The unaccented vowels of Proto-Norse / / Martin Syrett

• Record Nr.: UNINA9910816252603321
• Autore: Syrett Martin
• Pubbl/distr/stampa: [Odense], : Odense University Press, 1994
• ISBN: 1-283-57450-0; 9786613886958; 90-272-7285-9
• Edizione: [1st ed.]
• Descrizione fisica: 1 online resource (327 p.)
• Collana: North-Western European language evolution. Supplement, , 0900-8675 ; ; v. 11
• Disciplina: 439.82
• Soggetti: Old Norse language - Vowels; Old Norse language - Phonology, Historical; Inscriptions, Runic
• Lingua di pubblicazione: Inglese
• Formato: Materiale a stampa
• Livello bibliografico: Monografia
• Note generali: Description based upon print version of record.
• Nota di bibliografia: Includes bibliographical references (p. 299-323).
• Nota di contenuto: THE UNACCENTED VOWELS OF PROTO-NORSE; Editorial page; Title page; Acknowledgements; Table of contents; 0. INTRODUCTION; 1. QUESTIONS OF METHOD AND THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE; 1.0. The sources of evidence; 1.1. Comparative evidence; 1.1.1. Backwards reconstruction; 1.1.2. Forwards reconstruction; 1.1.3. Sideways reconstruction; 1.1.4. Reconstruction at work.; 1.1.5. Philology and theoretical linguistics.; 1.2. Runic evidence; 1.2.1. The older runic inscriptions; 1.2.1.1. Runic orthography; 1.2.1.2. The chronology of the inscriptions.; 1.2.1.2.1. Reasons for (not) dating runic inscriptions.; 1.2.1.2.2. Archaeology and chronology.1.2.2. The later runic tradition.; 1.2.3. Sources.; 1.3. Other types of evidence; 2. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-NORSE; 2.1. Terminology and the scope of the corpus; 2.1.1. The urnordisch koine.; 2.1.2. Traces of dialectal divisions.; 2.1.3. The graphemic ~ phonemic fit.; 2.2. The urnordisch unaccented vowel system; 2.2.1. A morphological analysis of the data.; 2.2.2. The long and short of it.; 2.2.3. The independence of the unstressed vowel system.; 3. NOMINAL SHORT STEM VOWELS IN FINAL SYLLABLES; 3.0. The background; 3.1. The nominative sg. of masculine a,-stems3.1.1. Some more ; awkward forms.; 3.1.2. Clashes with comparative evidence.; 3.1.3. Word-formational types; 3.1.4. Conclusion; 3.2. The accusative sg. of masculine a-stem substantives; 3.3. The genitive sg. of masculine a-stems; 3.4. The accusative pl of masculine a-stems; 3.5. The dative pl. of masculine a-sterns; 3.6. The nominative and accusative sg. of neuter a-stems; 3.7. The nominative sg. of masculine and feminine i-stems; 3.8. The accusative sg. of masculine and feminine i-stems; 3.9. The nominative sg. of masculine and feminine u-sterns; 3.10. The accusative sg. of masculine and feminine u-stems3.11. The nominative and accusative sg. of neuter u-stems; 3.12. The nominative sg. of feminine ō-stems; 3.12.1. Finally, some etymology.; 3.13. The nominative pl. of consonant stems; 3.14. Urnordisch forms lacking stem vowels; 3.14.1. Non-Scandinavian Germanic dialects attested in the inscriptions.; 3.14.2. Putative vocatives.; 3.14.3. Athematic nouns.; 3.14.4. Conclusion.; 4. NOMINAL STEM VOWELS IN COMPOSITIONAL SYLLABLES; 4.0. The background; 4.1. Substantive a sterns as first element; 4.2. Substantive ja-stems as first element; 4.3. Substantive i-stems as first element4.4. Substantive u-sterns as first element; 4.5. Substantive ō-stems as first element; 4.6. Substantive s-stems as first element; 4.7. Adjectives as first element; 4.7.1. The 'ginn-' element; 4.8. Verbs as first element; 4.9. The 'woe' prefix; 4.10. Concluding remarks on compositional syllables; 5. NOMINAL LONG STEM VOWELS IN FINAL SYLLABLES; 5.0. Introduction; 5.1. The masculine a-stem substantival dat.sg.; 5.1.1. The case for the diphthongs.; 5.1.2. The etymological case.; 5.2. The masculinea-stem adjectival nom.pl.; 5.2.1. A North Germanic diagnostic feature?
• Sommario/riassunto: The Unaccented Vowels of Proto-Norse attempts to analyse the unaccented vowel system attested in the proto-Norse period, as partially attested in the older runic inscriptions in the elder futhark. Each chapter in turn assesses the evidence for unaccented syllables of a particular category, whether inflectional or derivational, and decides whether any reliable conclusions can be drawn from it. It is argued that too many widely accepted views are based on insufficient and poor methodology, and that too little note has been taken of the fact that viable alternatives exist alongside most of