Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:20:05.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sievers’ Law and the Skåäng Stone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2020

Bernard Mees
Bernard Mees*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
*
University of Tasmania Private Bag 84 Hobart TAS7001Australia [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early runic inscriptions are the best evidence for the oldest historical development of North Germanic. Yet among the many unexpected features of the inscriptions as they are usually presented is the apparent presence of vowels before glides that seem to occur contrary to Sievers’ Law. These include perhaps most prominently the sequence usually read as <harija> on the Skåäng stone where the Vimose comb preserves the expected form <harja>. Rather than assume that a Neogrammarian sound law is violated in a runic text, a more profitable approach is usually to assume that it is the interpretation that is at fault. Many of the instances where Sievers’ Law vocalizations seem to occur in an aberrant manner are texts that are better explained in manners other than have traditionally been accepted.

Keywords

Sievers’ LawProto-Norserunic inscriptionsSkåäng stonehistorical phonology
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 315 - 334
Check for updates
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A concise grammar of the older runic inscriptions. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Antonsen, Elmer H. 2002. Runes and Germanic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 2008. Runic names in -warijaz. NOWELE 53. 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 1998. The transitional inscriptions. Runeninschrift als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung: Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.-9. August 1995, ed. by Düwel, Klaus, 448–461. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 2012. Runes: A handbook. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
Brate, Erik, & Wessén, Elias. 1924–1936. Södermanlands runinskrifter. 3 vols. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bugge, Sophus. 1892. Runestenen fra Opedal i Hardanger. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 8. 1–33.Google Scholar
Byrd, Andrew Miles. 2010. Motivating Sievers’ law. Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. by Stephanie, W. Jamison, Craig Melchert, H., & Vine, Brent, 45–67. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Byrd, Andrew Miles. 2015. The Indo-European syllable. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1996. On sound change and challenges to regularity. The comparative method reviewed, ed. by Durie, Mark & Ross, Malcolm, 72–89. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew. 1972. The time dimension: Contribution toward a theory of sound change. Foundations of Language 8. 457–498.Google Scholar
Christy, T. Craig. 1983. Uniformitarianism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derolez, René. 1987. Some new runes and the problem of runic unity. Runor och runinskrifter: Föredrag vid Riksantikvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8-11 september 1985 (Konferenser 15), 55–66. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Förstemann, Ernst. 1900. Altdeutsches Namenbuch I: Personennamen. 2nd edn. Bonn: P. Hanstein.Google Scholar
Frank, Roberta. 2002. Ongendus. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2nd edn., ed. by Beck, Heinrich, Geuenich, Dieter, & Steuer, Heiko, 104–105. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Friesen, Otto von. 1924. Rö-stenen i Bohuslan och runorna i norden unter folkvandringstiden. Uppsala universitets årsskrift 1924. 4.Google Scholar
Grienberger, Theodor von. 1906. Review of Sophus Bugge, Norges Indskrifter med de ældre Runer I, II.1 and Inledning. Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 168. 89–163.Google Scholar
Gustavson, Helmer. 1989. En runristad speltarning fran Vallentuna. HaukR—en rinker från Vallentuna: Arkeologisk undersökning av fornlämning 27, Rickeby, Vallentuna sn, Uppland, ed. by Sjosvard, Lars, 41–48. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieambetet & Statens historiska museer.Google Scholar
Gustavson, Helmer, & Swantesson, Jan O. H.. 2011. Strängnäs, Skramle och Tomteboda: Tre urnordiska runinskrifter. Fornvännen 106. 306–321.Google Scholar
Harding, Erik. 1937. Språkvetenskapliga problem i ny belysning, eller: Bidrag till nordisk och germansk språkhistoria, Häfte 1. Lund: C. Blom.Google Scholar
Heide, Eldar. 2006. Gand, seid og åndevind. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen dissertation.Google Scholar
Imer, Lisbeth M. 2014. Jernalderens runeindskrifter i Norden—Katalog. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 2014. 5–347.Google Scholar
Koivulehto, Jorma. 1981. Reflexe des germanischen /e1/ im Finnischen und die Datierung der germanisch-finnischen Lehnbeziehungen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103. 167–203, 333–376.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1937. Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang, & Jankuhn, Herbert. 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1. 97–120.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. What are language histories histories of? Prospects for a new structuralism, ed. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich, 243–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lid, Nils. 1952. Den nordiske nominativ singularis av maskuline an-stammer. Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 16. 23–40.Google Scholar
Liestøl, Aslak. 1981a. The Viking runes: The transition from the older to the younger fuþark. Saga-Book 20. 247–266.Google Scholar
Liestøl, Aslak. 1981b. The emergence of the Viking runes. Michigan Germanic Studies 7. 107–116.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Albert L., Rosemarie, Lühr, & Springer, Otto. 1998. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen, Band 2: bî—ezzo. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Makaev, Ènver A. 1965. Iazyk drevneishikh runicheskikh nadpisei: Lingvisticheskii i istoriko-filologicheskii analiz. Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Mees, Bernard. 2011. The Stentoften dedication and sacral kingship. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 140. 281–305.Google Scholar
Mees, Bernard. 2018. The early Nordic naming formula. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 53. 239–253.Google Scholar
Nedoma, Robert. 2005. Urnordisch -a im Nominativ Singularis der maskulinen n-Stämme. NOWELE 46/47. 155–191.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Marco Antonio de. 1991. The neogrammarian controversy revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 89. 93–105.Google Scholar
Olsen, Magnus. 1911. En indskrift med aldre runer fra Huglen i Søndhordland. Bergens Museums årbok 1911. 11.Google Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann, & Brugmann, Karl. 1878. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Theil. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Page, Raymond I. 1999. An introduction to Old English runes. 2nd edn. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Lena. 1998. A critical survey of the alleged East Germanic runic inscriptions in Scandinavia. Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung: Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.–9. August 1995, ed. by Düwel, Klaus, 556–575. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peterson, Lena. 2007. Nordiskt runnamnslexikon. 5th edn. Uppsala: Institutet för språk och folkminnen.Google Scholar
Pierce, Marc. 2002. Syllable structure and Sievers’ Law in Gothic and Old Norse. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2017. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Stefan. 2001. Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Schulte, Michael. 2011. The rise of the younger fuþark: The invisible hand of change. NOWELE 60/61. 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, Michael. 2018. Urnordisch: Eine Einführung. Vienna: Praesens.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1878. Zur Accent- und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 5. 63–164.Google Scholar
Sjöberg, Nils Henrik. 1822–1830. Samlingar för nordens fornälskare. 3 vols. Stockholm: Fr. B. Nestius/J. Hörberg.Google Scholar
Springer, Otto. 1975. Arbeiten zur germanischen Philologie und zur Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: W. Fink.Google Scholar
Stephens, George. 1866–1901. The old-northern runic monuments of Scandinavia and England, 4 vols. London: J. R. Smith.Google Scholar
Syrett, Martin. 1994. The unaccented vowels of Proto-Norse. Odense: Odense University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: J. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Willson, Kendra. 2017. Conjunction renewal, runic coordination and the death of IE *kʷe. Etymology and the European lexicon: Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 September 2012, Copenhagen, ed. by Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Bjarne Simmelkjaer Sandgaard Hansen, & Birgit Anette Olsen, 519–532. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Ludvig F. A. 1887. Die Runenschrift. [Translated from the Danish by Ferdinand Holthausen. rev. edn.] Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Wingo, Elvis Otha. 1972. Latin punctuation in the classical age. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar