vowel, as in vracht ‘freight’ (*fra-‐‑aiht-‐‑) and vreten ‘to eat away’. The merger of the three PGm. prefixes can already be observed in ODu.: ec forsacho diabolae ‘I renounce the devil’ (791-‐‑800) which clearly has for-‐‑ ‘away’, farcundon sal ic uundir thin ‘I will announce thy wonders’ (10th c.).
5 Some words in ver-‐‑ were borrowed from High or Low German and lack a Dutch simplex, e.g. verfomfaaien ‘to batter’, verlof ‘leave’, vernuft ‘ingenuity’.
7. Nominal morphology 7.1 Case and gender in MDu. and MoDu. Case Due to phonological and morphological developments, case distinctions were gradually being lost from ODu. to MDu. (merger of unstressed vowels in schwa) and during MDu. (syncope, apocope, -‐‑m > -‐‑n, paradigmatic leveling). As a result, case stopped being an inflectional category for nouns in MoDu. Its function was largely replaced by prepositional phrases, e.g. van ‘of’ for previously genetival function, aan ‘to’ for the indirect object, etc. An exception is the adnominal -‐‑s for human possessors (vader’s schoenen ‘father’s shoes’, tante’s wens ‘(our) aunt’s wish’) which competes with the possessive pronoun in colloquial Dutch (vader z’n schoenen ‘my father’s shoes’, mijn tante d’r auto ‘my aunt’s car’). As the ‘adverbial -‐‑s’, this ending has gained new productivity as a derivational suffix. Next to old genitives such as tweemaal daag-‐‑s ‘twice per day’, een-‐‑s ‘once’, ander-‐‑s ‘otherwise’, recht-‐‑s ‘to the right’, we find Late MDu. and MoDu. formations like te hant ‘at hand’ >> te hants > MoDu. thans ‘presently’, elder >> elders ‘elsewhere’, erghen >> ergens ‘somewhere’, dicke wile ‘many a time’ >> dikwijls ‘often’. Other instances are trouwen >> trouwens ‘by the way’, onverhoedt >> onverhoeds ‘unexpected’, huiswaart >> huiswaarts ‘homeward’ (and general -‐‑waarts ‘-‐‑ward’), vervolgen ‘to continue’ >> vervolgens ‘subsequently’, doorgaan ‘to proceed’ >> doorgaans ‘usually’, wegen dat.pl. of weg ‘road’ >> wegen-‐‑s ‘because of ‘, namen ‘names’ >> namens ‘in the name of’, minste ‘least’ >> minstens ‘at least’. Traces of actual oblique case forms can be found in petrified forms: teweegbrengen ‘to bring about’ (from te ‘on’ plus *wege dat.sg. of weg ‘road’), ‘s ander(en)daags ‘on the next day’, ‘s-‐‑Gravenhage ‘the Court of the Count’ (MDu. grave ‘count’, gen.sg. graven) = ‘The Hague’. Gender Adnominal words (adjectives, demonstratives and articles) were slower to lose their case and gender characteristics than nouns. Hence, for Early MoDu. we can find paradigms such as the following for m. worm ‘worm’, f. daad ‘deed’ and n. brood ‘bread’: sg. pl. nom. de worm de worm-‐‑en gen. des worm-‐‑s der worm-‐‑en dat. den worm den worm-‐‑en acc. den worm de worm-‐‑en sg. pl. nom. de daad de dad-‐‑en gen. der daad der dad-‐‑en dat. der daad den dad-‐‑en acc. de daad de dad-‐‑en sg. pl. nom. het brood de brod-‐‑en gen. des brood-‐‑s der brod-‐‑en dat. den brood(-‐‑e) den brod-‐‑en acc. het brood de brod-‐‑en
Nominal morphology
107
In the masculine, the change of -‐‑m to -‐‑n led to a merger of dative and accusative singular, which seems eventually to have dragged along the feminine and neuter, in which the dative was replaced by the accusative. Since prepositional constructions now became much more frequent, the replacement of the genitive by van also spread rapidly. Thus, aan/van der tafel became aan/van de tafel ‘table’ and aan/van den huis(e) became aan/van het huis ‘house’. When the feminine r-‐‑forms were also replaced by prepositional phrases, what remained of case distinctions was, in the masculine, the difference between the nominative (de kleine man) on the one hand, and the oblique functions (den kleinen man) on the other. Northern Dutch dialects simplified this system by generalizing the subject form, thus creating a system with only two genders: commune (the old masculine plus feminine) and neuter. The anaphoric references to the commune words is done with masculine forms (hij, hem). Central and southern Dutch (all below line 1 on map 25) generalized the object form for the masculine adnominals, and thus retained three different genders: den kleinen man, de kleine vrouw, het kleine kind. As is known, unstressed -‐‑en is realized as schwa in many dialects and in standard Dutch. As the map shows, only southwestern Flemish realizes final -‐‑n in all adnominal forms. Other dialects show various restrictions, with the largest area showing the retention of final -‐‑n in front of initial dental stop, b-‐‑ or a vowel: nen dikken aap ‘a fat ape’ but ne grote man ‘a big man’.
Map 25: Adnominal accusativism with masculine nouns in southern Dutch dialects. Source: Goossens 2008: 142.
Chapter 7
108
7.2 Adjectival inflexion The Old Germanic languages distinguished a strong adjectival declension from a so-‐‑called weak one. The latter had a preference for attributive use, and was mostly used in combination with other determiners, e.g. the demonstrative or the article. Formally, the weak declension had the endings of the n-‐‑stem nouns, whereas the strong declension had nominal and pronominal endings inherited from PIE.
In (Late) ODu., the reconstructed inflexion for a-‐‑stems was roughly as follows:
STRONG WEAK singular masc. fem. neut. masc. fem. neut.
nom. blint blint blint blindo blinda blinda gen. blindes blindero blindes blindin blindon blindin dat. blindin blindero blindin blindin blindon blindin acc. blindan blinda blint blindon blindon blinda
plural nom. blinde, -‐‑a, blint blindon gen. blindero blindono dat. blindon blindon acc. blinde, -‐‑a, blint blindon In MDu., the strong and weak inflexions have merged completely in the plural, where the strong forms have mostly won out. In the singular, merger has also proceeded quite far, in particular in the genitive and dative. Variation is mainly preserved in the nom.masc. and nom.acc.ne. Here are the most frequent forms of the MDu. adjective (old ja-‐‑stems have more forms ending in –e): singular masc. fem. neut. plural
nom. blint blinde blint blinde blinde blinde gen. blints blinder blints blinder dat. blinden blinder blinden blinden acc. blinden blinde blint blinde blinde
During the MDu. period, the syntactic use of variants forms – in those cases where they were preserved side by side – is reshuffled. In Modern Dutch, the use has been further simplified due to the loss of syntactic case and (in northern dialects) the merger of masculine and feminine. We now find a distinction only for gender and for definiteness: masculine feminine neuter plural definite de blinde man de blinde vrouw het blinde kind de blinde mensen indefinite een blinde man een blinde vrouw een blind kind blinde mensen een groot man
Nominal morphology
109
Thus, the ending –e has been generalized with the exception of the indefinite neuter (een blind kind) and some instances of the indefinite masculine. In fact, the indefinite adjective, in its more ancient usage, is the only place where the difference between masculine and feminine is preserved in inflexion. Mostly this concerns figurative usage (een groot man ‘a great man’ vs. een grote man ‘a big man’, een gewaarschuwd man telt voor twee ‘a warned man counts for two’. 7.3 The plural of nouns Here is the inflexion of a masculine noun in Old Dutch:
singular plural nominative dag daga / dagas genitive dages dago dative dage dagon accusative dag daga
Only the nominative and accusative singular, and partly their plural forms, have identical forms. When e, a and o merged into schwa in unstressed syllables, some distinctions were lost. Here is the same paradigm at the beginning of the thirteenth century:
singular plural nominative dag dage(s) genitive dages dage dative dage dagen accusative dag dage(s)
With other types of nouns we also found many coalescing forms, though the distribution can be different. A typical feminine noun is ‘church’: nom. gen. dat. acc. sg. kerke, nom. acc. pl. kerke, gen. dat. pl. kerken. Thus, the endings -‐‑e and -‐‑en partly occur with different forms than in ‘day’. Analogical leveling of endings was the logical consequence of these differences. In MoDu., case distinctions have disappeared altogether, leaving only the difference between singular and plural to be expressed by different endings.
Chapter 7
110
Map 26: The plural of berg Map 27: The plural of pot
These maps give the plural of berg ‘mountain’ and pot ‘pot’ in MoDu. dialects. Endings which occur are -‐‑əә (berge, potte), -‐‑(əә)n (berg(e)n), zero (berg), and -‐‑s (pots). Possible stem changes are V: = vowel lengthening (e.g. southeastern /bε:rg/) and V = vowel mutation (eastern /pœt/). The spelling “V -‐‑Ø” indicates “umlaut of the stem, with a zero ending”. From: J. Goossens, Dialectgeografische grondslagen van een Nederlandse taalgeschiedenis (Hasselt: VLDN, 2008), p. 105, 106. Let us compare the Early MDu. endings of nominative (and accusative) plural with the endings of the modern standard language. Early MDu. had five ways to change a singular into a plural: using one of the four endings -‐‑e, -‐‑n, -‐‑s, -‐‑er, or without adding an ending. Depending on the type of singular, this yielded five main types of sg.-‐‑pl. formations:
type sg. ending pl. ending Early MDu. examples 1 -‐‑Ø -‐‑e daed – dade ‘deed’ 2 -‐‑e -‐‑n cnape – cnapen ‘lad’ 3 -‐‑Ø (-‐‑e) -‐‑s ridder(e) – ridders ‘knight’ 4 -‐‑Ø -‐‑er(e) calf – calver(e) ‘calf’ 5 -‐‑Ø -‐‑Ø pond – pond ‘pound’
bunre – bunre ‘bunder’ Type 5 occurred, among others, with neuter nouns, and some remnants can be found in MoDu. expressions: twee jaar ‘two years’, tien pond ‘ten pounds’, op de been zijn ‘to be up and running’. There were also some (mainly) masculine nouns with the same singular and plural form, such as man ‘man’ and voet ‘foot’. Compare MoDu. we hebben tien man personeel ‘we have a staff of ten people’ (men or women) vs. er zijn tien mannen omgekomen ‘ten men have died’ (only males). In eastern Dutch, such words had i-‐‑mutation if the stem vowel lent itself to that change: men ‘men’, veut ‘feet’, etc.; compare the distribution of ‘pots’ on map 27. Another way to indicate the difference between sg. and pl., also with neuter words, is the alternation between different tone accents in the sg. and the pl. in the dialects of Limburg. For instance: ein sjtein2 ‘a stone’ (tone accent 2, level or falling-‐‑rising) versus twieë sjtein1 ‘two
Nominal morphology
111
stones’ (tone accent 1, falling). The reintroduction of a plural marker in the other Dutch dialects by means of endings such as -‐‑e (MDu. alle jare ‘all years’), later -‐‑en (jaren ‘years’), is trivial. Type 4 is found in a number of neuter nouns. Th ending -‐‑er(e) had arisen by phonetic development with a small number of words that had a PGm. suffix *-‐‑iz-‐‑, *-‐‑az-‐‑: ei ‘egg’, hoen ‘hen’, kalf ‘calf’, lam ‘lamb’, rund ‘bovine’. In MDu., this type spread to other neuter nouns which originally had a zero plural ending, such as glas ‘glass’, kind ‘child’, kleed ‘cloth’, rad ‘wheel’, wicht ‘child’: kinder ‘children’, kleder ‘clothes’, etc. Early on in MDu., the ending -‐‑er was extended with -‐‑en, giving the ending -‐‑eren which is now the only one for those neuter nouns that use the syllable er in the plural: volkeren ‘peoples’ (beside volken), eieren ‘eggs’, etc. Type 1 characterizes many masculine nouns and a smaller number of feminines. The plural ending -‐‑e was replaced by -‐‑en in the course of the 14th and 15th centuries. This ending -‐‑en had arisen by sound law in many feminines (the type MDu. tonge – tongen ‘tongue’) but also with masculine n-‐‑stems (the type cnape – cnapen ‘lad’). We thus witness the replacement of -‐‑e (which also characterized the dative sg. and the genitive pl.) by a clearer marker. Another factor in this replacement was the phonetic apocope of -‐‑e in the central dialects (Brabant, Holland, Utrecht, Limburg) in the later Middle Ages. By this token, the old plural form dage became daag, and a singular such as tonge became tong. In the Southwest (Flanders, Zealand) and the Northeast (Achterhoek, Overijssel, Drente, Groningen) this did not happen. In order to recharacterize the plural, -‐‑e (> -‐‑Ø) was replaced by -‐‑en in the central dialects (though we also find this replacement in Flemish, which did not apocopate). Furthermore, since -‐‑e had disappeared, MoDu. -‐‑en could regularly lose its final -‐‑n in pronunciation without loss of function. This explains why MoDu. written dagen ‘days, kunnen ‘to be able’, teken ‘sign’, even ‘just’, etc., are pronounced without their final -‐‑n. The plurals of berg and pot on maps 26–27 have in most of the present-‐‑day dialects originated from -‐‑en, with the exception of the endingless forms in Limburg and Twente (and pots in French Flanders). Type 2 has partly been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The feminine nouns knew two different types in Old Dutch: ō-‐‑stems (nom.sg. kerke, nom.pl. kerke) and n-‐‑stems (nom.sg. tonge, nom.pl. tongen). Already in Late ODu., these types started to merge, the ō-‐‑stems adopting the ending -‐‑en of the n-‐‑stems in the nom.acc.pl.: kerke, kerken. Their inflexion now fell together with that of the masculine and neuter n-‐‑stems (type cnape – cnapen) to which very many nouns belonged. Due to the subsequent apocope of final -‐‑e in the singular, the type tong -‐‑ tongen, knaap – knapen arose in the central dialects. This has now de facto merged with masculine and neuter words such as dag – dagen, woord – woorden ‘word’. Type 3 has a plural ending -‐‑s. This used to exist in masc. and fem. nouns in Proto-‐‑Germanic, but it was marginalized in a prestage of Dutch. Only coastal dialects seem to have used this ending for a larger group of nouns, as shown by the famous Old Flemish sentence hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan ‘all birds have started nests’: next to vogala (MNl. -‐‑e) we find nestas (MNl. -‐‑es). In Early MDu., -‐‑s is mainly restricted to masculine persons in -‐‑er and -‐‑aar (bakker ‘baker’, ridder ‘knight’, vinder ‘finder’, meester ‘master’, priester ‘priest’, makelaar ‘maker, trader’), and some animals and objects in -‐‑er (anker ‘anchor’, bever ‘beaver’, reiger ‘heron’). Furthermore, -‐‑s is found with a small number of monosyllabic nouns, such as dam ‘dam’, hoec ‘corner’, stik ‘piece’. It is important to note that -‐‑s only occurs in Flemish and Hollandish. This -‐‑s entered the standard language from Holland, and was used as an alternative to form a new, clearly marked plural, since -‐‑e or -‐‑en had become less clearly recognizable plural markers. The loss of the genitive – marked by sg. -‐‑s – as a living case was
Chapter 7
112
one of the reasons that s could become such a clear plural marker. Final -‐‑s also spread through a semantic path, viz. for indicating a ‘male person’. That is why we now find MoDu. -‐‑s after a number of person suffixes (-‐‑aard-‐‑s, -‐‑ier-‐‑s). Phonological patterns explain the spread to words in -‐‑en, -‐‑el, -‐‑em (lepels ‘spoons’, degens ‘sabres’, bezems ‘brooms’), to deminutives (-‐‑tjes), to monosyllabic persons (koks ‘cooks’, ooms ‘uncles’) and to some French loanwords (hotel-‐‑s, but kalkoen-‐‑en ‘turkeys’). Final -‐‑s is becoming more and more of a standard ending for nouns in -‐‑e: hoogte-‐‑n / hoogte-‐‑s ‘hights’, liefde-‐‑s ‘loves’. 7.4 The reflexive pronoun Map 28 gives the 20th-‐‑century dialect forms for the reflexive pronoun of the third person singular masculine in the expression ‘Toon washes himself’. Apart from Friesland, the map shows a large southern areas with hem ‘him’ which comprises Flanders, South Brabant and southwestern Limburg. Southern hem agrees with the normal MDu. form of the reflexive pronoun, which is simply the accusative of the personal pronoun (as it still is in MoDu. for the first and second persons). The form zich occurs in an almost continuous, eastern territory from Groningen to Limburg. In MDu., zich first appears in texts from this area in the fourteenth century. In the west, some isolated instances of zich can be regarded as front posts of an east-‐‑west spread of zich. Since zich is found in the standard language since the seventeenth century, its occurrence in towns such as Amsterdam, Leiden, Woerden can be due to the influence of the standard on the local dialects.
The form z’ n eigen is the most recent construction. The form of the dialect area where it occurs already indicates that it may be an innovation that has recently been expanding. In Belgium, z’ n eigen is expanding to towns within the hem-‐‑ and the zich-‐‑areas. The origin of z’n eigen is disputed. It may be an abbreviation of z’n eigen zelf ‘his own self’.
Nominal morphology
113
Map 28: The reflexive pronoun in MoDu. Based on: S. Barbiers et al., Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (Amsterdam 2005-‐‑2008), vol. I, 68. 7.5 Inflected conjunctions Many Dutch, Frisian and German varieties have a syntactic phenomenon that is absent from standard Dutch and German, viz. the inflexion of subordinate conjunctions and relative pronouns. In Limburg, for instance, such clause-‐‑initial words can get an ending which looks exactly like a verbal ending. In many dialects, however, this only happens when the finite verb of the clause is in the 2sg. or 2pl. (other dialects can have other rules, sometimes inflecting the conjunctions for each of the six persons). Here are some examples from Roermond: ich wil de-‐‑s-‐‑te heurs ‘I want you to hear’ lummel dae-‐‑s-‐‑te bös ‘you’re such a lout’ wetste, waa-‐‑s-‐‑te duis ‘you know, what you should do...’ de man dae-‐‑s-‐‑te gezeen höbs ‘the man that you’ve seen’ (sg.) de man dae-‐‑t-‐‑ger gezeen höbt ‘the man that you’ve seen’ (pl.) wie-‐‑s-‐‑te zegks ‘as you say’ (sg.) wie-‐‑t geer zegkt ‘as you say’ (pl.) The verbal endings -‐‑s (2sg.) and -‐‑t (2pl.) appear to be used proleptically on the clause-‐‑initial word; they are followed by the unaccented (-‐‑te, -‐‑ger) or the accented (doe, geer) form of the personal pronoun. Other conjunctions that can show this phenomenon are, for instance, of ‘or’ (ofstoe, oftgeer), es ‘when’ (estoe, estgeer) and toen ‘then’ (toenstoe, toentgeer).
Chapter 7
114
7.6 Pronominal er The short word er is one of the most difficult ones to acquire for non-‐‑native speakers, in terms of its syntax and semantics. It has received various denominations, ‘dummy adverb’, ‘dummy subject’, and ‘temporary subject’. And it has other functions too. In principle, it is a pronominal form. According to Taalportaal (www.taalportaal.org), er “can perform four different functions. It can be used (1) as an expletive in, e.g., an existential construction, Er loopt een man op straat ‘A man is walking down the street’, (2) as the pronominal R-‐‑part of a pronominal PP, Jan wacht er al tijden op ‘Jan has been waiting for it for ages’, (3) as a locational pro-‐‑form, Jan staat er al ‘Jan is already standing there’, and (4) as the indicator of the nominal gap in quantitative constructions, e.g., Jan heeft er drie ‘Jan has three (of them)’. The conundrum can be nuanced when looking at the historical origin of er. Basically it represents the phonological merger (in unstressed position) of two different stressed forms (in Middle and Early Modern Dutch), viz. (1) the genitival personal pronoun haar ‘of them’, and (2) the locatival adverb daar ‘there’. Thus, functions 1 and 3 continue locatival daar, function 4 continues genitival haar, whereas function 2 can hide either daar or haar, depending on the original rection of the verb. Still other haar-‐‑forms experienced the same reduction, and can be found reduced to er in earlier centuries, but do not possess a written variant er anymore. They do possess the colloquial variants ‘r and d’r, though: the object form haar ‘her’ of ‘she’ (ik zie haar – ik zie d’r ‘I see her’), the possessive pronoun haar ‘her’ (haar broer -‐‑ d’r broer ‘her brother’), and the possessive pronoun 3pl. haar ‘their’, which has now disappeared from the spoken and written standards (*haar fietsen ‘their bicycles’ >> hun fietsen). In unstressed position, haar was reduced to /ǝr/ whereas daar became /dǝr/. In the position after word-‐‑final dentals, such as after a 3sg. present form of the verb, both pronouns merged phonetically, because d-‐‑ was devoiced to -‐‑t. It is furthermore possible that Middle Dutch enclitic -‐‑er developed a variant -‐‑der after resonants, a phonetic process also observed, for instance, in the comparative (meer ‘more’ -‐‑ meerre > meerdere ‘several’). This merger led to the interchangeability of unstressed ‘r and d’r, and to the use of d’r for haar, er, which never had an initial dental etymological. full form: er-‐‑form: colloquail form: translation: Daar is niets. Er is niets. D’r is niets. There is nothing (existential) Ik wil daarop. Ik wil erop. Ik wil d’r op. I want (to go) on it. Zij wil *haar vier. Zij wil er vier. Zij wil d’r vier. She wants four (of them). Heb je haar gezien? – Heb je d’r gezien? Did you see her? Geef aan haar man! – Geef aan d’r man! Give (it) to her husband!
8. Derivational morphology 8.1 Diminutive nouns (see chapter 3.2.1 for palatalization) For the ODu. period, we may roughly distinguish between three different suffixes: -‐‑ekīn bandekīn to band ‘band’ haskīn to haso ‘hare’ lembekīn to lamb ‘lamb’ -‐‑elīn vogalīn to vogal ‘bird’ kamblīn to kamb ‘comb’ kukelīn to *kuoko ‘koekje’ -‐‑esīn knapesīn to knapo ‘lad’ bruggesīn to brugga ‘bridge’ Godecin to Godefridus ‘Godfried’ Reincin to Reinhildis ‘Reinildis’ In Early MDu. (after 1200), the suffix -‐‑līn starts to disappear. It has been lexicalized in ermelijn ‘ermine’, MoDu. hermelijn (to OHG harmo). It appears among others in MDu. weghelin ‘little road’ (in southern Dutch, wegel(e) is still a normal diminutive of weg), cnapelijn ‘young lad’, and in toponyms such as ten braemboscheline ‘at the Littel Bramble Bush’, ten hagheline ‘at the Littel Hedge’.
A new, extended suffix -‐‑elkīn was then formed, which combined el with the more productive suffix -‐‑kīn: cnapelkin ‘young lad’, dukelkin ‘little towel’, stuckelkin ‘small piece’, weghelkin ‘small road’.
Afte 1200, the suffix -‐‑kīn is the most productive suffix: ackerkin ‘small field’, appelkin ‘small apple’, Arnoudekin ‘Little Arnold’, beestkin ‘small animal’, berghken ‘small mountain’, boengartstratekin ‘Little Orchard Street’, Claiskin ‘Little Nicholas’, etc. This suffix got palatalized after dental stops (see 2.2) and then spread as MoDu. -‐‑(t)je.
Afer velar obstruents, however, we usually find the suffix as -‐‑skin in Early MDu.: bucskin‘booklet’, bruxkin ‘little bridge’, clerskin ‘little clerk’ (*klerk-‐‑skin), ionxkin ‘young animal’, planxkin ‘small plank’, vercsken ‘piglet’. This distribution is still found in many southern and eastern dialects.
The suffix -‐‑sin, like -‐‑lin, was on its way out in Early MDu. Nearly all of its latest attestations occur after stems ending in a velar (just like –skin): broecsin (1289) ‘little marshland’, brucsin (1349) ‘little bridge’, havicsijn (1343) ‘little hawk’, hoecsijn (1318) ‘little corner’, clocsin (1309) ‘small clock’, conincsijn (1321) ‘little king’.
The latter forms provide the key to the rise of the suffix -‐‑skin afer velars. It is clear that -‐‑sin lost its productivity as a diminutive suffix. But the only remaining productive suffix was -‐‑kin, which, however, yielded a problem after stem-‐‑final velars: *broek-‐‑kin > *broekin would not be recognizable as a diminutive. The solution that was apparently chosen was that productive -‐‑kin was added to the existing forms ending in -‐‑k-‐‑sin. In other words: broek-‐‑sin was replaced by broek-‐‑skin, whence modern dialectal broekske. 8.2 The function of verbal prefixes
Chapter 8
116
The main inherited deverbal prefixes are: be-‐‑ ‘with, at’
spreken ‘to talk’ > bespreken ‘to discuss’ staan ‘to stand’ > bestaan ‘to exist’ vallen ‘to fall’ > bevallen ‘to please (to so.)’ ge-‐‑ perfectivity, collectivity denken ‘to think’ > gedenken ‘to commemorate’ mis-‐‑ the negative opposite
(ge)dragen ‘to behave’ > misdragen ‘to misbehave’ kennen ‘to know’ > miskennen ‘to ignore’ lukken ‘to succeed’ > mislukken ‘to fail’.
ont-‐‑ ‘out of, dis-‐‑; beginning’
groeien ‘to grow’ > ontgroeien ‘to outgrow’ branden ‘to burn’ > ontbranden ‘to ignite’ hoofd ‘head’ > onthoofden ‘to behead’ te-‐‑ ‘apart, asunder’, only in Middle Dutch: breken ‘to break’ > tebreken ‘to fall apart’ ver-‐‑ see above Borrowed suffixes are, for instance: her-‐‑ ‘again’ (borrowed from French re-‐‑ with metathesis?)
trouwen ‘to marry’ > hertrouwen ‘to remarry’ zien ‘to see’ > herzien ‘to revise’ kauwen ‘to chew’ > herkauwen ‘to ruminate’ er-‐‑ in a few ‘bookish’, German loanwords: erbarmen ‘to have mercy’, erkennen ‚to acknowledge‘, ervaren ‚to experience‘. 8.3 Dutch surnames
Although internal and external migration since the late 1800s has of course changed the earlier picture, it is still possible to determine the regional origin of a person (or, at least, of a person’s parents or grandparents) by the form of her or his surname. Naming patterns can be very different from one region to another, and even within a region, certain patterns may be discerned. See www.cbgfamilienamen.nl/nfb/ for the distribution of surnames in The Netherlands and www.familienaam.be for Belgium.
The main criteria to distinguish surnames are their motivation (their ‘meaning’), their morphology, their phonetics (historical phonology), their spelling, and their fashion (e.g., specific names may have been much in vogue in one town but nearly unused in another
Derivational morphology
117
one). For instance, the descendants of a baker can be found in different forms within the Dutch speech area, depending on the spelling (Bakker – Backer), the pronunciation (Bakker – Bekker) or the grammatical form (Bakker – De Bakker – Bekkers – Bekkering). It is also possible that the same occupation has different names in different areas: the profession of ‘taylor’ yields, among others, the names Snijders, Schreurs, De Naeyer, De Schepper and De Sutter. By looking at the variants on a map, we can get a geographic survey of the (previous) distribution of phenomena like i-‐‑mutation (Bakker – Bekker), the preference for a genitive (Bakker – Bakkers) or the occurrence of a specific lexeme (snijder versus schreuder ‘taylor’).
Looking more in detail at ‘taylor’, we find Deschepper mainly in western Belgium, that is, in Flanders. The name Denaeyer is relatively rare in Belgium, occurring mainly around Geraardsbergen; in the Netherlands, Naaijer occurs in the Northeast. The name Desutter is mainly restricted to West Flanders. The two largest area’s are those of Snijder(s) and of Schreuder(s), Schreur(s), respectively The name Snijder used to occur mainly in northeastern Netherlands, the Veluwe and Holland, whereas Snijders was at hom in Brabant, Limburg and Twente. The names Schreuder and Schreuders show the same distribution: the s-‐‑less form in the north and northeast, the -‐‑s-‐‑forms mainly in Brabant. Since d is usually lost between vowels we find in Gelderland and Overijssel mainly Schreur and in Limburg Schreurs.
Looking at the meaning (the onomastic motivation), we can distinguish four groups of surnames:
• Patronymics: derived from the father’s first name, e.g., Willems, Claesen, Nelissen, Moonen, Hoeben, Vaesen, Martens, Huigens, Hermans, Peters, Pieters, etc. Metronymics (derived from the mother’s name) are rare, but more frequent in Belgian Limburg.
• Occupational names: Bakker and variants (see above), Mulder ‘miller’, Raaijmakers ‘wheelwright’, Timmermans ‘carpenter’, Cooman ‘merchant’, De Ruyter ‘rider’, Smeets ‘smith’, etc.
• Geographic origin: Van Woerkum, van den Bosch, van der Velde, Terhaar (preposition+article ter), Uytdenhaaghe (‘From the Hague’), Bergs, Bosmans, Oudkerk, Kortlandt, van Dijk, etc.
• Nicknames: de Jong, de Wit, Zwart, de Bruin, de Groot, de Vries ‘Fries’, Swerts ‘de zwarte’. Animal names also belong here, since they are given due to a person’s aspect or character: de Vos ‘Fox’, Wolfs ‘Wolf’, Vinken ‘Finch’, Haze ‘Hare’.
The surname’s form can betray a dialect different from the standard language: Swerts from *zwartes, genitive to zwart ‘black’; Hoeben, Houben with southeastern /u:/ where Standard Sutch has ui or uu /y:/: Huib, Huub. Other surnames preserve the result of sound changes that were removed from the standard language, such as Woerkum for the town spelled as Woudrichem, Cooman from koopman ‘merchant’, Mulder from molenaar ‘miller’. Apart from the name-‐‑giving motives, we can also look regionally at the grammatical motivation of surnames. In Middle Dutch there were still four case-‐‑forms, although the difference between them was often blurred; it was clearest in the genitive (where masculine and neuter words got -‐‑s), and in the dative of the article (where m. and n. words got -‐‑n, but feminine words final -‐‑r).
The combination of first name and surname can be regarded as a nominal phrase. In patronymics we can than expect a genitive: ‘Jan (son) of Pieter’ is necessarily Jan Pieter-‐‑s. Beside genitive in -‐‑s, Middle Dutch also had the weak genitive in -‐‑en (in Germanic n-‐‑stems). Therefore, the original surname derived from Frank (MDu. Franke) is Franken/Vranken, with i-‐‑mutation Fren(c)ken, but that of (the strong noun) Willem is Willems. In Limburg, the
Chapter 8
118
ending -‐‑en became productive in non-‐‑n-‐‑stems, replacing earlier -‐‑s. We therefore find in in Limburg Nelissen (to Cornelis) and Geelen, Gielen (to Michiel), instead of Nelis and Gillis, Giels. In northwestern Dutch (Brabant, Holland) the surname got a nominatival form by the addition of sone ‘son’: Jan Pieters sone ‘Jan, the son of Pieter’. The vowel of sone was usually reduced to schwa, giving names such as Pietersen, Janssen, Gerritsen. The son of Jan Pietersen, however, can himself be named with a genitive again: Pieter Pietersens ‘Pieter, son of (Jan) Pietersen’. If the first name ended in -‐‑s it cannot always be known which analysis is correct. A name such as Hans(s)en may be a weak genitive to Hans, so Hans-‐‑en, but it could also hide a sone-‐‑form, so *Hans-‐‑sone. In occupational names, southeastern Dutch usually has a genitival form (Bekkers, Mulders), whereas Flanders, Zealand, western Brabant and Holland more often have the nominatival form: Jan Bakker ‘Jan [is] baker’. Parts of this western area often use the article: Jan de Bakker, or, in Flanders and Zealand, Jan de Bakkere. Forms with -‐‑ing or -‐‑ink (Bekkering etc.) are especially found in Twente and adjacent areas. This is also a nominative type, since the suffix -‐‑ing forms new nouns, as in Vlam-‐‑ing ‘man from Flanders’, edel-‐‑ing ‘nobleman’, Karol-‐‑ing ‘descendant of Karel’. Hence, Jan Bekkering is ‘Jan, descendant of a baker’.
In many surnames we find dozens of different variants: nominative without article, nominative with article, genitive without or with article; with or without i-‐‑mutation; dialectal form or one that was modified according to the standard language, etc. Compare the following list of the Dutch variants of the surname ‘Miller’:
Nominatives: Demulder, De Mulder, Demeulder, De Meulder, Demolder, Demuylder, Demeuldre, Demuldre, Den Mulder, Demeulenaere, Demeulenaer, Demeuleneire, Demuelenaere, Demeuleneir, Demolenaer, Demeuleneere, Muller, Mulder, Moller, Mueller, Meulder, Müller, Möller, Mölder, Mülder, Moeller, Meuleneire, Meulenaere, Molenaer, Muelenaer, Molenaar, Moolenaar, Meulenaar, Mollenaar, Mullender, Molderink, Möllering, Mulderink. Genitives: Meulders, Mulders, Mollers, Molders, Mullers, Möllers, Mülders, Mölders, Muelders, Müllers, Müllers, Molenaers, Mullenders, Mulleners, Moldenaers, Mulleneers, Meuleneers, Meuleners, Mulenders, Mullenaerts, Molenaars, Moolenaars, Meulenaars, Smolders, Smeulders, Smulders, Smeulers, Smuller, Smolenaers, Smoolenaers, Smolenaars, Smoolenaars, Smolderen. Other formations: Muldermans, Molemans, Te Molder, Te Moller Most of the nicknames are adjectives, and that is how they were originally inflected. That is why ‘Hans, the young one’ is called Hans de Jonge and ‘Suzanne, the good one’ Suzanne de Goede. Or without the article: Piet Kleine. The Modern Dutch loss of final -‐‑e has given rise to the forms de Jong and Klein (there is no de Goed, but we do find de Goeij / de Goey). A name such as de Jonge is therefore mainly found in those areas where final -‐‑e did not drop in the local dialects, namely Flanders & Zealand on the one hand, and northeastern Dutch on the other hand. The genitive of the inflected adjective also had the ending -‐‑en, which explains surnames such as Jongen and Kleinen. Here too the article was sometimes petrified, as in Swijsen ‘of the wise one’ in the southwest of Belgian Limburg. Behind the old genitive ending the more recognizable -‐‑s was sometimes suffixed, especially in Brabant. Hence surnames such as Lievens, Sterkens and Langens. Names of geographical origin are usually formed with a prepositional phrase, using op, aan, in or te to indicate the place where someone lives: Termeulen ‘at-‐‑the-‐‑mill’. Names with
Derivational morphology
119
van or uit state where the name-‐‑bearer is from: Vandermeulen, Vermeulen ‘from-‐‑the-‐‑mill’. Ver-‐‑ is a contraction of van der ‘of the’, the dative form used with feminine nouns.
Three other possibilities to form surnames in Dutch are by using the suffixes -‐‑man, -‐‑aert or -‐‑ing. We have already seen that -‐‑ing is used in occupational names in northeastern Dutch. But is has been productive in a larger area to form patronymics and nicknames: Wilmink (to Wilhelm), Gyselinck (in Flanders; to Gijzel(brecht)), Surinx (in Limburg; meaning ‘sour one’) Lieftink (to an Old Germanic name *Lief-‐‑had). With -‐‑man(s) are formed mainly patronymics, occupational names and names of geographical origin; the genitival form again is found especially in eastern Brabant and in Limburg. Examples are Gysemans, Peetermans (to the first names Gijs, Peter); Goeman, Goedemans, Goemans, Gommans (to goed ‘good’), Jongmans (to jong ‘young’); Bosman, Bosmans, Dijkman, Dijkmans, Brusselmans (to bos ‘forest’, dijk ‘dike’, Brussel). 8.4 Middle Dutch -‐‑se for female persons Proto-‐‑Germanic *-‐‑isjô(n)-‐‑ > yielded Old Dutch *-‐‑issa and Middle Dutch -‐‑sse(n). In Modern German, the suffix is known from the nouns Kebse ‘concubine’ and Bremse ‘gadfly, horse fly’. The Old Dutch suffix was borrowed into Gallo-‐‑Romance as -‐‑issa, MoFre. -‐‑esse, which donated the suffix back to Dutch as the female stressed suffixes -‐‑es and -‐‑is, e.g., in abdis ‘female abbot’ (Early Middle Dutch abedesse, abedisse), MoDu. prinses ‘princess’, barones ‘baroness’, all with final stress. The inherited version of the suffix only survives in the suffix conglomerate -‐‑er-‐‑sse, an extension in *-‐‑issa of the masculine agent noun suffix MDu. -‐‑ere, MoDu. -‐‑er, which was borrowed from Latin -‐‑arius. Since this loan suffix had no feminine variant, it gets extended with different, explicitly feminine suffixes in Middle Dutch: MDu. -‐‑erinne, (e.g., keiserinne ‘empress’), surviving as MoDu. -‐‑erin; MDu. -‐‑erster (e.g., morderster ‘murderess’); and MDu. -‐‑erigge (e.g., grutrighe ‘female gruter = grocer’, meesterigghe ‘mastress’). Whereas -‐‑erigghe is only found in Flanders, the suffix -‐‑ersse is nearly only in Brabant and Limburg (and the southeastern corner of Flanders). Here is a selection of thirteenth-‐‑century nouns carrying this suffix: bescermersse ‘protectress’, clusenersse ‘anchoress’, cremerse ‘female chandler’, dorperse ‘countrywoman’, helperse ‘woman helper’, leserse ‘woman reader’, meesterse, meisterse, ‘mastress’, meyerse ‘mayor’s wife’, pieterse ‘Pieter’s wife’, poertersse ‘townswoman’, priorse ‘prioress’, sundersse ‘woman sinner’, springerse ‘woman dancer’. Pieterse shows that the pattern had become an automatic one (“add -‐‑se to masculine -‐‑er”). The word priorse is due to the pronunciation of prior as priër (with unstressed second syllable), as shown by prierse in the fourteenth century.
Some later formations from the sixteenth century are apotekerssen ‘pharmicist’s wife, bacxster ‘woman baker’, handelersse ‘woman merchant’. Afterwards, the suffix disappears from the written language. But in southern dialects it has remained alive for a longer time and has shifted the word stress to the (now word-‐‑final) syllable in -‐‑ers-‐‑, in analogy to the other stressed female suffixes such as -‐‑es: Geraardsbergen nojáse, Hasselt najjós, Maastricht nejéérs ‘needlewoman’. We find the same stress shift in the feminine suffixes StDu. -‐‑egge (dievegge) and -‐‑in(ne). Outside southern Dutch, feminine -‐‑erse is found in western German, from Ripuarian to southern Rhine Franconian. Here too, the suffix originally arose in agent nouns in -‐‑er(e), such as Tolnerse ‘tollkeeper’s wife’ (Cologne, ca. 1200), oleyslegerse ‘woman oil-‐‑presser’ (Bonn, 1344), beckerse ‘woman baker’ (Mainz, 1366), kammerse ‘woman chamberlain’ (Trier, 1363/64),
Chapter 8
120
cf. Steffens 2014. Note that the Modern Dutch variant -‐‑erse as in kosterse ‘verger’s wife’ stems from -‐‑er plus adjectival -‐‑sche, cf. German -‐‑isch, and is typically northern Dutch.
9. Etymologies a. Flemish soe ‘she’ In Old High German and still in Old Dutch of around 1100, the nom.sg. of ‘she’ is found both as siu and as sī, both being replacements of PGm. *sō as found in Gothic so. From 1200, only si /si:/, the precursor of modern zij ‘she’, is found in nearly all of central and eastern Dutch as well as in Holland. Yet in Flanders and a few adjacent places, such as Brussels and sporadically in Holland, the subject form is soe /so:/, sometimes written as so, and very rarely su /sy:/. It has been argued that su continues Old Dutch siu, but it is now generally assumed that it represents a special development of soe. The latter formed remained in existence in West Flanders until ca. 1900, after that time there are only sporadic traces of it in the dialects of French Flanders (Ryckeboer 1972).
Map 29: the distribution of the types ‘zoe’ (spelled soe, so, su) and ‘zi’ in 13th-‐‑century sources, depicted in Berteloot 1984, map 121. b. Some exclamations ai expressing sorrow, pain, negative surprise. Early MDu. ai (1220–1240) ‘alas, ah, woe’. It is combined with mi ‘me’ in the fixed expression MDu. ai mi, aymi ‘woe to me’. It can also be used for amazement or inciting: ay vrient! ‘come one, friend!’. In Early Modern Dutch, it is spelled as aij (1504), ay, ai, beside aij mij whence amij, amy (1623) and ayme (1605). In a dictionary from 1877, the relationship between ai and ei is described as follows: “As an exclamation of desire, of incitement etc., Ai! is synonymous with Ei! It only differs from it in that Ai! is used in higher, more poetic style and presupposes a more begging or flattering tone, whereas Ei! is the usual encouragement in normal speech.”
Chapter 9
122
But in 1916, ei is already said “not to be current” anymore, and it has now disappeared from northern Dutch spoken language. ei expressing surprise MDu. eij ‘lo!’ (1477, Delftse Bijbel), Early MoDu. ey, e.g., in ey goede ende getrouwe knecht ‘Lo! good and loyal servant!’ (1531), or Eij, wij hebben nu de hueverhandt; de ghues zijn tondere ‘Lo! We now have the upper hand, the rebels are down!’. Ei is now mainly in use in Belgian Dutch, e.g., in the fixed expression ei zo na ‘very nearly’ (Ei, zoo na!, Conscience, De plaag der dorpen, 1875). oei expression pain or fear MDu. oy is an exclamation of surprise, heavy desire and compassion in the Limburgse Sermoenen (ca. 1300): Oy verdumde mensche, wes di selver genedech ‘Oh thy dommed man, have mercy on yourself’. MoDu. oei! It is clear that, for emotional exclamations, the extremities of the vowel triangle are often exploited (ie, aa, oe), whether or not in combination with a glide (j or w in Dutch): aa, oo, a-‐‑j, a-‐‑w, oe-‐‑j, ie-‐‑w, etc. It is uncertain whether Dutch and MHG ai go back to a Germanic exclamation *ai! that would be cognate with Lithuanian ai, Ancient Greek aí, Latin ai, Old French ahi, MoFre. aïe, to mention only some examples. Old Germanic *ai would yield Dutch ee or ei by sound law, but of course exclamations often escape regular sound change by being reinvented time and again. In theory, Dutch ai could even be a loanword from French ahi. The exclamation ei has a less typical but not impossible form of an expressive call. This could be a reason for regarding it as a continuation of Old Germanic *ai, but the rather later attestation seems to argue against this. In view of the existence of the Dutch exclamations of surprise and joy he! beside ha!, the new formation of ei beside ai cannot be excluded. The exclamation oei may regularly continue MDu. *ōi, and be cognate with German oi and ui, all from PGm. *ōi. But parallell forms such as Ancient Greek oí for pain or amazement, and Italian ohi ‘oh, ow’ show that the oo+j, just like oe+j, could arise anew at any moment. tja particle of hesitant approval, of resignation, of echo questions Attested only in recent times, as tja (1901), tja-‐‑tja (1901), sja (1903), tsja-‐‑tsja (1903), tsja (1908). Probably, tja arose by emphatically or cautiously pronouncing j-‐‑, giving rise to extra friction (jjja) and finally to fortition of the initial glide as sj-‐‑, tj-‐‑ or tsj-‐‑. Compare the exclamation tjonge, sjonge ‘boy, boy oh boy’, which arose from the noun jongen ‘boy’ in the same way. Its meaning shows that tja arose from sentence-‐‑initial ja, compare “Ik denk, dat ik zien kan, dat gy moede zyt.” – “Ja, Juffrouw, de Wyk is groot” ‘I think that I can see that you are tired.’ – ‘Yes/Well, Miss, the Wyk is big.’ (Wolff en Deken, Willem Leevend, 1784). Similarly tja-‐‑tja arose from ja-‐‑ja, which, by its repetition, helps to assure a statement. Compare Ick docht in mijn selven al: jae jae, het langhe laken daer Gees de huyck of hadt, dits alweer om de bruyt ‘I already thought to myself: yes yes, served with the same sauce, it’s about the bride again’ (1623). jouwen ‘to jeer, boo’
Etymologies
123
The verb is first attest after 1600: jouwen ‘to jeer’ (1609), bejouwen ‘to jeer at’ (1615), uytjouwen ‘to boo’ (1647). The initial consonant is rendered as di-‐‑ bij the Antwerp authors Willem Ogier (bediouwen 1639, uytgediout 1680) and Peeter Vloers (bediouwen 1659) It is derived from the exclamation of joy, amazement or mockery, iow! (1569), jouw! (1573), jou! (1585), which can also be used as a masculine noun (eenen iouw geven ‘to give a jouw’). A phonetic variant from 1650 from the town of Amersfoort is sjouw. Note also its use in the compound den jouschoot ‘the winning shot’ (1592, Handvesten der Stad Leyden). These early attestation serve, among other things, to dismiss the suggestion by some scholars, that southern Dutch jou, sjouw, zjouw ‘it’s a hit!’ would be a loanword from northern French jo. A cognate exclamation of joy is Middle High German jū, whence was derived MHG jūwen ‘to jubilate’. We can therefore reconstruct the exclamation *jū for Dutch too. This form then underwent the same development of other monosyllables with final *-‐‑ū, viz. to a diphthong ou in Brabant and Holland but to a front rounded monophthong uu /y:/ in Flanders, compare Brab.Hol. nou ‘now’, dou ‘thou’, versus Flemish nu, du. Other derivatives of *jū in Dutch are the verb juichen ‘to cheer’, cf. MHG jūch! and the verb jūchezen > MoHG jauchzen. A frequentative l-‐‑derivative is Dutch juilen, Modern Standard Dutch joelen ‘to howl’, English jowl, Old Icelandic ýla. Finally Early Modern Dutch juiten and MHG jūwezen ‘to cheer’ go back to a verb *jū-‐‑atjan-‐‑, with another suffix that productively derived iterative verbs in West Germanic. There are possible cognates of Germanic *jū in other IE languages, notably Latin iūbilāre ‘to jubilate, cry iū’ and Ancient Greek iú exclamation of amazement. But it is equally conceivable that these are independent formations, since such exclamations tend to use vowels that are at the extremes of the vowel system (i, a, u). c. Dutch gene ‘yonder’ Proto-‐‑Germanic *jen(a)-‐‑ ‘that (over there)’ (OS gendra ‘on this side’, MoHG jener ‘that one’, jenseits ‘on the other side’, OE giend ‘thence’, geondan ‘on the other side’) is continued by MDu. gene ‘that, the other’: here sprac gene te hant ‘Lord, spoke he at once’, in gene wout ‘in yonder wood’, in gene side den bossche ‘on the other side of the forest’. In MoDu., gene survives in the fixed expression deze of gene ‘this or that, some or other’, e.g. de overpeinzingen van dezen en genen ‘the considerations of many people’ and in aan gene zijde ‘on the other side = in death’. Gene also survives in the correlative combinations degene die ‘the one, who...’ and diegene die ‘that one, who...’: MDu. dat die ghene die hachtene was ... ‘that he who was taken into custody...’, MoDu. degene die wint, betaalt ‘who wins, pays’. Furthermore, MoDu. ginds and ginder are locatival adverbs meaning ‘yonder’.
Another survival of gene is found in southeastern dialects, where gen counts as a second definite article beside de, ‘t. For instance, in South Limburg it has the forms masculine gene, feminine gen, neuter ge. Its usage, however, is tied to a number of precise restrictions:
- it has to be preceded by a preposition, usually one of place. Most frequently, these are in, op, aan
- the following noun must indicate an object, a place or a time (not a person) - no other determiner may occur with the noun - the reference must be to a specific object or place. For generic reference, the definite
article de(r) is used. Compare the following examples from the village of Sint-‐‑Martens-‐‑Voeren:
Chapter 9
124
Usjter kooëm een klenge hie a gen däör ‘A while ago, a small child came here at the door’ Ver haant bes taege gen beum geplaant ‘We have planted until against the trees’ Hie hajet geng aad i gene kelder ‘There is no duct here in the cellar’ But with another determiner: En ich goon langs der usjte moer en der wet semmeleg flot ‘And I go past the first wall and you know, rather fast’ The next sentence combines an expression with gen with one without it (since it has another adjective): Wie dae van i gene café in der ouwe café Barbay dao oppen Plank ‘Like those of in the pub, in the old pub there at [the hamlet called] Plank. We find such usage of gen in locatival expression from the earliest southeastern sources on in Limburg and East Brabant. Compare, in the Register of Goods from Ouden Biezen (ca. 1300): te genen cruce te Spauden wert ‘at the cross toward Spauden’, ane gen cruce ‘at the cross’, vore genen Berch ‘before the mountain’. In a MDu. tax register from Neeroeteren, we have op gheen brogge ‘on that bridge’, op gheen hoeuen ‘at that farm’, aen gheen heide ‘at that moor’. Map 30 gives the distribution of the phenomenon in MoDu. dialects until ca. 1950.
Map 30. From: René Jongen, ‘L’article défini “gen” dans les dialectes bas-‐‑franciques méridionaux’, p. 174. Another trace of this use of gen is in petrified form in southeastern toponyms and eastern surnames. Examples of toponyms are Geneinde lit. ‘Yon-‐‑End’, Genooi lit. ‘Yon-‐‑River Meadow’, Geneik lit. ‘Yon-‐‑Oak’, Genhoes ‘Yon-‐‑House’, Genkoel ‘Yon-‐‑Pit’, Genwei ‘Yon-‐‑Meadow’. Among the surnames are Aengenend (lit. ‘At-‐‑yon-‐‑End’), Ingendael (lit. ‘In-‐‑yon-‐‑Dale’), Ingenhoven (‘In-‐‑yon-‐‑Farmstead’), Opgenoord (‘At-‐‑yon-‐‑Place’), Vangeninden (‘From-‐‑yon-‐‑End’). These surnames are most frequent in North Limburg and the adjacent areas of Guelders and southern Achterhoek, where the expression is extinct in the spoken language. d. Dutch eend ‘duck’ Among the many dialect variants which find an explanation through paradigmatic altneration in West Germanic is the word for ‘duck’, Standard Dutch eend, pl. eenden. The
Etymologies
125
suffix vocalism alternation between *u and *i (and, maybe, also *a), of which the former did not, and the latter did, cause i-‐‑mutation: PGm. *anud-‐‑/*anid-‐‑. For this reason, we find Old Saxon anud but MLG ān(e)t beside ēnde; Old High German anut beside enita, whence Modern German Ente; Old English ened, æned. In Dutch, the oldest forms are Limburgian ende (1240), from *anid-‐‑, but West Flemish haent, hant (with hypercorrect h-‐‑), from *anud. In modern dialects, the same two variants survive. Eend(e), or a similar form with a front vowel, is found in nearly all dialects, but forms which continue Middle Dutch a(a)nde appear in three different areas: o(i)nj in southern Limburg around Tongeren, onde, aande in French Flanders and West Flanders, and ant sporadically in northern Zealand. The Limburgian forms show that Old Franconian preserved the alternation between *anud and *enid-‐‑. It was levelled towards eend in most Dutch dialects, but in the coastal area of Flanders and Zealand, it was apparently aand which was generalized. e. Dutch spreeuw ‘starling’ (sturnus vulgaris) and spraaien ‘to sprinkle, strew’ MDu. sprewe (1287), MoDu. spreeuwe (1562), spreeu (1608). In the seventeenth century we also find the verb spreeuwen ‘to mock’, which refers to the chatter of starlings. Western and southern Dutch dialects have spreeuw or a variant of it. But eastern Dutch and adjacent parts of Germany usually have spraa(n), sprao(n), with the same vowel */a:/ as in MDu. spra ‘a bird, thrush’ (1477). Cognate forms are OHG sprāa, sprēa f., MHG sprae, Early MoHG Sprehe ‘starling’. Probably, the bird name was derived from the verb spraaien ‘to sprinkle, scatter’, and refers to the speckled feathers of the bird (see the picture). Groningen sprotter ‘starling’ is cognate with Dutch sproet ‘freckle’ (< *sprō-‐‑ta-‐‑), and therefore shows the same semantic development. Compare the alternative MDu. name sterre, Duits Star, and English starling, which may contain the word for ‘star’. Most of the Dutch dialectal forms of spreeuw go back to Old Dutch *spraiwōn-‐‑, whereas the type spraa(n) and the German forms point to WGm. *sprē-‐‑ōn-‐‑. The vowel variation between *sprai-‐‑ and *sprē-‐‑ is exceptional, but we need not assume expressivity or a substrate layer to
explain it. Since spraaien ‘to sprinkle’ goes back to *sprē-‐‑an, the form spraa(n) can be explaiend from *sprē-‐‑ōn-‐‑ ‘the speckled one’. The ai of *spraiwōn-‐‑ can be due to a shortening in the sequence *-‐‑ēj-‐‑ (as is the case with Dutch blein ‘blister’ to the verb blaaien ‘to bloat’), so that the bird name can be reconstructed as *sprēj-‐‑wōn-‐‑, an Old Dutch derivation of the stem spraai-‐‑. The oldest form of the verb spraaien is the imperative spreue ‘strew’ (Lower Rhine, 1250). In Middle Dutch spraien, sprayen and bespraaien are well attested, but after 1600, the verbs die out. Possibly, they were ousted because in many dialects they merged with spreien ‘to
Chapter 9
126
spread’, which had arisen by d > j from earlier spreiden. Cognate verbs are MHG spræwen, spræjen ‘to scatter’, Old English spreáwlian ‘to flounder’, MoE sprawl (with frequentative l-‐‑suffix). MDu. spreue has the same vocalism as MHG spræwen, and MDu. spraien corresponds with met MHG spræjen. West-‐‑Germanic *sprēan ‘to sprinkle, scatter’ had a vocalic hiatus, which was sometimes filled by w and sometimes by j. The variant *sprōan-‐‑ yielded Dutch sproeien, G. sprühen ‘to sprinkle’, and the adj. *sprō-‐‑ta-‐‑ ‘freckled’.
Text sample Middle Dutch From: Van den Vos Reynaerde, Lesson 1, verse 40-‐‑50: Middle Dutch text: English translation: Modern Dutch, etymological translation:6 Nu hoert hoe ic hier beghinne! Now hear how I start here!
Nu hoort hoe ik hier begin! Het was in eenen tsinxen daghe ’T was upon a Pentecoste Day
Het was op een Pinksterdag Dat beede bosch ende haghe that both wood and hedge
dat beide bos en haag Met groenen loveren waren bevaen
were covered with green foliage met groen lover waren bevangen
Nobel, die coninc, hadde ghedaen
King Nobel had made Koning Nobel had een hofdag laten
Sijn hof crayeren over al proclaim his (day of) court everywhere uitroepen overal.
Dat hi waende, hadde hijs gheval,
of which he thought, if he had some luck, Waarvan hij meende, met wat geluk,
Houden ten wel groeten love. that he would hold it to much acclaim. dat hij hem kon houden onder groot lof
Doe quamen tes sconinx hove Then came to the King’s court Toen kwamen bij het hof van de Koning
Alle die diere, groet ende cleene, All animals, big and small, Alle dieren, groot en klein,
Sonder vos Reynaert alleene. except, only, the fox Reynaert. uitgezonderd Reinaart de vos.
6 The translation tries to stay as close to the etymological correspondences of the Middle Dutch words as possible, and cannot be regarded as a good translation ad sensum into Modern Dutch. See www.reynaertgenootschap.be for a real MoDu. translation.
128
Lesson 2 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 51-‐‑60: Hi hadde te hove so vele mesdaen He had done so much wrong to the court
Hij had (aan) het hof zoveel misdaan Dat hire niet dorste gaen That he did not dare to go there
Dat hij er niet heen durfde te gaan Die hem besculdich kent, ontsiet! – Fear [the number of] those who know
him to be guilty! – – Ontzie wie hem schuldig weet! –
Also was Reynaerde ghesciet Thus had happened to Reynaert Zo was het Reinaart gebeurd
Ende hier omme scuwedi sconinx hof And for this reason he shun the King’s court En daarom schuwde hij de hofdag van de koning
Daer hi in hadde crancken lof. Where he had a bad name. Waar hij een slechte naam had.
Doe al dat hof versamet was When all the court had gathered Toen heel de hofdag verzameld was
Was daer niemen, sonder die das, There was no one but the badger Was er niemand – buiten de das –
Hine hadde te claghene over Reynaerde, Who did not have a complaint about Reynaert Die niets te klagen had over Reinaart
Den fellen metten grijsen baerde. The malicious one with the grey beard. De felle met zijn grijze baard.
Reinaert
129
Lesson 3 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 61-‐‑71: Nu gaet hier up eene claghe. Now a complaint comes up at this point
Nu komt hier een klacht op Isingrijn ende sine maghe Isengrin and his relatives
Izegrim en zijn verwanten Ghinghen voer den coninc staen went to stand before the King.
gingen voor de koning staan Ysengrijn begonste saen Isengrin started right away
Izegrim begon meteen Ende sprac: ‘Coninc, heere, and said: ‘King, lord,
en sprak: ‘Koning, heer, Dor hu edelheit ende dor hu eere by your nobleness and by your honour
door uw edelheid en door uw eer Ende dor recht ende dor ghenade, and by justice and by mercy,
en door recht en door genade Ontfaerme hu miere scade take pity on the damage
ontferm u over mijn schade Die mi Reynaert heeft ghedaen, that Reinaart did to me,
die Reinaart mij heeft aangedaan Daer ic af dicken hebbe ontfaen from whom I have often got
van wie ik vaak heb ontvangen Groeten lachter ende verlies great libel and loss
grote smaad en groot verlies
130
Lesson 4 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 72-‐‑84: Voer al dandre ontfaerme hu dies First of all take pity on this
Voor al het andere ontferm u hierover Dat hi mijn wijf hevet verhoert that he has dishonoured my wife
dat hij mijn vrouw heeft onteerd Ende mine kindre so mesvoert and thus maltreated my children
en mijn kinderen zo mishandeld Dat hise beseekede daer si laghen, that he pissed on them while asleep,
dat hij op ze gepist heeft terwijl ze lagen te slapen
Datter twee noint ne saghen so that two of them never could see zodat twee van hen nooit hebben kunnen zien
Ende si worden staer blent and they became stone-‐‑blind. en ze werden stekeblind.
Nochtan hoendi mi sent: Still he jeers/-‐‑ed at me ever since: Nochtans bespot(te) hij me sindsdien:
Het was sint so verre comen It had subsequently come so far Het was daarna zover gekomen
Datter eenen dach af was ghenomen that a day had been agreed dat er een dag overeen was gekomen
Ende Reynaerd soude hebben ghedaen and Reynaert would have plegded waarop Reinaart zou hebben gedaan
Sine onsculde. Ende also saen his innocence. And as soon zijn (eed van) onschuld. Maar zodra
Alse die heleghe waren brocht, as the relics had been brought, de heilige (relikwieën) waren gebracht
Was hi ander sins bedocht he changed his mind. was hij anderszins bdeacht (= veranderde hij van mening)
Reinaert
131
Lesson 5 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 85-‐‑94: Ende ontfoer ons in sine veste. and escaped from us to his fortress.
En ontsnapte naar zijn vesting Heere, dit kennen noch die beste Lord, this know the best ones
Heer, dit weten nog de besten Die te hove zijn commen hier. who have come to this court here.
die hier naar het hof zijn gekomen. Mi hevet Reynaert, dat felle dier, Reynaert, the malicious animal, has done
me Reinaart, dat boosaardige dier, heeft mij
So vele te leede ghedaen, so much harm, zoveel leed berokkend
Ic weet wel al sonder waen, I know without any doubt Ik weet zonder enige twijfel
Al ware al tlaken paerkement If all the cloth were parchment Al was al het laken perkament
Datmen maket nu te Ghent, that is now produced in Ghent, dat men nu maakt te Gent
In ne ghescreeft niet daer an. I could not write it on it. ik zou het er niet op kunnen schrijven.
Dies zwijghics nochtan, I will not speak about all of that, Nochtans zwijg ik daarover
132
Lesson 6 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 95-‐‑106: Ne ware mijns wives lachter But the disgrace to my wife
Maar de schande van mijn vrouw Ne mach niet bliven achter, Must not be left behind,
mag niet overblijven, No versweghen no onghewroken!’ neither suppressed nor unavenged!’
nog verzwegen nog ongewroken! Doe Ysengrijn dit hadde ghesproken, When Isegrin had said this
Toen Izegrim dat had gezegd Stont up een hondekijn, hiet Cortoys, a little dog stood up, called Cortoys,
stond een hondje up, dat Cortoys heette, Ende claghede den coninc in Francsoys and held a complaint to the King in
French en beklaagde zich bij de koning in het Frans
Hoet so arem was wijlen eere, how he used to be so poor Dat het vroeger zo arm was
Dat alles goets en hadde meere that he did not have anything more dat het geen ander goed had
In eenen winter, in eene vorst, once upon a winter, in a frost, ’s winters, toen het heel koud was,
Dan alleene eene worst than just a single sausage dan enkel een worst
hem Reynaert, die felle man, Reynaert, the malicious man, Reinaart, die boosaardige man,
Die selve worst stal ende nam. stole and took the same sausage from him. stal en nam die worst van hem af.
Reinaert
133
Lesson 7 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 107-‐‑116: Tybeert die cater die wart gram; Tybeert the tom-‐‑cat now become angry;
Tibeert de kater werd boos: Aldus hi sine tale began Thus he began his speech
Zo begon hij zijn verhaal Ende spranc midden in den rinc and jumped right into the arena
en sprong midden in de ring: Ende seide: ‘Heere coninc, And said: ‘Lord King,
en zei: Heer koning, Dor dat ghi Reynaerde zijt onhout, Because you are unfavourable to
Reynaert Omdat u Reinaart ongunstig gezind bent
So en es hier jonc no hout, there is neither young nor old here is er hier niemand, jong noch oud,
Hine hebbe te wroughene jeghen hu. who has nothing to accuse him of before you. die niets heeft waarmee hij hem bij u kan aanklagen.
Dat Cortoys claghet nu, That of which Cortoys now complains Hetgeen waarover Cortoys nu klaagt
Dats over menich jaer ghesciet. has happened many a year ago. is menig jaar geleden gebeurd.
Die worst was mine, al en claghic niet. That sausage was mine, though I don’t complain. Die worst was van mij, al klaag ik niet.
134
Lesson 8 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 117-‐‑125: Ic hadse bi miere lust ghewonnen I had acquired it out of desire
Ik had hem uit begeerte verkregen Daer ic bi nachte quam gheronnen where I had ended up one night
toen ik ’s nachts een keer belandde Omme bejach in eene molen for booty in a mill
op zoek naar buit in een molen Daer ic die worst in hadde ghestolen where I had stolen that sausage
waarin ik die worst had gestolen Eenen slapenden molen man. from a sleeping miller.
van een slapende molenaar. Hadder Cortoys yewet an, If there was something to it for Cortoys
Als Cortoys er iets over te klagen had Dan was bi niemene dan bi mi. Then with noone else but me.
dan bij niemand anders dan bij mij. Hets recht dat omberecht zi It would be right to leave unjudged
Het zou juist zijn om onberecht te laten Die claghe die Cortoys doet.’ the compaint that Cortoys does.
de klacht die Cortoys doet.
Reinaert
135
Lesson 9 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 126-‐‑134: Pancer de bever sprac: ‘Dinct hu goet, Pancer the beaver spoke: ‘Do you think it
right, Pancer de bever sprak: Dunkt het u goed,
Tybeert, datmen die claghe ombeere? Tybeert, that the complaint is put aside? Tibeert, dat men die klacht naast zich neerlegt?
Reynaert es een recht mordeneere Reynaert is a real murderer Reinaart is een echte moordenaar
Ende een trekere ende een dief. and a cheat and a thief. en een bedrieger en een dief.
Hine heeft oec niemene so lief, Nor is he kind to nobody, Hij heeft ook niemand lief
No den coninc, minen heere, not even the King, my lord, zelfs de koning niet, mijn heer,
Hine wilde dat hi lijf ende eere He would want him to lose life and honour Hij zou hem lijf en eer laten
Verlore, mochtire an winnen if he could thus gain verliezen, als hij erdoor kon winnen
Een vet morzeel van eere hinnen. a fat leg of a chicken. een vette kippebout.
136
Lesson 10 Van den Vos Reynaerde, verse 135-‐‑169: Wat sechdi van eere laghe? What do you say of the ambush
Wat zegt u van een hinderlaag En dedi ghistren in den daghe which he laid yesterday by daylight
die hij gisteren overdag legde Eene die meeste overdaet a despicable crime
een zeer grote misdaad An Cuwaerde den hase die hier staet, on Cuwaert the hare, who stands here,
tegen Cuwaart de haas, die hier staat Die noyt eenich dier ghedede? who never did harm to any animal?
die nooit enig dier kwaad deed? Want hi hem binnen sconinx vrede For within the King’s peace
Want binnen ’s konings vrede Ende binnen des coninx gheleede and within the King’s protection
en binnen ’s konings bescherming Ghelovede te leerne sinen crede he promised to teach him his creed
beloofde hij hem zijn stiel te leren Ende soudene maken capelaen. and make him a chaplain.
en hem tot kapelaan te maken. Doe dedine sitten gaen Then he made him sit
Toen deed hij hem zitten Vaste tusschen sine beene. tight between his legs.
vast tussen zijn benen. Doe begonsten si over eene Then they started together
Toen begonnen ze samen Spellen ende lesen beede both to spell and to read
te spellen en te lezen Ende lude te zinghene crede. and loudly to sing the Credo
en hardop het Credo te zingen. Mi gheviel dat ic te dien tijden It so happened that at that moment
Het gebeurde dat ik op dat moment Ter selver stede soude lijden. I passed the same spot.
op dezelfde plek voorbij kwam. Doe hoerdic haerre beeder sanc Then I heard the song of both of them
Toen hoorde ik hun beider lied Ende maecte daer waert minen ganc and went there
en ging op weg daarheen Met eere arde snelre vaerde. at a really fast pace.
met een heel snelle vaart. Doe vandic daer meester Reynaerde Then I found master Reynaert
Reinaert
137
Toen vond ik meester Reinaart Die ziere lessen hadde begheven who had stopped his lessons
die met zijn lessen was gestopt Die hi te voren up hadde gheheven, which he had been giving before,
die hij tevoren had gegeven, Ende diende van sinen houden spelen and was playing his old tricks
en zich bediende van zijn oude streken Ende hadde Coewaerde bi der kelen and had Cuwaert by the throat
en Cuwaart bij de keel had Ende soude hem thoeft af hebben ghenomen,
and would have taken off his head en zijn hoofd eraf zou hebben genomen
Waer ic hem niet te hulpen comen if I had not come to his help als ik hem niet te hulp was gekomen
Bi avontueren in dien stonden. by a lucky coincidence, at that moment. toevallig, op dat moment.
Siet hier noch die verssche wonden Look at the still fresh wounds Ziehier nog de verse wonden
Ende die teekine, heere coninc, and the scars, lord King, en de littekens, heer koning,
Die Coewaert van hem ontfinc. that Cuwaert got from him. die Cuwaart van hem kreeg.
Laetti dit bliven onghewroken If you leave this unavenged Laat u dit ongewroken,
Dat hu verde dus es te broken, that your peace is thus broken, dat uw vrede is gebroken,
Ghine wreket als huwe mannen wijsen, if you do not take revenge as your men demand, wreekt u zich niet zoals uw mannen oordelen,
Men saelt huwen kindren mesprijsen they will loathe your children men zal er uw kinderen om verachten
Hier naer over wel menich jaer.’ for many a year after this.’ Hierna, vele jaren lang.’
![De 'officiële' historische cultuur [ ‘Official’ or 'Institutionalized' Historical Culture ] (in Dutch)](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/6349d1312cd4c1a3540db2d2/de-officiele-historische-cultuur-official-or-institutionalized-historical.jpg)
