- Until now I have used the translation ‘Middle Bavarian’ for mittelbairisch. At the suggestion of Uriel Weinreich, which I gratefully acknowledge here, I change to Central Bavarian to indicate that a spatial rather thah a chronological middle is meant.
- The same distribution is reported by E. Kranzmayer, “Lautwandlungen und Lautverschiebungen im gegenwärtigen Wienerischen”, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung XXI (1953), 209: wi:do ‘again’ vs. hitin ‘hut’. See also A. Pfalz, “Die Mundart des Marchfeldes”, Wiener Sitzungsberichte 170.6 (1911–12), 9–12; id., “Phonetische Beobachtungen an der Mundart des Marchfeldes in Nieder-Oesterreich”, Zeitschrift für Deutsche Mundarten III (1911), 244–260; id., “Zur Phonologie der bairisch-österreichischen Mundarten”, Lebendiges Erbe, Reclam Festschrift, (Leipsic, 1936), 9–16; G. Weitzenböck, “Die Mundart des Innviertels, besonders von Mühlheim”, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, Beiheft 17 (1942), 1–6, 64–68; I. Reiffenstein, “Salzburgische Dialektgeographie: Die südmittelbairischen Mundarten zwischen Inn und Enns”, Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie 4.2 (1955), 31; F. J. Beranek, Die Mundart von Südmähren (=Beiträge zur Kenntnis sudetendeutscher Mundarten 7) (Reichenberg, 1936), pp. 37–44; V. M. Zhirmunskil, Nemetskaja Dialektologija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1956), pp. 311f.
- On terminology, see E. Sievers, Grundzüge der Phonetik, (Leipsic,2 1881), p. 164 and O. Jespersen, Lehrbuch der Phonetik, (Leipsic, 2 1913), pp. 202f.
- On the ‘Silbenschnittkorrelation’, see N. S. Trubetzkoy, Grundzüge der Phonologie (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7), (Prague, 1939), pp. 176f.; P. Trost, Bemerkungen zum deutschen Vokalsystem (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8), (Prague, 1939), pp. 320f.; W. Brandenstein, Einführung in die Phonetik und Phonologie, (Vienna, 1950), p. 89; B. J. Koekkoek, Zur Phonologie der Wiener Mundart (=Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie VI [Giessen, 1955], pp. 32–34.)
- See H. L. Kufner, “Zur Phonologie einer mittelbairischen Mundart”, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung XXV (1957), 175–184.
- The symbol /w/ was used for typographical convenience only. The phonetic realization of this phoneme is [β], a bilabial voiceless lenis spirant.
- For purely synchronic purposes the aspirate and affricates should be analyzed as phoneme clusters since we find morpheme boundaries separating the two members. Examples:/bfána, dsáxa, gxéiddn/ ‘the flag, the things, held’. Cf. the discussion by J. Four-Quet, “Phonologie und Dialektologie”, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung XXVI (1958), 167.
- Cf. B. J. Koekkoek (fn. 3), p. 44.
- The Salzachgau dialect does not show any contrasts of short vs. long /x/. The geminate /xx/ might be included here, because all the other descriptions of Central Bavarian cite examples which indicate a contrast between lenis [x] and fortis [X], e.g. špru'.x ‘saying’ vs. špri X ‘sayings’, Beranek, p. 38. Further examples in Koekkoek, p. 43; Weitzenböck, p. 102; Reiffenstein, p. 35; Pfalz; Marchfeld, p. 10.
- The term Old High German as used in this paper applies only to Bavarian and Alemannic, the dialects where the effects of the High German sound shift were most far-reaching.
- In making the following analysis of Pre-Old High German and of the subsequent developments I have benefited greatly from the help and advice of William G. Moulton.
- See O. Behaghel, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (=Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie 3), (Berlin, 51928), §§ 322, 385–389; J. Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, (Göttingen, 1907), p. 86f.
- ‘Ce mouvement (the development to stops) a atteint son maximum, de toute évidence, en bavarois et alémannique, où encore aujourd'hui les consonnes de cette série sont des occlusives en toute position.’ J. Fourquet, Les mutations consonantiques du germanique, (Paris, 1948), p. 86.
- J. Fourquet, Mutations, p. 101.
- Braune-Mitzka, Althochdeutsche Grammatik (Tübingen, 1953), § 166f.
- These spellings are taken from Benediktinerregel and Exhortatio ad plebem christianum.
- Braune-Mitzka cites uulpa, rinka < Pre-OHG */wúlbbja, hringgja/‘wolf, ring’, §96, Anm. 1.
- For these spellings, see Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §69; Braune-Mitzka, §136, Anm. 1; K. Weinhold, Bairische Grammatik (Berlin, 1867), §§121–124; L. Wüllner, Das Hrabanische Glossar und die ältesten bairischen Sprachdenkmäler (Berlin, 1882), pp. 22f.; Braune-Helm, Althochdeutsches Lesebuch (Halle, 101942), pp. 175, 181, 233.
- The Bitterauf, Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes Freising, vol. 1 (= Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayrischen und deutschen Geschichte, Neue Folge, vl. 4) (Munich, 1905), documents 131, 132, 141, 174, 304, 443. Other examples for intervocalic -k- in Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §71.
- Braune-Mitzka, §149, Anm. 4.
- This spelling occurs once in the Freisinger Paternoster, along with ēuuīgo and ēuuīgera.
- Unfortunately, the items containing postconsonantal reflexes of Pre-OHG */bb dd gg/ do not occur in the Old Bavarian documents. Alemannic oppositions of the type uulpa vs. seibo offer no solution to the present problem.
- The change of voiced lenis [d] from earlier */þ/ to voiceless lenis [d] seems to be just about completed in the earliest Bavarian documents. See Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §64f.; id., Althochdeutsche Grammatik, pp. 97f., 127f.; G. Baesecke, Der Vocabularius Sti. Galli in der Angelsächsischen Mission, (Halle/Saale, 1933), p. 151. Pre-OHG */þþ/ which appears only in a very limited number of words is written dd or td, in the earliest Bavarian texts. Example: chledda, but also chlettun ‘burdock(s)’, cited by Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §66. These spellings seem to indicate that the reflex of */pp/ coalesced with /tt/ from earlier */dd/ at this early date. The exact time is difficult to establish, but it is certain that the merger took place still within the OHG period. See also Braune-Mitzka, §167, Anm. 10
- See W. G. Moulton, “The stops and spirants of early Germanic”, Language XXX (1954), 35.
- Even in the earliest Bavarian documents we find only rare occurrences of medial -k-; cf. my footnote 21. In the later documents the reflexes of Pre-OHG */g/ are spelled g medially, and c or ch finally. The characteristically Bavarian p-spellings for Pre-OHG */b/ survive much longer, but disappear in the 11th century. See Braune-Mitzka, §136, Anm. 1; E. Kranzmayer, Historische Lautgeographie des gesamtbairischen Dialektraumes, (Vienna, 1956), §27b.
- Occurrences of inherited /ff/6 are extremely rare. Since none of the documents contain instances where an old geminate follows a long vowel or diphthong the discussion must remain inconclusive here. Cf. Braune-Mitzka, §139, Anm. 4; Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §77c.
- Braune-Mitzka, §131, Anm. 5; Moulton, p. 36.
- Most scholars describe inherited /s/13 as a ‘sonderbarer Zwischenlaut’ between [s] and [š]. See Kranzmayer, §32a2; Braune-Mitzka, §168; Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §74. The main reasons for this phonetic assumption are MHG rimes, such as rosse/ gedroschen (in Ottokars Steirische Reimchronik, see Kranzmayer, “Die steirische Reimchronik Ottokars und ihre Sprache”, Wiener Sitzungsberichte 226 [1950], p. 4), and borrowings from and into Slavic. See E. Schwarz, Die germanischen Reibelaute s, f, ch im Deutschen (=Schriften der Deutschen wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Reichenberg 1), (Reichenberg, 1926), 11–22. For a recent treatment, see M. Joos, “The medieval sibilants”, Language XXVIII (1952), 222–231. Here it is sufficient to state that in Old Bavarian /s/ and /z/ were in contrast and did not merge at the stage under discussion.
- The earliest Bavarian documents show a few instances where the double spellings were retained after long vowels. Cf. Braune-Mitzka, §170, Anm. 1; Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §74.
- Perhaps I should repeat here that mudh of this analysis is based on the analogy with the dentals. We could disregard this analogy and would then arrive at a system where the labial and velar orders show short-long oppositions, and the dental order an additional lenis-fortis opposition in the stop series. This would give us a somewhat asymmetrical system, but I think that it would be a defensible solution, since there is no analysis which can do away with the asymmetry in the dentals. Since we would have to analyze the spirantal situation likewise for the sake of consistency, we would interpret the fortis as /ff/ and the lenis as /f/, and write for scribal hof, hoves, scif, sciffes/hóff, hófes, skíf, skífies/. It would also mean that no simple /z x/ would ever occur, since scribal haz, ioh, hazzes, iohhes would be phonemicized as /házz, jóxx, házzes, jóxxes/. For these reasons and because it shows greater conformity with scribal spellings, I chose the alternate solution which gives us a lenis-fortis opposition for the Old Bavarian obstruents. Cf. Moulton's footnotes 81 and 85 which list evidence from Modern Alemannic dialects in support of this analysis. In much of the above discussion I have followed his argument.
- See Braune-Mitzka, §131, Anm. 5, but cf. Moulton's footnote 83.
- Braune-Mitzka, §136; Kranzmayer, §27c4.
- This group of dialects includes that of the Zimbrian Seven Communities, which has been isolated since 1100. See J. A. Schmeller, Sogenanntes Cimbrisches Wörterbuch: Deutsches Idiotikon der VII. und XIII. Comuni in den Venetianischen Alpen, (Vienna, 1855), pp. 26–34; Kranzmayer, §27e.
- Kranzmayer, §§20o, 27e-f; P. Lessiak, “Die Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur XXVIII (1903), 120–124.
- This cluster belongs to the familiar group /sp st sk tr ft ht/ which was not affected by the High German sound shift.
- For a discussion of the phonetics of this change, see Schwarz, Reibelaute, pp. 23f.; Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik, §76; P. Lessiak, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum XXXII (1908), 133; Kranzmayer, §42a3; A. Martinet, Economie des changements phonétiques, (Berne, 1955), §9.15.
- Bitterauf, Traditionen, document 516a: ad Asche.
- See Braune-Mitzka, §146, Anm. 5; Weinhold, §154 for more examples. A. Mayer, “Zum Alter des Ueberganges von sk zu š”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur LIII (1929), 286–290, arrives at 1050 as the approximate date for the change on the basis of loanwords from and into Czech. Apparently this new phoneme was long after short vowels, short elsewhere: Pre-SG */šíəzzen, fíše, fíš/ [šíəzzen, fíšše, fíš] ‘shoot, fish (pl.), fish (sg.)’. Later, after the apocope of -e, /š/ and /šš/ are in contrast.
- Basque is the only known language that has both these sibilant phonemes besides /š/. Cited by Joos, cf. my fn. 28.
- Cited by Haasbauer, Zur Geschichte der oberösterreichischen Mundarten (=Prager deutsche Studien 39), (Reichenberg, 1926), p. 46, with numerous later examples.
- Kranzmayer, Ottokar, p. 92.
- Lessiak, Pernegg, p. 124; Weinhold, §§124, 136.
- Haasbauer cites numerous examples from the Central Bavarian area, but they are all from the second half of the 13th century. Here again we have an instance where the small chancelleries near linguistic borders, e.g. in Carinthia, are more apt to produce revealing orthographic evidence for innovations than those in the Binnenlandschaft.
- At this point the old three-way opposition rippi, galaupa, napulo ‘ribs, belief, navel’ which forced us to set up a fortis-lenis opposition ([pp:p]: /p/) has disappeared. In the meantime, however, interdialectal loan words have come in which established a new opposition word-initially before vowels. Examples: Pre-SG */bérg/ vs. */péx/ ‘mountain, pitch’; */báin/ vs. */páin/ ‘bone, pain’. Thus I feel justified in retaining the fortis-lenis opposition up to the period of the Central Bavarian Consonant Weakening.
- ‘Mittelbairische Konsonantenschwächung’ is actually a misnomer since the North Bavarian dialects were also subject to this weakening. The results of this development separate South Bavarian from Central and North Bavarian in much the same way that the results of the High German sound shift separate Low German from High German.
- See Kranzmayer, §34a2; H. L. Kufner, “History of the Middle Bavarian Vocalism”, Language XXXIII (1957), 526.
- In the modern SG dialect: /bέddn/=/bíddn/.
- A. Martinet points out that the passage from a three-cornered áta—áta—átta pattern to a two-pronged áta—áta pattern was a change which covered most of the western half of Europe in the course of the Middle Ages. See Economie, §4.66ff.
- For a list of these dialects, see Kranzmayer, §38a1.
- Braune-Mitzka, §154, Anm. 1, states that -h- disappeared in Central German as early as the 11th and 12th centuries, but he does not give any information on the date of this change in Upper German. Kranzmayer, §33b1, bases his dating (1300) on the evidence of Central Bavarian documents.
- Other Central Bavarian dialects retain this opposition, cf. my footnote 9.
- Since the symbols v and z are generally used for voiced phones I chose f and s for the voiceless lenes of the modern dialect.
- Cf. my footnotes 9 and 51.
- See Economie, §4.66ff.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research