Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Reasons to Think That Anglo-Frisian Developed in Britain

100%
White D. L.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
|
2018
|
issue 27/2
5-31
XX
Linguistic evidence is adduced indicating that (as non-linguistic evidence long known also suggests) the origin of Anglo-Frisian goes back to a period of common development in SE Anglo-Saxon England around 475–525. The linguistic reason to think so is that almost every characteristic innovation of Anglo-Frisian has a plausible motivation in terms of infl uences from Brittonic. It seems that the later Frisians originated as Anglo-Saxons, occupying territory between Kentish and Pre-Mercian, who left England and went back to the continent, of course to the coast, around 540. The conclusion is that Frisian is similar to English because Frisian is descended from English.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Old English without Short Diphthongs: An Alternative Historical Phonology

100%
White D. L.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
|
2016
|
issue 25/2
5-29
XX
As there are serious questions about whether short diphthongs are possible phonemes, the question arises as to what the prehistory of Old English would be without short diphthongs. The most important question is what breaking was, and the answer given is that breaking was a conditioned change of /xʲ to /xˠ/ in noble dialect, in reaction against /xʲ/ in peasant dialect, itself motivated by the phonology of Brittonic. Such a scenario involves violating some of the foundational assumptions of the field, and the violations in question are noted. Examination reveals other cases of Brittonic influence, which apply not only to Old English but to Anglo-Frisian generally, supporting the idea that the Frisians originated as Angles who were driven back the continent. Fundamentally, the idea is to show that a prehistory of Old English without short diphthongs is possible.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Old English Without Short Diphthongs: The Outlines of a New Interpretation

100%
White D. L.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
|
2015
|
issue 24/2
5-25
EN
The traditional interpretation of Old English (OE) spelling is problematic in (1) positing short diphthongs, not otherwise known to exist, and (2) not resolving various coincidences involving the spelling/writing of Old Irish (OI ): that OI uses spellings that appear to represent short diphthongs (gaib) but do not, and that OE is written in the Irish hand. Both problems can be solved by positing that the spelling/writing system of OE was developed by Irish missionary linguists who perceived OE as being like OI in having front and back consonants, and spelt OE in the manner of OI : using front or back vowels as diacritics for front or back consonants.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Irish Influence in the Consonantal Spellings of Old English

100%
White D. L.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
|
2017
|
issue 26/2
5-23
XX
The consonantal spellings of Old English (OE) were significantly influenced by the consonantal spellings of Old Irish (OI). 1) vs. (post-vocalic) : though OE did not have a distinction between /θ/ and /ð/, OI did, spelling this as vs. (postvocalic) . 2) vs. : though OE did not have a distinction between /h/ and /x/, OI did, spelling the latter as . 3) and : both spellings appear to be from Irish. 4) : spellings of the “mixed voice” type, including “cg”, occur in OI, where they can spell either single or geminate voiced plosives. 5) (and ): almost certainly in final position in OE represent singles, not geminates, as they can in OI. 6) Spelling rules referring to post-vocalic position: all cases show OE spelling having had, like OI spelling, rules referring to post-vocalic position, which appear to be additionally evidenced by “illogical doubling” in Northumbrian. 7) The meaning of before front Vs: in OE spelling as in OI spelling, but not as in Roman Latin spelling, before front Vs spells a palatal approximant rather than a palatal affricate. The overall conclusion is that the OE spelling system was developed by Irish missionary linguists.
5
Content available remote

Possible Solutions for Long-Standing Problems Involving Old English Verbs

100%
White D. L.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
|
2019
|
issue 28/2
25-45
EN
Solutions based on “equivalence interference” are proposed for various problems involving OE verbs. WG verbs with 1SG /-ͻͻmi/ were modeled on Celtic verbs with /-aami/. Pre-OE eode is from /eiͻͻde/, analogical to 1SG /eiͻͻmi/ from /eimi/. OE dyd- is from reinterpretation of peasant /dïd-/, from low-stressed /ded-/ used as a non-emphatic periphrastic, as noble /düd-/. WG /bii-/ ‘be’ was modeled on Celtic /bii-/ ‘(habitual-future) be’. Habitual-future /bi-/ (lost on the continent) re-developed in OE on the model of habitual-future /bi-/ in Brittonic. The English rule that non-indicative forms of BE are /b/-forms is from Brittonic. 3PL bi(o)đon was modeled on Brittonic /biđont/. Pre-OE /ist/ and /im/ were influenced by Brittonic /is/ and /æm/. Loss of distinct endings before 1PL and 2PL subject pronouns and loss of distinct preterit subjunctive endings were both modeled on their analogues in Brittonic.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Gothic Genitive Plural in /-ee/ Yet Again: A Sarmatian Solution

100%
White D. L.
Beiträge zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft
|
2021
|
vol. 10
223-247
EN
Reasons are given to think that the Gothic GPL in /-ee/ (< /-ɛɛ/) developed in the M /n/-stems by analogy with GPL /-ↄↄnↄↄ/ in F /n/-stems: NSG /-ↄ/ : GPL /-ↄↄnↄↄ/ = NSG /-ɛ/ : GPL /-ɛɛnɛɛ/. This analogy was externally motivated, due to various features of Iranian causing Gothic F /-ↄↄnↄↄ/ and M /-ↄnↄↄ/ to both be rendered as /-aanaa/ in Sarmatian-accented Gothic. As levels of competence increased, /-aanaa/ was “genderized” (and “Gothicized”) by replacing gender-neutral /-aanaa-/ with F /-ↄↄnↄ/ (which spread to Pre-OHG) and M /-ɛɛnɛɛ/. Historical and lexical evidence is given indicating that Gothic culture and language were significantly influenced by their Sarmatian analogues, and additional cases where Gothic shows unusual grammatical resemblances to Iranian are adduced.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.