Germanic substrate hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Germanic substrate hypothesis is an attempt to explain the distinctive nature of the Germanic languages within the context of the Indo-European language family. It posits that the elements of the common Germanic vocabulary and syntactical forms, which do not seem to have an Indo-European origin, essentially represent a creole language: a contact language synthesis between Indo-European speakers and a non-Indo-European substrate language used by the ancestors of the speakers of the Proto-Germanic language. The culture and tribes from which the theoretical substrate material originated continues to be a subject of academic debate and study. Notable candidates for possible substrate culture(s) are the Ertebølle culture, Funnelbeaker culture, Pitted Ware culture and the Corded Ware culture.
Contents |
[edit] Distinct language group
That the Germanic languages form a markedly distinct group within Indo-European is beyond question. Grimm's law was a profound sound change that affected all of the stops inherited from Indo-European. The Germanic languages also share common innovations in grammar as well as in phonology: half of the noun cases featured in more conservative languages such as Sanskrit or Lithuanian are not present in Germanic. (However, other Indo-European languages attested much earlier than the Germanic languages, such as Hittite, also have a reduced inventory of noun cases. It is not certain whether Germanic and Hittite have lost them, or whether they never shared in their acquisition.) The Germanic verb has also been extensively remodelled, showing fewer grammatical moods, and markedly decreasing the inflections in use for the passive voice.
[edit] Hybridization as conjectured cause
It has been suggested that proto-Germanic arose as a hybrid of two Indo-European dialects, one each of Centum and Satem types though they would have been mutually intelligible at the time of hybridization. This hypothesis may help to explain the difficulty of finding the right place for Germanic within the Indo-European family. However, the Germanic languages are commonly classified as Centum languages, because of the words *hund, not !sund ("hundred", ~ centum with guttural fricative according to Grimm's law) and *hwis, not !his ("who", ~ Latin quis).
Germanic has some words which seem to ignore Grimm's law:
If this word had followed Grimm's law it would have become ūf instead.
Note, German auf contains "f", due to result of the (much later) High German consonant shift in which High German p became f under certain conditions. Thus, both auf and ūp go back to a previous form containing p.
[edit] Non-Indo-European influence
The Germanic substrate hypothesis attempts to explain these features as a result of creolization with a non-Indo-European language. Writing an introductory article to the Germanic languages in The Major Languages of Western Europe, Germanicist John A. Hawkins sets forth the arguments for a Germanic substrate. Hawkins argues that the proto-Germans encountered a non-Indo-European speaking people and borrowed many features from their language. He hypothesizes that the first sound shift of Grimm's Law was the result of non-native speakers attempting to pronounce Indo-European sounds, and that they resorted to the closest sounds in their own language in their attempt to pronounce them. The Battle-axe people is an ancient culture identified by archaeology who have been proposed as candidates for the people who influenced Germanic with their non-Indo-European speech. Alternatively, in the framework of the Kurgan hypothesis, the Battle-axe people may be seen as an already "kurganized" culture built on the substrate of the earlier Funnelbeaker culture.
Proponents of the theory sometimes call the alleged non-Indo-European element in Germanic Folkish, on the assumption that the Germanic root folk is not an Indo-European word. However, this assumption may not completely be right, as Latin "vulgar" (like "Vulgar Latin" means "Latin of the People", to distantiate it from the written, more formal form of Latin) seems to share a common ancestral root (vulg) with the Germanic folk [citation needed], which basically means the same thing: a folk, or "group of people".
Some people claim to have found Germanic or Old Norse words taken from Saamic (= Lappish) languages which were spoken in the area before speakers of Indo-European languages came. [citation needed]
[edit] Words derived from non-Indo-European languages
Hawkins moreover asserts that more than one third of the native Germanic lexicon is of non-Indo-European origin, and again points to the hypothetical substrate language as the cause. Certain lexical fields are dominated by non-Indo-European words according to Hawkins. Seafaring terms, agricultural terms, engineering terms (construction/architecture), words about war and weapons, animal and fish names, and the names of communal and social institutions are centers of non-Indo-European words according to Hawkins. Some English language examples given by Hawkins include:
| Seafaring | Warfare/weapons | Animal/fish | Communal | Miscellaneous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sea ship strand ebb steer sail keel north south east west |
sword shield helmet bow |
carp eel calf lamb bear stork |
king knight thing |
drink leap bone wife bride groom |
[edit] Controversy
Many of Hawkins's purported non-etymologies are controversial. One obvious way to refute the Germanic substrate hypothesis is to find Indo-European etymologies for the words on Hawkins's list. This process continues, but several cited as examples by Hawkins can likely be stricken. For example, it is generally agreed that helmet represents IE *kel-, "a concealing covering". East relates to IE *aus-os-, "dawn". Some of the words may have Indo-European derivations that are simply not well preserved in other Indo-European languages. For example, it has been suggested that wife is related to Tocharian B kwipe, "shame; vulva", from a reconstructed root *gwibh-. Other possible etymologies include:
- ebb: from *apo- "off, away"
- north: from *nr,tro which is in turn from *ner- "under, on the left"
- south: from *sunto which is in turn from *sun-, a variant of *säwel- "the sun"
- west: from *westo which is in turn from *wes-, reduced form of *wespero "evening"
- shield: from *skel "to cut"
- stork: from *str,g which is the zero-grade form of *ster- "stiff"
- drink: from *dreng-, nasalized form of *dreg- "to draw, glide"
- groom: (as in bridegroom) from *(dh)ghm,on which is the zero-grade suffixed form of dhghem- "earth". The word bridegroom derives from Middle English bridegome and Old English brȳdguma, a compound of brȳd 'bride' and guma 'man'. The intrusive r in Modern English bridegroom is due to contamination with the word groom (of different meaning), the origin of which is unknown.
- ship from *skei-, a root originally meaning "to cut" referring to a dugout
- strand from *ster-, meaning "wide, flat".
Similarly, the word "bear" may not be unique to Germanic languages. In Russian, a bear's lair is "berloga" ("the lair of "ber"). The current Russian word for "bear" is "medved'", "the one who knows were the honey is". This suggests that an ancient Slavic word "ber" may have been replaced by a euphemism. However, Swedish influence (the eponymous "Rus", purported founders of Russia, were undoubtedly of swedish viking origins) in the development of modern Russian is to be considered as well.
Calvert Watkins's original 1969 appendix of Indo-European roots in the American Heritage Dictionary listed quite a few roots that were believed to be unique to Germanic at that time. More recent editions have cut back substantially on the number of roots claimed to be unique in Germanic.
As such, more recent treatments of Proto-Germanic tend to reject or simply omit discussion of the Germanic substrate hypothesis. Joseph B. Voyles's Early Germanic Grammar makes no mention of the hypothesis, nor do most other recent publications on the Germanic language family.
Nonetheless, the hypothesis remains popular in some circles, such as the Leiden school of historical linguistics. The first etymological dictionary of any language to take the hypothesis into its discussions systematically is the new Dutch dictionary influenced by the thinking of the Leiden group, which is currently under production: Marlies Philippa et al (ed), Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands, Amsterdam University press, vol. 1 2003, remaining volumes due to appear by 2009.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- John A. Hawkins, "Germanic Languages", in The Major Languages of Western Europe, Bernard Comrie, ed. (Routledge, 1990) ISBN 0-415-04738-2
- Joseph B. Voyles, Early Germanic Grammar (Academic Press, 1992) ISBN 0-12-728270-X
- Robert S. P. Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction (John Benjamins, 1995) ISBN 1-55619-505-2
- Calvert Watkins (ed.), The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (Houghton Mifflin, 1985) ISBN 0-395-36070-6
- Calvert Watkins (ed.), The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, second edition (Houghton Mifflin, 2000) ISBN 0-618-08250-6
- Orrin W. Robinson, Old English and its Closest Relatives: A Study of the Earliest Germanic Languages (Stanford, 1992) ISBN 0-8047-2221-8
