Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 4 results.

Die germanischen Sprachen und die Reflexivierungstypologie Beitrag

Theo Vennemann

Sprachwissenschaft, Volume 40 (2015), Issue 1, Page 3 - 44

In diesem Artikel werden die germanischen Sprachen im Rahmen einer einfachen Typologie der pronominalen Reflexivierungsmittel beschrieben, die sich an HEINE 2005 und VENNEMANN 2013 orientiert. Es werden drei Haupttypen unterschieden, wobei weitere Indices feinere Unterscheidungen erlauben: Typ R0 Kein Reflexivum. – Alle Personalpronomina erlauben eine reflexive Lesart. Typ R3 Ein Reflexivum nur in der 3. Person. – Die Personalpronomina der 1. und 2. Person erlauben einen reflexiven Gebrauch, aber die Personalpronomina der 3. Person sind anti-reflexiv. Typ Roe Reflexiva in allen Personen. – Alle Personalpronomina sind anti-reflexiv. Als konservativ erweisen sich die skandinavischen germanischen Sprachen, die im bereits ur-indogermanischen Typ R3 verharren. Auch das Hochdeutsche ist trotz Veränderungen immer noch im Typ R3. Anders das Jiddische, die ingväonischen Sprachen (Altniederländisch, Altsächsisch, Altfriesisch und Altenglisch) und dann unter diesen alle außer dem Friesischen: Jiddisch: R3 6 Roe Ingväonisch: R3 6 R0 Niedersächsisch, Niederländisch (schriftsprachlicher Standard): R0 6 R3 Englisch: R0 6 Roe Es wird gezeigt, dass für genau diejenigen germanischen Sprachen, die einem Typuswandel unterlagen, auf unabhängiger Grundlage Sprachkontakt mit Sprachen des jeweiligen Zieltyps anzunehmen ist – im Einklang mit der allgemeinen These, dass rapider Typuswechsel überhaupt nur durch Sprachkontakt zustande kommt. Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung steht das innerhalb der Germania einzigartige Reflexivierungssystem des Englischen und seine Entwicklung (R3 6 R0 6 Roe), die nur durch einen zweifachen Sprachenwechsel zu erklären ist.


The origin of the p rune Beitrag

Theo Vennemann

Sprachwissenschaft, Volume 38 (2013), Issue 3, Page 281 - 286

The p rune of the futhark, the oldest Germanic writing system, has remained unexplained in the traditional theories of runic origins, the Greek, the Etruscan, and the Latin Theses. It is here explained within the Punic Thesis as the Phoenician P letter, rune-internally “doubled” in order to guarantee a plosive [p] reading (as for the late Punic geminate) and to prevent a fricative [f] reading (as for the late Punic singleton).


The mediae (b g d) in Punic and in the futhark Beitrag

Theo Vennemann

Sprachwissenschaft, Volume 38 (2013), Issue 1, Page 1 - 50

This article deals with certain aspects of the origination of the futhark, namely the adaptation of the Phoenician, specifically the Carthaginian or Punic, alphabet to the Proto-Germanic language, and how the Punic letters B G D were utilized in this process. Two hypotheses are discussed, one in which the g and d runes are derived from the Punic emphatic plosives, K! and T! , and another one, favored in this article, in which the late Punic development of b g d into fricatives and semivowels is considered. The following results are attained with the second theory: (1) B with its weakened sound value [w] is conflated with W in the w rune, which explains at once, and for the first time, the shape of the w rune, namely as Punic B, as well as the fact that the Punic letter B has no counterpart in position 2 of the futhark, the futhark reflecting the beginning of the Punic alphabet,? B G D H, imperfectly as f – u þ a. (2) The weakened sound values of G and D are [J] and [ð], which explains why G and D are integrated into the futhark as u and þ rather than as g and d. (3) Since the geminates of b g d, represented in Punic by the same single letters as the singletons (i.e. B G D), were not weakened in Punic but remained plosives, Proto-Germanic /b g d/ were represented by doubled representations of the w, u, and þ runes, which explains why w and b, u and g, þ and d stand in this graphic doubling relationship and also why they are the only pairs of runes in the futhark for which this peculiar kind of relationship holds in an explainable way. Thoughts about the time of, and the reason for, the application of the Punic alphabet to Proto-Germanic conclude the article.


Vowels in Punic and in Runic Beitrag

Theo Vennemann

Sprachwissenschaft, Volume 38 (2013), Issue 3, Page 265 - 280

The sources of some of the vowel runes of the futhark, the oldest Germanic writing system, are not clear. The a rune has the place and shape of Phoenician H (He), Greek Ε, Latin E, and owes its sound value in the futhark to the North and West Germanic sound change +ē > +ā (Vennemann 2009: 843-845). The u rune has the place and shape of Phoenician G (Gimel), Greek Γ, Latin C, and owes its sound value to the late Punic weakening of g to J (Vennemann 2013: section 2). The i and o runes appear to be unproblematic, though they may not be; e.g., it is unclear why o stands near or at the end of the rune row and is marked by diacritic tails. But the yew rune ï and the e rune are truly enigmatic and have been much discussed. The present article offers explanations for all four still difficult vowel runes, ï, i, e, and o: It is shown that all four derive from Neo-Punic consonant letters, ï and i from Y (Yodh), e from H (He), and o from ¨ (‘Ayin), as these were regularly employed for indicating the vowels [i], [e], and [a], respectively, especially in Latin loanwords and names.

  • «
  • 1
  • »