Goblirsch, Kurt - Gemination, Lenition, and Vowel Lengthening - Arriving at The Goal - Vowel Lengthening PDF

3 Arriving at the Goal: Vowel
Lengthening in Middle Germanic
The most decisive change in the establishment of the correlation of syllable cut in
the Germanic languages, and hence in the loss of phonological quantity, was the
vowel lengthening that took place in the middle periods of the Germanic languages.
It did away with the VC type of Old Germanic. This is, at the same time, the most
widespread of the quantity changes contributing to the correlation of complemen-
tary length, which is still in evidence in parts of Germanic territory. The quantity
changes in the Old Germanic languages treated in Chapter 2 were not as wide-
spread geographically or did not have as great an effect on the vocabulary of the
languages in question as did the vowel lengthening to be discussed presently.
Rivaling the importance of vowel lengthening in Middle Germanic is perhaps
the final strengthening discussed in Chapter 2. Much of the evidence for this change
in the old periods of the Germanic languages was to be done away with by vowel
lengthening in monosyllables. This latter change is usually taken to be merely
a footnote to vowel lengthening in open syllables (OSL), which has attracted, and
still attracts, the lion’s share of attention in linguistic research. Yet in certain
respects, monosyllable lengthening (MSL) is still rather poorly understood. One
open question is the relative chronology of OSL and MSL.
The tasks of the present chapter will be to deal with the most important factors
involved in the lengthening process throughout Germanic, including the role of
consonants, to establish the main language-specific issues involved in the
lengthening process, and to survey the geographic distribution of open syllable
lengthening and monosyllable lengthening in the Modern Germanic languages
and dialects. At first, we will examine the common nature of the process in
Germanic as whole, before we turn our focus to the individual areas.
3.1 The Cause and Environment of Lengthening

Many of the questions surrounding open syllable lengthening, and to a lesser
extent monosyllable lengthening, have to do with the cause and environment of
70
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 08 May 2018 at 12:08:37, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139540780.005
3.1 The Cause and Environment of Lengthening 71
the change. Although it may seem rather simple in retrospect to separate out
factors of environment from the cause of the change, this has not always been
done in research on the topic. Oftentimes, scholars were content to establish the
phonetic law by which vowels were lengthened. This task necessarily involves
stating the environment in which the change occurred, but all too often such
a law has been seen as explaining or “motivating” the change. As will be seen,
an explanation of the change, which also explains why the change took place
when it did, is to be preferred over explanations that are divorced from the rest
of language history and can be plugged in equally well (or equally poorly) into
another period.
3.1.1 Open Syllable, Monosyllable

Traditionally, vowel lengthening in the middle periods of the Germanic
languages has been attributed to the position in the open syllable, while
lengthening in monosyllables has been treated merely as analogy to length-
ening in open syllables. The environment for OSL in words like OE etan >
ME ēten (“eat”), OE bacan > ME bāken (“bake”), OE baðan > ME bāþen
(“bathe”), OE nosu > ME nōse (“nose”), OE nama > ME nāme (“name”),
OE beran > ME bę̄ ren (“to bear”) is considered to be the open syllable. This
view goes back to two Neogrammarians who did the first serious work on
OSL, namely Hermann Paul and Karl Luick. Paul (1884: 109–10, 118–22)
agreed with what he described as the commonly held theory of his day on the
New High German vowel lengthening: all short vowels in accented open
syllables were lengthened, or alternatively and less commonly in German,
the following consonants were lengthened (cf. Section 3.2.4). Paul consid-
ered the current conditions in German mono- and disyllables to derive from
double forms of a given word with long or short vowel and ensuing analogy,
possible in either direction. Paradigm analogy in Modern German, at least in
the standard of the central and southern parts of the German-speaking area,
has leveled out all of the differences in vowel length in the various forms of
a word like Tag / Tage, generally with the long vowel of the disyllable being
adopted by the monosyllable. In a series of writings on vowel lengthening in
English, Luick (1997a: 143–44; 1898: 336–38; 1903: 118–20, etc.) pre-
sented a view of OSL and MSL in English in much the same terms.
In English, by contrast, analogy often worked in either direction in a given
paradigm, as in ME sun/sōnes (“son”) versus ME wik/wēkes (“week”).
In other Germanic languages, monosyllable lengthening has not been carried
out to the same extent as in German, or even English, by analogy or
otherwise.
72 Arriving at the Goal: Vowel Lengthening in Middle Germanic
The logic behind viewing the open syllable as the environment for OSL
is that the vowel is allowed to lengthen in the absence of a following
tautosyllabic consonant preventing its extension. Compare the use of the
terms “free” versus “checked” vowels in English. After all, final vowels in
monosyllabic words were “free” to lengthen in the old periods of the
Germanic languages (cf. Section 2.3.1). The rule of the open syllable
could of course not apply to MSL. A sound law requiring lengthening in
open syllables fails, because there is great variation before sonorants in the
following syllables (Liberman 1992: 68–69). Compare examples like Eng.
liver, oven, hammer; Ger. Leber, Ofen, Hammer; Du. zeven (“seven”), oven,
hamer. From the overview of the variation present in the Modern Germanic
languages given below, it will be clear that there was merely a strong
tendency to vowel lengthening, rather than a law governing its presence.
It is obvious from the writings of Paul and Luick that the position of the
vowel in the open syllable was to them merely the environment in which
the change occurred. As was discussed in Section 1.3, they both sought the
cause of the change in Sievers’ syllable accents. Especially Luick, but also
Paul, thought the language was striving to reach a normal measure (Ger.
normales Maß) for all words. This concept was discussed in detail in
Section 1.1.3.
Most language histories and historical grammars of Middle English, Middle
High German, etc. written since the days of the Neogrammarians thus refer to
the change as “open syllable lengthening”. For English, see Morsbach (1896:
84), Luick (1914–40, 1: 379–99), Wyld (1921: 112–13), Wright and Wright
(1928: 40–44), Jordan (1934: 44–46), Brunner (1938: 17 and 1960: 105–08),
Horn and Lehnert (1954, 1: 163–66), Prins (1972: 105–08); or for German, see
Moser (1929: 73–76), Priebsch and Collinson (1934: 153–56), Kienle (1969:
37–40), Bach (1970: 227–28), Paul and Klein (2007: 82). For Dutch, Frisian,
and Scandinavian, see Franck (1910: 12–14), Schönfeld and Loey (1959:
32–33), Loey (1964: 30–31 and 1967: 36), Goossens (1974: 42–43), Van
Loon (1986: 86–90); Steller (1928: 115–16), Bremmer (2009: 115–16);
Noreen (1913: 117, 141; 1970: 110), Torp and Falk (1898: 17–24), Jacobsen
(1910: 42–43), Brøndum-Nielsen (1950: 379–81), Hansen (1962–71: 333–36).
Some of these works do not look at the change analytically, which may be
appropriate depending on the scope of the work, but it is fair to say that it has
been taken for granted that the environment for OSL is the open syllable, hence
the conventional name for the change. It is sometimes argued, however, that the
open syllable is an important factor, if not the most important factor in the
change (cf. Weinstock 1975; Hubmayer 1982; King 1988). Relatively recent
works by Lahiri and Dresher (1999) and Becker (2002) explicitly attribute the
lengthening to the open syllable.
Yet it is questionable whether the open syllable is the environment for the
lengthening, since we cannot be certain about Old or early Middle Germanic
syllable structure. It is entirely possible that the syllables in question were not
open, but closed. This is the view that will be argued here. How could speakers
of Middle English or its contemporaries pronounce syllables which could not
be pronounced as words? Anatoly Liberman (1992: 77) is to be credited with
bringing this point to bear on the discussion of OSL. For him, the syllable is an
autonomous phonetic unit, equal to a monosyllabic word, and division into
syllables is equivalent to division into phonetic words. In this line of thinking,
he follows Jerzy Kuryłowicz (1948a), who in turn harkens back to an older
tradition. In German scholarship at the turn of the century, for example, Gustav
Burghauser (1891) questioned whether these syllables were open or closed.
Liberman notes that Modern English has la-ter and lay, let-ter and let, while
early Middle English has nose (“nose”), speken (“speak”), but not *nŏ, *spĕ.
Such “over-short” words were already non-existent in the old periods by the
posited final vowel lengthening (cf. Section 2.3.1). So it is much more likely
that ME disyllables such as these had closed accented syllables, which became
open after the vowels were lengthened. The term open syllable lengthening
would thus be something of a misnomer. It is retained here out of convention
and for convenience sake.
One question related to the interplay between OSL and MSL is the relative
chronology of the two changes. If MSL is owing to analogy to OSL, as in the
majority view, then there is no question about which change is original. Yet
there is a theory that posits MSL before OSL. This view has its roots in the older
Scandinavian research on the topic (see, for example, Kock 1882–86, 1882:
382–92; Hesselman 1901; cf. Hansen 1962–71: 388–89). More recently, the
priority of MSL over OSL has been advocated for by Larissa Naiditsch and
Jurij Kusmenko (1992; see also Kusmenko 1995; Naiditsch 1997; and Page
2001). They seek the key to understanding vowel lengthening in the relic
dialects of Scandinavian (Swedish, Norwegian) in the extreme north and
Switzerland in the extreme south, which have MSL, but lack complete OSL
(for examples, see Section 3.2.1). These areas still retain segmental quantity
and, apparently, mora counting. The main motivation for vowel lengthening in
this view is the tendency to isochrony in the Germanic languages (see
Section 1.1).
Kusmenko and Naiditsch argue that the internal chronology of vowel length-
ening, and potential consonant lengthening, depends on the phonetic
conditions. More favorable conditions, which promoted earlier lengthening,

include vowel openness and the quality of the following consonant (see next
Section 3.1.2). Open vowels are longer than closed and corresponding vowels
are longer in monosyllables than in open syllables (Kusmenko 1995: 89–92).
In certain areas, like the ones mentioned, and in English, lengthening of open
vowels is more common than lengthening of closed vowels, geographically or
otherwise. Yet if this is a primary factor in the change, how could closed vowels
ever lengthen at all? As discussed in Section 1.1.1, it is only the relative length
of long and short which is significant, in this case for example, long versus short
i, rather than the absolute length of any of the segments in question. Further,
while relic areas may support this thesis, larger areas speak for the priority of
OSL over MSL. A large central part of Germanic territory consisting of Low
German, Dutch, and Frisian, has complete OSL and lacks MSL. Danish, also in
the central area, has much less MSL than OSL. It seems preferable to take the
larger area as indicative of the normal development and seek an alternative
explanation for the smaller relic areas, rather than the reverse procedure.
3.1.2 The Role of Consonants

What has been neglected in the research on open syllable lengthening, at least
in the scholarship in the English tradition, if not in the German tradition, is the
role of the following consonants (cf. Sections 1.1.2 and 1.2). This is no doubt
due to the German interest in consonant strength, which has played a relatively
minor role in English phonetics. Already at the end of the nineteenth century,
German scholars like Hermann Paul (1884: 109–10) and Eduard Sievers (1901:
303) pointed to the role of the following consonants. Paul’s formulation is the
most general as he speaks of lengthening occurring before simple consonants in
open syllables, while Sievers wrote that lengthening was more common before
lenis “weak” consonants. Henry Sweet (1888: 167), who studied for a time in
Germany and was very aware of the scholarship there, is the lone English-
speaking scholar to note, like Paul did for German, that ME lengthening took
place before single consonants. Sweet’s view is echoed by Robert Kyes (1989)
and Sievers’ view is followed by Karl Hubmayer (1982). Several handbooks
also mention that a following single consonant is (part of) the environment for
OSL: Torp and Falk (1898: 17–24), Brunner (1938: 17 and 1960: 263–65),
Hansen (1962–71: 388–89), and Paul and Klein (2007: 80–82).
Burghauser (1891: 22–23), on the other hand, declared that the determining
factor in German OSL was the voice of the following consonant. He was
followed, apparently unknowingly, by Richard d’Alquen (1979) and Robert
King (1988: 26–88). Although d’Alquen also conceded a role for the strength
of the consonant, he thought that the voicing of the following consonant

allowed for a smooth transition from the vowel, thus blurring the distinction
between the vowel and the consonant. Voice, however, is not always present in
the postvocalic consonant where lengthening takes place. Voice is at best non-
phonological and sporadically present in High German and does not apply to
words like Ger. Vater (“father”), treten (“tread”) with OSL. In the rest of
Germanic, lengthening before voiceless consonants is commonplace.
Compare ME ǭ pen (“open”), gāte (“gate”), lāte (“late”), þrǭ te (“throat”),
mę̄ te (“meet”), cāke (“cake”), nāked (“naked”), āker (“field”), brę̄ ken
(“break”), and the like.
Charles Russ (1969: 85–86), and more recently Anatoly Liberman (1992:
77–79), have emphatically declared that the following weak or lenis consonant
was the environment for OSL. The question is what we understand by the term
“weak.” Writing in German, Russ uses the term “lenis,” and understands it in
the traditional German sense, i.e., as air pressure and tension, secondarily as
duration (cf. Section 1.2). In fact, he states that consonant strength is primary
and consonant length is secondary. In attempting to explain the exceptions
before t, m in words like Ger. Sattel (“saddle”), Wetter (“weather”), kommen
(“come”), Himmel (“heaven, sky”) to the NHG lengthening, he concludes that
length in Middle High German is irrelevant, except for t/tt and m/mm following
short vowels. Liberman, by contrast, frames strength as a purely phonological
feature, phonemic or prosodic, not in the absolute terms of Murray and
Vennemann (1983). As pointed out in the general section on consonant strength
(Section 1.2), it must, as a binary feature, be understood as a combination of
phonetic correlates, which in medial position is comprised of voice and dura-
tion. Voice, however, is not consistently present in postvocalic consonants
where lengthening occurs in Germanic languages: phonological voice was
absent in High German, Danish, and Icelandic at the time of OSL and MSL.
Duration, or length of consonants, on the other hand, was distinctive in every
Germanic language at the time of OSL, when it amounted to gemination versus
non-gemination of consonants in medial position. As Liberman writes, the
difference between OE sittan and witan is the strength of the following con-
sonant and lengthening did not occur when the following consonant was
bimoric, i.e., geminated.
It makes intuitive sense that length in the following consonant should be the
relevant factor in the environment for OSL. This is basically equivalent to
Paul’s and Sweet’s statements. So, as banal as it may sound, short vowels
lengthened before short consonants. Yet vowels could also lengthen, and did
more rarely, before long consonants, but only when the consonants were
shortened compensatorily. In monosyllables, where lengthening occurred via

analogy, the environment was only apparently the following short consonant.
This is the case in retrospect, as with the open syllable. Based on the inter-
pretation of final strengthening outlined in Section 2.2.3, it seems that mono-
syllables with original short vowels had following long (but not geminated)
consonants, so that when analogy to disyllables took place, not only was the
vowel lengthened, but the consonant was weakened (shortened) as well. This
view is also expressed by Liberman (1997: 108–12) and by Eugen Gabriel
(1969: 143ff), who concentrated on lengthening in Upper German dialects.
This is clearly the case in the minor lenitions attested in the Bavarian dialects
(see Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2). So the environment for OSL is not the open
syllable, as is usually maintained, but the following short (simple, weak)
consonant. This is the most important example of a change determined by the
interdependence of vowel length and consonant strength in the Germanic
languages.
3.1.3 Compensatory Lengthening

If the Middle Germanic vowel lengthening took place before short consonants,
why did it take place when it did? The consonants in question were weak in the
Old Germanic period as well, so why could the vowels not lengthen at that time
already? The answer to these questions is to be sought in relationship to the last
wave of Germanic apocope, whereby full vowels were weakened to schwa in
the early part of the middle periods. Open syllable lengthening is best under-
stood as a compensatory change, by which phonological information lost to
apocope of unaccented syllables is compensated for by the lengthening of the
accented vowels. The first to mention a connection between apocope and OSL
in English was Ernst Brugger (1893: 372–73), although he did not elaborate.
Gregor Sarrazin (1898: 78–85), however, specified that the weakening or loss
of a vowel in final position is a necessary precondition for OSL in English.
Sarrazin’s article followed not only on the heels of Brugger’s article, but
also the work of Wilhelm Streitberg (1894: 310–15) and Ferdinand Wrede
(1895: 263–73), who were concentrating on other changes. Streitberg sought
to explain the lengthening of short vowels in the lengthened grade of ablaut in
the root as compensation for the loss of a short vowel in the following
unaccented syllable. The loss of a mora in the unaccented syllable
corresponded to the addition of a mora to the accented vowel. He thought
of this as a mechanical process. Wrede followed in Streitberg’s footsteps by
attributing the New High German diphthongization to the principle of mora
replacement (Morenersatz). According to Wrede, forms like ı̄ ́ sè (Ger. Eis;
“ice”) first lost the secondary accent and later the unaccented -e, then com-
pensated for its loss through circumflex of the accented vowel, which in turn
allowed modulation and diphthongization of the accented vowel. Change in
the non-apocopated forms and monosyllables would have followed by
analogy.
In more recent times, the idea of compensation in OSL was reawakened in
a passing comment by Alice Grundt (1976: 10–13), who mixes and matches
a variety of approaches in her work. A fuller treatment is applied by Donka
Minkova (1982 and 1985). She attributes OSL to the principle of preservation
of the overall rhythmical weight of the foot (cf. Section 1.1.3). Her statistical
study of Holthausen’s (1934) etymological dictionary of Old English and Bliss’
(1955) list of Anglo-Norman words borrowed before 1400, all containing the
correct environment (open syllable), showed that 84 percent of the potential
bases for OSL have OSL in Modern English. She concludes that OSL operates
unfailingly only when there is schwa deletion, the loss of the syllable being
compensated for by the acquisition of a new mora in the accented syllable, thus
preserving the total number of morae and the overall duration of the word.
Roger Lass (1985) essentially agrees with Minkova, but compares the change
to metrical resolution, in that a disyllabic foot with two light syllables becomes
a monosyllabic foot with one heavy syllable.
Yet as Liberman (1992: 68–74) points out, it is not so much a mechanical
compensation for the loss of an unaccented vowel that triggers OSL, but for the
loss of the vowel’s function: the compensation is primarily functional and only
secondarily physical. He reasons that words like OE nosu had two vocalic
morae, each of which could serve as the locus of sentence stress. But through
apocope, endings began to lose their importance. As the full vowels were
replaced by schwa or lost, the root vowel began to perform the function
previously divided between the two morae: it became bimoric. The change in
the accented vowel, Liberman reasons, could be manifested physically by
roughly doubling in length, diphthongizing, or becoming circumflected.
In one way or another, phonological information is transferred to the accented
syllable, a trend which runs like a red thread throughout Germanic language
history. Words ending in resonants could protect themselves against apocope
by syllabifying the sonorant when the vowel in the unaccented syllable was
lost. As a compensatory change, OSL does not automatically result from the
weakening of full vowels, but its occurrence is present in all Germanic lan-
guages, even if it is not consistent.
The results of the last Germanic apocope vary from language to language.
Yet this poses no problem for the compensation theory. Following Bengt
Hesselman (1948–53, 1: 51–53) and Liberman (1992: 72–74), I posit a period

of free apocope in the Germanic languages at the point of OSL. After this stage
of development, the unaccented vowels could be fixed as schwa, lost, or
restored to full vowels and the lengthened accented vowels remained. Each
of these scenarios has in fact occurred in different parts of the Germanic world:
full vowels have returned in Standard Swedish, Icelandic, and Faroese, while
Standard Norwegian, Danish, and German have retained schwa, and English
has lost endings altogether. These different results, as well as free apocope, are
attested in the modern dialects (see examples below). Liberman further con-
nects apocope to MSL. Lengthening in monosyllables make sense, he argues,
when a dialect has apocope in disyllables. It must have occurred first in words
with the support of disyllables (via analogy). If it occurs in dialects with
preserved or restituted endings, it should be explained as a relic of free apocope
or a phonetic importation. He also argues for a connection to the Middle
Bavarian type of MSL (see Section 4.5.1).
The connection of OSL to apocope means that the change took place
between the weakening of full vowels to schwa and the loss of the schwa in
English and other Germanic languages. This would correspond to the dating of
OSL in the handbooks. For English, the change is usually dated to the first half
of the thirteenth century, at least for the lengthening of the low vowels ME e, a,
o (Morsbach 1896: 84–85; Luick 1914–40: 400; Wright and Wright 1928:
41–42; Brunner 1938: 17), although the change in the north is sometimes set
already in the twelfth century (Jordan 1934: 44–45; Berndt 1960: 25–26; Prins
1972: 105–06). The dating proposed by Hans Kurath (1956, cf. Phillips 1992)
based on the spellings of the Ormulum seems too early (compare Section 2.3.2).
For German, a broader range from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries is
usually given (Sütterlin 1921: 147–48; Moser 1929: 73; Bach 1970: 227–28;
Paul and Klein 2007: 80–81). A spread from north to south in continental West
Germanic is usually posited, with the change earliest in Old Low Franconian
(Schönfeld and Loey 1959: 32–33; Loey 1964: 30–31; Van Loon 1986: 86–90).
For Scandinavian, the change is usually posited a bit later, from the thirteenth to
the fifteenth centuries on the continent (Kock 1882–86: 382; Noreen 1913: 117,
141 and 1970: 110; Wessén 1968: 90–93; Jacobsen 1910: 172; Skautrup 1944,
1: 237; Brøndum-Nielsen 1950: 382), earlier in Denmark and Norway than in
Sweden. For Icelandic, the change is posited only to the sixteenth century
(Thórólfsson 1929; cf. Árnason 1980: 160).
The dating is based on a variety of sporadic orthographic evidence, rhymes
with old long vowels in English (Morsbach 1896: 85–88; Luick 1914–40: 400)
diphthong spellings in Scots (Wright and Wright 1928: 41), rhymes and place
3.2 Geographic Distribution of Vowel Lengthening 79
name evidence in Dutch (Loey 1964: 30–31; Van Loon 1986: 86–90), doubling
of vowel graphs or accent marks in Danish law texts (Diderichsen 1937–38:
156–57; Haugen 1976: 258–59; Hansen 1962–71, 1: 334–35), at least in
monosyllables. The attestations vary quite a bit throughout Germanic territory,
but the orthographic evidence may appear considerably later than the actual
change in spoken language, perhaps after 100 years or even later. If the dating
for the different languages based on this type of information is correct, it would
mean generally that the change began in the central part of Germanic territory
and spread in all directions, with Upper German and Icelandic being the last
languages reached. The Scandinavian areas with restoration of full vowels,
Swedish and Icelandic, would also be among the last areas to acquire OSL.
Such a model of spread would also generally be reinforced by the location of
the relic areas on the edges of Germanic territory (see Section 3.2 for more
details). Hogg (1996) and Liberman (1997: 120–21) argue that there may have
been traces of MSL already in Old Scandinavian, Old English, and Old High
German, but not on nearly the same scale as at the time of OSL.
Based on the connection to apocope and the direct spelling evidence, open
syllable lengthening can be linked to the very transition from the old periods to
the middle periods of the Germanic languages. Thus, along with the loss of full
vowels in unaccented syllables as a primary phonological distinction between
Old High German and Middle High German, on the one hand, and Old English
and Middle English, on the other, we must also include the onset of open
syllable lengthening.
3.2 Geographic Distribution of Vowel Lengthening

This section will provide a geographic survey of open syllable lengthening and
monosyllable lengthening in the Modern Germanic languages and dialects.
Attention will be paid to language-specific issues as they relate to the larger
picture of vowel lengthening in Middle Germanic. Subsequent changes to
vowel length will only be mentioned as they pertain to the discussion at
hand. The survey will be organized according to the following typology of
dialects with respect to vowel lengthening: primarily we will distinguish
between dialects with and without complete OSL, and secondarily between
those with and without MSL. The lengthening is either complete or incomplete,
in the sense that it has been carried through to the degree that the number of
syllable types in the dialect in question was reduced to two in accented
syllables: VːC and VCː. This state is the completion of the trend to eliminate
syllables not conforming to these two types that began in the Old Germanic
period. It established the correlation of complementary length, which super-

seded segmental length of vowels and consonants. Subsequent changes, espe-
cially consonant lenition, will disturb this apparently rather unstable
equilibrium in most areas, although fortunately, areas with complementary
length may still be observed in Scandinavian and in Upper German.
In addition to OSL, there were other changes that affected segmental length
in accented syllables, which helped achieve the correlation of complementary
length. Sequences of long vowel plus short consonant and short vowel plus
long consonant existing prior to OSL generally remained intact. In short vowel
plus short consonant sequences, the vowels were most often lengthened by
OSL or MSL, although in some cases, most notably in Swedish and Norwegian
and more rarely in German, the following consonants were lengthened. So-
called overlong sequences with long vowel plus long consonant either shor-
tened the vowel or the consonant. The latter change is one that probably
belongs mostly to the Old Germanic period (see Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4).
Apparently, systemic pressure forced all syllables to conform to the two
prevalent types.
3.2.1 Incomplete Open Syllable Lengthening

The dialects belonging to this type may rightly be considered relic areas in the
face of nearly universal OSL in the Modern Germanic languages. Generally,
they lie on the edges of the Germanic-speaking world and are in one sense or
another isolated from the trends that have swept across nearly the entire area.
In some cases, they were isolated in the mountains or in speech islands; in other
cases, they are colonial dialects in areas with a non-Germanic substratum. Yet it
is not the subject of the present study to speculate on the role of geographic
barriers and potential substratum influence. With incomplete OSL, these dia-
lects retain phonological (segmental) length as in Old Germanic.
3.2.1.1 Isolated Areas in Swedish-Norwegian

Beginning with the North Germanic variants of this type, we find certain
contiguous areas and small pockets, some of which are nearly completely
lacking in OSL. MSL is a bit more common in these areas, but also not
consistent. In some areas, all four syllable-types of Old Germanic remain.
They are listed in handbooks of Swedish and Norwegian dialectology
(Noreen 1903–24, 2; 118–19; Pamp 1978: 28–29; Christiansen 1946–48:
34–35, 195–96; Kolsrud 1951: 17–18; Sandøy 1985: 168), but the lists do not
correspond completely with one another.
In Swedish, the areas where VC remains include the East Swedish dialects
in Finland and Estonia, a part of Norrland, and areas in Dalarna and western
Uppland. Vowel length in East Swedish has been studied very well by
Hultman (1894), Hesselman (1902), and Bergroth (1922) and is discussed
in descriptions of the following dialects: Gamlakarleby (Hagfors 1891:
16–20) and Vörå (Freudental 1889: 40–41) in Österbotten, Pargas
(Thurman 1898: 12–13) and Nagu (Thurman 1929: 72–75) in Åboland,
Nyland (Wessman 1945: 15–16) on the southern coast of Finland, and Runö
(Vendell 1882: 27–28) and Nuckö (Danell 1905–34: 208) in Estonia.
The quantity conditions of these dialects are most often described as being
similar to Old Swedish, i.e., without OSL or MSL. Åland (Hesselman 1902:
14–15) and Kokär in Åboland (Karsten 1892: 83–95), on the other hand, have
OSL and MSL. The vowel lengthening which is most prevalent is MSL,
especially of OSw. a. Several of the dialect descriptions mention shortening
in old VːCː sequences, by consonant shortening in Gamlakarleby, or by vowel
shortening in Nagu and Nyland. In Nuckö, there was some consonant length-
ening following short vowels.
In Sweden proper, lack of vowel lengthening is reported for several areas in
Norrland (Söderström 1972): Kalix and Piteå in Norrbotten, Nordmaling in
Västerbotten, and Ragunda in Jämtland. For the first three areas on the Gulf of
Bothnia, it is reported that short vowels remain in disyllables with Accent 2, for
Ragunda that OSw. i, u (o) remain short in open syllables. Yet OSw. a, æ are
often lengthened, especially before OSw. g/ɣ. There is more MSL than OSL in
these areas, yet short i, u (o) remain, especially before l, r. In Piteå, there is
lengthening of m following short vowels. For Överkalix (Kettunen 1983:
46–50) in Norrbotten, it is reported that short syllables and overlong syllables
remain, but are rather rare.
Finally, there are Central Swedish areas with short syllables in Dalarna and
western Uppland and bordering eastern Västmanland. Dialect descriptions are
available from Upper Dalarna (Levander 1925–28, 1: 60, 75ff) in northwestern
Dalarna, Orsa (Boëthius (1918:26: 13–14) in northeastern Dalarna,
Dalabergslagen (Envall 1930–47: 66ff, 71ff) in southeastern Dalarna, and
Fjärdhundraland (Isaacson 1923: 35–40) in southwestern Uppland. In these
dialects, short vowels remain in open syllables, but are usually lengthened in
monosyllables. They would be the best evidence for the primacy of MSL over
OSL. Compare examples from Upper Dalarna: ɡopɔ (Sw. gapa; “gape”), ipin
(öppen; “open”), pepor (peppar; “paper”), ɡata (gata; “street”), tjitil (kittel;
“kettle”), boko (baka; “bake”), wriden (vriden; “twisted”), fluɡu (fluga; “fly”),
luɡi (låga; “flame”), with variation from town to town. Yet there is some
lengthening of consonants in over-short sequences: ɡappo (gapa; “gape”),

smetto (smeta; “smear”), bakko (baka; “bake”). Overlong syllables remain in
certain areas: føːdː (född; “born”), naːtː (natt; “night”), læːtː (lätt; “light”),
træːtta (träta; “quarrel”). The Västerdal dialects (Sjödahl 1922: 39ff) of south-
western Dalarna, by contrast, have OSL and MSL.
Among Norwegian dialects, there are not as many relic areas, but several
dialects from various spots around the country reportedly retain remnants of
short accented syllables. They include the North Norwegian dialect of Senjen
(Iversen 1913: 25–30) in Troms, the West Norwegian dialects of Bergen
(Larsen and Stolz 1912: 32–36) in Hordaland and Arendal (Voss 1940:
59–62) in Aust-Agder, and the East Norwegian dialects of Skiptvet (Hoff
1946a: 39–40) in Østfold, Numedal (Hoff 1946: 18) in Buskerud, and Solør
(Larsen 1894: 46) in Hedmark. They were also reported for Oslo (Kristiania)
early in the last century (Larsen 1907: 36–37). Some dialects have also
retained over-long accented syllables, particularly those in Vest-Agder:
Sætesdal, Åseral, Bjelland, northern Undal, Hægbostad, and Kvås in
Kristiansandsstift (Larsen 1890–91: 9–10), Åsdø (Seip 1915: 32), and
Gydland (Kydland 1940: 31–32), but also in Senjen in Troms (Iversen 1913:
25–30). Some East Norwegian dialects retain short syllables with vowel
balance (Nw. likevekt, NNw. jemvekt). Examples are given in descriptions
of the dialects of Vågå in Gudbrandsdalen (Horne 1917: 22) in Opland and
Tinn (Skulerud 1922: 264–68) in Telemark.
In Gudbrandsdalen (Horne 1917: 21–22; Fliflet 1954), short vowels remain
generally in open syllables in the northern and middle parts of the valley and
in monosyllables in the northern part. The southern part of the valley, how-
ever, has the correlation of complementary length. Fliflet sees the dialect of
the middle part of the valley as retaining a transition phase in the process of
lengthening, with MSL as the first stage of the change. Compare examples
from Skjåk in the north: hɔɡɔ (Nw. hage; “garden”), heto (hete; “be called”),
næva (neve; “fist”), viku (veke; “week”), furo (furu; “pine”); ɡrep “grab,
grasp”), vet (vett; “intelligence, wits”), lɔk (lokk; “lock (of hair)”), ʃen
(skinn; “hide, skin”), ɡrev (grev; “hoe”), hes (hæs; “hoarse”), ɡrɔn (gran;
“spruce”); Venabygd in the middle: hɔɡɔ, heto, næva, viku, furu; ɡrepː, vetː,
lɔkː, ʃenː, ɡreːv, hesː, ɡrɔnː/ɡrɔːn; and Øyer in the south: hɔːɡɔ, hæːta, næːva,
viːku, fuːru; ɡrepː, vetː, lɔkː, ʃinː, ɡreːv, hæːs, ɡrɔːn. Vowels are generally
lengthened in open syllables and vowels or consonants in monosyllables.
The distribution of short accented syllables in Gudbrandsdalen also appar-
ently supports the primacy of MSL over OSL. Yet this isolated area in
Norway and the dialects of Dalarna provide a relatively small amount of
Figure 3.1 Incomplete Open Syllable Lengthening in Scandinavian (Base

Map After Haugen 1976)
data upon which the chronology of the changes in Germanic as a whole can be
based. It is difficult to determine the origin of the forms in these relic areas in
retrospect. Perhaps MSL simply spread into these areas from areas with OSL,
while OSL did not spread there.
3.2.1.2 South Alemannic and Isolated Areas in Upper German

Turning to West Germanic, we find relic areas in Upper German. Areas in
Middle and Low German without OSL (see Section 3.2.2) have short vowels
in so-called open syllables, but in these dialects, short vowels are either
secondary or lengthening was precluded by other changes. Turning first to
Upper German, there is a large contiguous area in the central part of South and
Middle Alemannic where open syllable lengthening has not been completed.
Outside that larger area, there are smaller pockets. The relic areas are well
documented in the dialect handbooks (Jutz 1931: 152–57; Kranzmayer 1956:
99–104; Schirmunski 1962: 184) and studies of vowel lengthening (Gabriel
1969: 124–35, 175–78, 190–92; Wiesinger 1983a: 1092; Goblirsch 1994:
47–53).
Among the South Bavarian dialects in Upper Bavaria, southern Austria,
Italy, and the former speech islands in Slovenia, only two small areas without
complete OSL may be mentioned. In the South Bavarian speech islands of
Sieben Gemeinden and Dreizehn Gemeinden (Kranzmayer 1981: 170–71) in
Italy, there is no OSL or MSL present. In the following examples, no OSL has
occurred: ɡɛwen (Ger. geben; “give”), haven (haben; “have”), nidər (nieder;
“low”), rɛɡen (Regen; “rain”), oven (Ofen; “oven”), haven (Hafen; “harbor”),
nɛve (Neffe; “nephew”), haʒo (Hase; “hare”), liʒa (Linsen; “lentil”), ʒɛɣen
(sehen; “see”), taɣa (Dohle; “daw”), ʃame (Scham; “shame”), hano (Hahn;
“rooster”). MSL is lacking in words like the following with retained final
strengthening: ʃtap (Stab; “staff”), rat (Rad; “wheel”), takx (Tag; “day”), hof
(Hof; “yard”), moʃ (Moos; “moss”), ɡraʃ (Gras; “grass”). These dialects are
thus very close to the conditions in Old High German. In the Puster Valley
(Schatz 1903: 63–65; Kühebacher 1958: 113–15) in South Tirol, there has
been OSL in old disyllables, but no MSL or OSL in old trisyllables: ɡrɔːbm̩
(Ger. Graben; “ditch”), hɔːbm̩ (halten; “hold”), høːfn̩ (OHG hefen, Ger.
heben; “raise”), hɔːse (Hase; “hare”), leːsn̩ (lesen; “read, pick”), tsøːhn̩
(Zehe; “toe”); versus ɡɔβl̩ (OHG gabala, Ger. Gabel; “fork”), leβo (OHG
lebara, Ger. Leber “liver”), fedo (OHG federa, Ger. Feder; “feather”), ʃweɡl̩
(OHG swegala, Ger. Schwegel “wooden flute”), reɡŋ̩ (OHG reganōn, Ger.
regnen; “rain”), œsile dim. (Esel; “donkey”), βisile dim. (Wiese; “meadow”).
In the Upper Puster Valley, there may be short vowels in disyllables by
analogy to trisyllables: mɔɡə (Ger. Magen; “stomach”), ɡɛbm̩ (geben;
“give”), liɡŋ̩ (liegen; “lie”), ʃlɔɡŋ̩ (schlagen; “strike”), trɔɡŋ̩ (tragen; “carry,
wear”). Otherwise, OSL is complete in Bavarian dialects.
In other South Bavarian areas, there has also been no MSL (Kranzmayer
1956: 102–04; Goblirsch 1994: 41–44). They include the speech island of
Figure 3.2 Final Strengthening/no Monosyllable Lengthening in Bavarian (Base Map After Kranzmayer 1956, Map 22).
Lusern (Bacher 1905) in Italy and the former speech island of Zarz (Lessiak
1959: 83) in present-day Slovenia, high valleys in Tirol (Kranzmayer 1960),
and the Lesach Valley (Lessiak 1903) in Carinthia. In these areas, final
strengthening, in the form of lengthening, remains (see Section 2.3.2 for
more discussion), thus preserving the state from the Old Germanic period,
which first established complementary length in monosyllables. In many of the
same areas, over-long syllables remain: the (former) speech islands Zarz
(Lessiak 1959), Lusern (Bacher 1903), and Sieben and Dreizehn Gemeinden
(Kranzmayer 1981), high valleys in Tirol (Kranzmayer 1960: 178–79), and
South Tirol (Schatz 1903: 70) generally. Compare examples found in the high
valleys of Tirol: hɔːɐssn̩ (Ger. heißen; “to call, name”), ʒloːuffn̩ (schlafen;
“sleep”), ʃproːxxe (Sprache; “language”) raːxxn̩ (rauchen; “smoke”),
kxroːuppfn̩ (Krapfen; “doughnut”), hɔːɐttsn̩ (heizen; “to heat”).
The number of relic dialects with respect to vowel lengthening and the
establishment of complementary length is relatively small in Bavarian in
comparison to Alemannic, which is generally more conservative than
Bavarian, especially Middle Alemannic and South Alemannic in southern
Baden-Württemberg, Switzerland, Italy, and Vorarlberg in Austria. There is
a large area in the central and southern part of Middle and South Alemannic,
which lacks complete OSL. Lengthening before obstruents is the exception,
while there is common but irregular lengthening of e, a, o before sonorants,
especially r. Many of these dialects have been described: Schwenningen (Haag
1898: 15; Bohnenberger 1900: 142–43), southern Saulgau (1932: 5–10),
Jestetten (Keller 1963: 73) near Waldshut, Schaffhausen (Stickelberger 1881:
410–16, Wanner 1941: 68–72), Singen (Schreiber 1928: 14–15), Zürcher
Oberland (Weber 1923: 74ff), Sense- and southeastern Seebezirk (Henzen
1927: 100ff) and Jaun (Stucki 1917: 127–46) in Freiburg, Goldbach
(Haldimann 1903: 337–38) in Upper Aargau, Entlebuch (Schmid 1915:
110ff) and the city of Luzern (Fischer 1960: 26–27) in Luzern, Brienz
(Schild 1891: 23) in Bern, Kerenzen (Winteler 1876: 82–84) in Glarus
(Streiff 1915: 48–52), as well as those listed below. Compare examples from
Entlebuch with lengthening before sonorants, but seldom before obstruents,
and then only of a, æ: ʃpaːrə (Ger. sparen; “save, spare”), faːrə (fahren; “go,
travel”), wɛːrə (wehren; “restrain”), b̥ ɛːri (Beere; “berry”), maːlə (malen;
“paint”), waːlə (sich wälzen; “wallow”), maːnə (mahnen; “remind”), faːnə
(Fahne; “flag”), raːmə (Rahmen; “frame”), b̥ ræːmə (Bremse; “horse-fly”), but
b̥ irə (Birne; “pear”), ʃtælə (stehlen; “steal”), ʃalə (Schale; “peel, bowl”), himəl
(Himmel; “sky, heaven”), namə (Name; “name”), hanə (Fasshahn; “tap”), ʃinə
(Schiene; “track”); versus saːɡə (sägen; “to saw”), træːɡ̊ ə (tragen; “carry”),
Figure 3.3 Open Syllable Lengthening in Alemannic (Base Map After

Bohnenberger 1953).
naːse (Nase; “nose”), but æb̥ ə (eben; “even”), sib̥ ə (sieben; “seven”), ʃad̥ ə
(Schaden; “damage”), fad̥ ə (Faden; “thread”), læd̥ ər (Leder; “leather”), lɛɡ̊ ə
(legen; “lay”), ʃwiɡ̊ ərə (Schwiegermutter; “mother-in-law”), xæfə (Erbse;
Figure 3.4 Final Strengthening/no Monosyllable Lengthening in Alemannic (Base Map After Bohenenberger 1953).
“pea”), ɡlufə (Stecknadel; “pin”), wɛsəm (schwammig; “spongy”), xisəl

(Kiesel; “pebble”).
There is additional variation in the area. Upper Toggenburg (Wiget 1916:
72–73) and Walensee-Seeztal (Trüb 1951: 61–69) in St. Gallen form
a transition area to the dialects with complete OSL. In other parts of the area,
lengthening, even before sonorants, is an exception. They include: Wallis
(Bohnenberger 1913: 110ff, cf. Wipf 1910: 42–43) in the south and Canton
Schaffhausen (Wanner 1941: 110–11), Kesswil (Enderlin 1913: 67–68) in
Oberthurgau, Toggenburg (Wiget 1916: 71–73) in St. Gallen, and Appenzell
(Vetsch 1910: 110–11) in the north. The following examples are from Kesswil:
malə (Ger. malen; “paint”), ʃtɛlə (stehlen; “steal”), ʃpilə (spielen; “play”), ʃparə
(sparen; “save”), wɛrə (wehren; “restrain”), b̥ ɔrə (bohren; “drill”), ʃenə
(Schiene; “track”), name (Name; “name”), hamər (Hammer; “hammer”),
but mɛːləxe (melken; “to milk”), faːrə (fahren; “go”), weːrə (wehren;
“restrain”), fɔːnə (Fahne; “flag”), woːnə (wohnen; “dwell”), b̥ reːmə (Bremse;
“horse-fly”). Aside from this large area, OSL is complete in Alemannic, except
for part of northern Baden, where there is also only an irregular lengthening
before sonorants (cf. Weik 1913: 34–36).
In this area without complete OSL, MSL has occurred to a great extent,
although not consistently. This lengthening is so prevalent that it is called
the High Alemannic lengthening. The following examples are from
Appenzell (Vetsch 1910: 108–09): xleːb̥ (Ger. Kleister; “paste”), but ɡrob̥
(grob; “coarse”), raːd̥ (Rad; “wheel”), red̥ (Rede; “speech”), ʃmeːd̥
(Schmied; “smith”), trɔːɡ̊ (Trog; “trough”), tsoːɡ̊ (Zug; “train”), hɔːf (Hof;
“yard”), ɡ̊ laːs (Glas; “glas”), ɡ̊ ræːs (Gras; “grass”), weːs (Wiese; “mea-
dow”), ɡ̊ reːx (fertig; “ready”), b̥ aːr (bar; “bare”), kβeːr (Gewehr; “gun”),
tɔːr (Tor; “gate”), ʃmaːl (schmal; “narrow”), mɛːl (Mehl; “flour”), hoːl
(hohl; “hollow”), tsaː (Zahn; “tooth”), heː (hin; “there”). Lengthening is
the exception in Wallis (Bohnenberger 1913: 146, cf. Wipf 1910: 40–44)
and Schanfigg (Kessler 1931: 166–67) and Obersaxen (Brun 1918: 73–74)
in Graubünden in the south. They still retain final strengthening (see
Section 2.3.2), and like the corresponding dialects in South Bavarian,
have the state of Old Germanic, which already did away with short mono-
syllables. Yet lengthening may take place in these areas before final lenes
from fortes in sandhi (Goblirsch 1994: 77).
The High Alemannic lengthening did not take place to any great extent in
part of Canton Bern or in the area around Lake Constance. The most common
type of MSL in these latter areas is before sonorant lenes, as they are called in
the dialect descriptions, while lengthening before obstruent lenes is the
exception. Leo Jutz (1931: 156–57) described the areas as the southwest and
the northeast, the latter area including Kesswil and South Swabian east of the
line Engen-Tuttlingen-Friedingen. From these areas, there are several dialect
descriptions: Brienz in Bern (Schild 1891: 23), Canton Schaffhausen (Wanner
1941: 68–72), Wangen and the Höri area (Singer 1965: 61–63) near Konstanz,
Liggersdorf (Dreher 1919: 12–13) north of Konstanz, Kesswil (Enderlin 1913:
65–66) in Upper Thurgau, and the Rhine Valley (Berger 1913: 82–84) in
St. Gallen. The following examples are from Kesswil: taːl (Ger. Tal; “valley”),
tsaːl (Zahl; “number”), waːl (Wahl; “choice”), mɛːl (Mehl; “flour”), hoːl (hohl;
“hollow”), βøːl (wohl; “well”), stiːl (Stiel; “handle”), tsiːl (Ziel; “goal”), b̥ aːr
(bar; “bare”), ɡ̊ æːr (gar; “done”), fɔːr (vor; “in front of”), tɔːr (Tor; “gate”),
moːr (mürbe; “mellow, well cooked”), tsɔː (Zahn; “tooth”), weː acc. (wen
“who”), d̥ eː acc. (den “who”), eː acc. (ihn “he”), troːm (MHG trum, Ger.
Fadenende; “thread end”), but lamː (lahm; “lame”), d̥ emː dat. (dem “who”),
emː dat. (ihm “who”) versus ɡrab (Grab; “grave”), ʃtab̥ (Stab; “staff”), rad̥
(Rad; “wheel”), ɡ̊ led̥ (Glied; “limb”), wɛɡ̊ (Weg; “way, path”), tsuɡ̊ (Zug;
“train”), ɡ̊ ræs (Gras; “grass”), mɔs (Moor; “bog, moor”).
The South and Middle Alemannic dialects confront us with the same ques-
tion as the Scandinavian relic dialects with extensive MSL, but no OSL. Do the
conditions in these dialects not speak for the origin of vowel lengthening in
monosyllables? Here we deal with a larger area, but the problem is not as great,
since OSL is present, albeit to a limited degree, and could be a source for
analogy in the monosyllables with later generalization. As we have seen,
a number of dialects have restricted MSL with the same scope as OSL in
most of the dialects of the area, namely before sonorants, but not obstruents.
These dialects could speak for the original analogy of MSL to OSL in all South
and Middle Alemannic dialects lacking complete OSL. Analogy as the source
for the High Alemannic lengthening has previously been proposed by Virgil
Moser (1929: 73–76) in his Early New High German grammar and Viktor
Schirmunski (1962: 184) in his handbook of German dialects.
3.2.2 Complete Open Syllable Lengthening without Monosyllable

Lengthening
Aside from the relic areas discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, OSL is complete in
the rest of Modern Germanic, including all of the standard languages.
Complementary length was present with the completion of OSL and
contemporary changes, but in most areas it has been replaced completely
by the correlation of syllable cut due to lenition, which is to be discussed
in Chapter 4. The areas with completed OSL are divided into two groups,
those without and those with MSL. Both of these types are quite pre-
valent. It is argued that the former group without MSL shows the earlier
stage of development and retains the previous stage of development for
the latter group with MSL by analogy to OSL, however long it may have
lasted.
Although there are no North Germanic dialects of this type, there is a large
area in continental West Germanic and a few smaller areas with complete OSL,
but no corresponding MSL. The result is paradigmatic variation between
disyllabic forms with long vowels and monosyllabic forms with short vowels.
The large area consists of Dutch, Low German, and Frisian dialects. Standard
Dutch belongs to this type. There are also several Upper German dialects that
belong here. Generally stated, these dialects have OSL in disyllables and retain
the state from Old Germanic in monosyllables with final strengthening.
Together, these two changes account for the (former) correlation of comple-
mentary length in these dialects. The state of these numerous dialects presents
important evidence for the priority of OSL over MSL and for the origin of MSL
via analogy to OSL.
3.2.2.1 Dutch, Low German, Frisian

Looking first at Standard Dutch, one finds a modern rule-governed version of
the state of vowel lengthening after OSL without corresponding MSL via
analogy. The development of these conditions goes back to late Old Low
Franconian (Old Dutch) or early Middle Dutch. As we saw above, the change
is generally dated to the twelfth century. In Dutch, the low and mid vowels a, e,
o were lengthened to ā, ē, ō, while the high vowels i, u were lowered in
connection with lengthening to ē, ō, as in English. Yet in eastern Dutch dialects,
the reflexes of the high and mid vowels are still distinct. Compare the following
examples: MDu. vāder (“father”), vāren (“to fare, travel”), hēre (“lord”), lōven
(“to praise”), ēdele (“nobleman”), brēken (“to break”), sōne (“son”), ōpen
(“open”). The old and new (scherplang versus zachtlang) vowels eventually
merged in Standard Dutch (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands), but are still
distinguished in dialects (Van Loon 1986: 86–90; cf. Loey 1964: 30–31;
Goossens 1974: 42–43). Rhymes between old and new long vowels were
already possible in Middle Dutch (Schönfeld and Loey 1959: 32–33).
Without widespread MSL via analogy, there are quite regularly long vowels
in open syllables and short vowels in closed syllables, resulting in paradigm
alternation. The modern orthographic rule, by which short vowels in closed
syllables and long vowels in open syllables are written single, while long
vowels in closed syllables are written double, goes back to Middle Dutch, as
in MDu. dach/dāghe (“day”), smal/smāle (“small”), gram/grāme (“anger”),

lov/lōves (“praise”), hov/den hōve (“court”), smet/smeets (“spot, stain”), wech/
des weechs/wēghe (“way”), god/gōdes (“god”). In Modern Dutch, there are
similar paradigmatic alternations: Du. smid/smēden (“smith”), lot/lōten
(“fate”), dag/dāgen (“day”), dak/dāken (“roof”), spel/spēlen (“game”), weg/
wēgen (“way”), god/gōden (“god”), hol/hōlen (“hole”), schip/schēpen (“ship”),
lid/lēden (“member”), stad/stēden (“city”). In 4th and 5th class strong verbs
there is still alternation in the preterit singular and plural: at/āten (“ate”), nam/
nāmen (“took”), laz/lāzen pret. (“read”). Long vowels in closed syllables are
doubled very regularly, as in Du. staan (“stand”), naam (“name”), daad
(“deed”), raak (“telling”), brood (“bread”), voor (“for, before, in front of”),
buur (“neighbor”). Yet in certain cases, analogy did occur (Leys 1975).
In disyllabic adjective forms the short vowel of the monosyllabic forms is
taken over: Du. slappe (“weak”), smalle (“narrow”), vlakke (“flat”), gladde
(“smooth, polished”), radde (“quick”). The same is true in nominal forms
before voiceless obstruents and sonorants, but not voiced obstruents: Du.
bisschoppen pl. (“bishop”), getallen pl. (“number”).
The presence of OSL without MSL is very widespread in Modern Dutch and
Low German dialects (Sarauw 1921: 82–83; Foerste 1957: 1771–75; Weijnen
1966: 220–21). There are only a few areas that require special mention. On the
Dutch side of the border, i, e in open syllables remain unlengthened in the
northeastern dialects of Groningen (Schuringa 1923: 30–34). In the northern
dialects of Brabants (Weijnen 1987: 17), short vowels occur in a number of
sequences, including before -el, -er, -en, -em. On the Low German side of the
border, only one area needs mentioning, but here the situation is rather more
complicated. In Westfalian dialects, breaking of old short vowels to short
diphthongs, which precluded lengthening, has taken place. William Foerste
divides the area into the northwest with short diphthongs retained, which are
sometimes monophthongized to short vowels, the southeast with the tendency
to lengthen the broken vowels, and the northeast with normal diphthongs.
The Westfalian breaking was also apparently once present in Lippe, the
western Münsterland, and in Twente, on the Dutch side of the border.
In the remainder of Low German, OSL without MSL has taken place.
In northern and eastern Low German, OS i, u have been lowered to e, o in
connection with lengthening, as in Dutch and English. They merge with old e,
o, and old and new ā merge as well. In Eastfalian, old and new long vowels
remain distinct. Compare examples from the northern Low German dialect of
Kreis Bleckede (Rabeler 1911: 181–87) east of Lüneburg in Lower Saxony:
fɔːdn̩ (MLG vaten, Ger. fassen; “sieze”), lɔːd (MLG late, Ger. spät;
“late”), mɔːɡŋ̩ (MLG maken; “make”), khnɔːɡŋ̩ (MLG knoke, Ger. Knochen;
“bone”), ɔːbm̩ (MLG open; “open”), khɔːm̩ (OS kuman, MLG komen; “come”),
fɔːʒl̩ (OS fugal, MLG fogel, Ger. Vogel; “fowl”), ɛːzl̩ (MLG esel, Ger. Esel;
“donkey, ass”), lɛːm̩ (MLG leven, Ger. leben; “live”), lɛːn (OS hlinon, MLG
lenen; “lean”), vɛːdn̩ (OS witan, MLG weten, Ger. wissen; “know”), œːvl̩ (OS
ūbil, MLG ovel, Ger. übel; “evil”). No lengthening has occurred in monosyl-
lables: bat (MLG bat; “bath”), fak (MLG vak, Ger. Fach im Schrank; “com-
partment”), blek (MLG blek, Ger. Blech; “sheet of metal”), vex (MLG wech;
“way”), bit (MLG bit, Ger. Gebiss am Zaum; “bit”), dik (MLG dick, Ger. Dir,
dich; “thee”), ɡot (MLG got, Ger. Got; “God”), rok (OS rok, Ger. Rock;
“skirt”), not (MLG not; “nut”).
Based on the short diphthongs in Westfalian, Agathe Lasch (1914, 1915,
1974: 35–38; see also Priebsch and Collinson 1934: 153–56) made the proposal
that the Middle Low German Tondehnung of short vowels in open syllables was
in fact by way of diphthongization, or as she called it, Zerdehnung. She
hypothesized that the short vowels first became short diphthongs (e > éè),
which are still present today in Westfalian, and that the modern dialects show
a variety of reflexes, following dissimilation and accent shift. While most
dialects would have lengthened and monophthongized the diphthongs, the
long diphthongs in open syllables, still attested in southern Brandenburg,
would have been reflexes of the intermediate stage after lengthening.
The meager evidence of diphthongization presented from Middle Low
German manuscripts by Lasch is hardly convincing and she has received little
support for her view (cf. Frings 1915; Foerste 1957: 1771–72). Nor has
Sarauw’s idea that the Westfalian short diphthongs are derived from long
diphthongs. It hardly seems that diphthongization is the general mechanism
for OSL, even in Low German. The Brandenburg diphthongs must be the result
of secondary diphthongization after lengthening. Generally speaking,
diphthongization is connected with long vowels and short diphthongs are
a rare phenomenon, yet probably also the result of Old English breaking.
Long vowels have the duration that allows modulation during the course of
their articulation, while short vowels do not.
Open syllable lengthening in Frisian is not much discussed. The change is
dated rather late, by continental West Germanic standards. It is assigned to the
fourteenth century in late Old Frisian (Hofmann 1969; Bremmer 2009:
115–16). This means it is attested in the Old West Frisian texts, which are
later than the Old East Frisian texts. Dieter Hofmann points to the doubling of
consonants following short vowels as an orthographic sign that segmental
quantity has been lost through OSL. By all accounts, OSL was less regular in
Old Frisian than in English, Dutch, and Low German. The handbooks (Siebs
1901: 1179ff; Steller 1928: 8–12; Bremmer 2009: 115–16) differ regarding the
scope of the lengthening. Rolf Bremmer, for example, writes that OFris. i,
u were always lengthened, a, o frequently, and e not at all. Several (Van Helten
1890: 43–45; Heuser 1903: 6–8; Sjölin 1969: 19–21, 29–30) do not posit OSL
for Old Frisian, but this may be due to their focus on Old East Frisian.
Lengthening seems to be more regular in Modern Frisian dialects. Examples
from the North Frisian dialect of Wiedingharde (Jensen 1925: 46ff) on the west
coast of Schleswig-Holstein will give some impression of the scope: thraːvə
(LG draven, Ger. traben; “trot”), draːbə (cf. Go. ga-draban, Ger. treffen; “hit,
meet”), væːda (OFris. weder; “weather”), sæːʒl̩ (OE segl; “sail”), phlæːʒə
(OFris. plegia, Ger. pflegen; “take care of”), hɔːbə (OFris. hopia; “hope”),
nɔːz (OFris. nose; “nose”), khnɔːkə (MLG knoke, Ger. Knochen; “bone”), leːvə
(OFris. libba, Ger. leben; “live”), leːvərə (OFris. livria, Ger. liefern; “deliver”),
føːʒl̩ (OFris. fugel, Ger. Vogel; “fowl”), tøːʒl̩ (LG tögel, Ger. Zügel; “rein,
bridle”). In monosyllables, the vowels remain short: dax (OFris. thach, Ger.
doch; “yet”), vas (OFris. was; “was”), hem (OFris. him; “him”), khen (OFris.
kin, Ger. Kinn; “chin”), hof (OFris. hof, Ger. Hof; “courtyard”), khokh (MLG
kok; “cook”), jokh (OS juk; “yoke”), plom (LG plum; “plum”).
3.2.2.2 Isolated Areas in South Upper German

Several South Upper German dialects also belong to this type. South of the
complete OSL boundary, there has also been regular lengthening before lenis
consonants in the South Alemannic dialects of Uri (Clauß 1929: 88–91) and
Mutten (Hotzenköcherle 1934: 206–10, 212–22) in Graubünden and the South
Bavarian dialects of the high valleys in Tirol and the Lesach Valley in Carinthia
(Kranzmayer 1956: 102–04). See examples from Urseren in Uri (Abegg 1913:
34–36). Open syllables: læːb̥ ə (Ger. leben; “live”), siːb̥ ə (sieben; “seven”), læːd̥ ə
(Leder; “leather”), noːɡəl (Nagel; “nail”), suːɡ̊ ə (saugen; “suck”), xæːfə (Käfer;
“beetle”), oufə (Ofen; “oven”), noːsə (Nase; “nose”), b̥ æːsə (Besen; “broom”),
tsæːxə (zehn; “ten”); foːrə (fahren; “haul, drive”), b̥ iːre (Birne; “pear”), tsoːle
(zahlen; “pay”), miːlə (Mühle; “mill”), noːmə (Name; “name”), foːnə (Fahne;
“flag”), ʃiːnə (MHG schine, Ger. Splitter; “splinter”). In these areas, there is final
strengthening with preceding short vowels and long vowels. The (strengthened)
consonants following long vowels are phonologically merely devoiced and not
lengthened as they were following short vowels. Final sonorants could also be
strengthened (lengthened). Monosyllables in Urseren: ɡ̊ rap (Ger. Grab; “grave”),
ʃlak (Schlag; “blow”), tak (Tag; “day”), wæk (Weg; “way”), hof (Hof; “court-
yard”), b̥ ɪs imp. (sei “be”), ʃpɪl (Spiel; “game, play”), tsɪl (Ziel; “aim, goal”), mæl
(Mehl; “flour”), b̥ ær (Bär; “bear”), lam (lahm; “lame”). So despite the High
German Consonant Shift, these southern Upper German dialects have nearly the
same quantity type as Dutch, Low German, and Frisian dialects in the northern part
of West Germanic. The differences that go along with OSL without MSL in these
two areas will be discussed in the upcoming chapters.
3.2.3 Complete Open Syllable Lengthening with Monosyllable

Lengthening
In all the Modern Germanic standard languages, aside from Dutch, and in the
vast majority of modern dialects there has been lengthening in open syllables due
to compensation and in monosyllables via analogy. In some dialects, all the
paradigms have been leveled with long vowels, while in others, analogy is
incomplete or there has been analogy from the short vowel of the monosyllable
to the long vowel of the open syllable, and OSL has been reversed. In some, there
has been a significant amount of consonant lengthening. In the following, we will
look more closely at English, High German, and the Scandinavian languages.
3.2.3.1 English
Vowel lengthening in Middle English has been studied extensively, first during
the 1890s. After a lengthy break, interest has been steady since 1950, with
a second flowering 100 years after the first, during the 1990s. The present
survey of limited scope will thus not turn up anything new about the geography
or the systematic nature of OSL in English. The change is dealt with in some
detail in several handbooks of Middle English and histories of English (Sweet
1888: 167–68; Morsbach 1896: 84–92; Luick 1914–40: 397–408; Wright and
Wright 1928: 40–44; Jordan 1934: 44–46; Berndt 1960: 25–28). The basic facts
are relatively clear after over a century of research on the topic.
The low and mid vowels, OE a, e, o, were lengthened to ME ā, ę̄ , ǭ over the
entire English-speaking territory, while OE i, u were lengthened to ME ē, ō
primarily only in the north, including the Scots, Northern English, and northern
Midlands areas. The lowering of the high vowels in connection with lengthening
is shared, as we saw, with Dutch and Low German. The controversy of the
geographic extent of the lengthening of the high vowels was put to rest through
the work of Karl Luick (1896, 1899a, 1899b, 1903; cf. Morsbach 1897; Sarrazin
1890 and 1898). Outside of the northern area just mentioned, based on the data of
Ellis’ dialect survey, he noted traces of lengthening in a large area in the south
encompassing northeastern Somerset, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire,
Sussex, Essex, Herford, Buckingham, Bedford, Rutland, and perhaps Devon.
Outside of this area, he also noted some examples in Kent, Norfolk, Suffolk, and
in the remaining Midlands. With such a wide distribution of traces of the

lengthening in the dialects, it hardly seems that we are dealing purely with
geographic spread of the change, but rather with a phonetic tendency to length-
ening of all vowels in the environment in question, which breaks through for the
high vowels only sporadically in the south. Similar tendencies may be observed
in regard to other changes in the Germanic languages (cf. Goblirsch 2005: 26).
Some common words with lengthened high vowels, like those in beetle, weevil,
week, door, have made it into the standard language, presumably through the
influence of East Midlands dialects on the development of London English.
Not only the high vowels, but also the mid vowels were lowered in connection
with lengthening. It is a moot point whether the lowering took place during the
lengthening or prior to it, as is often maintained (Sweet 1888: 167; Luick 1914–40:
401 and 405–06; Jordan 1934: 44–46; Vachek 1959: 453; Dobson 1962; Stockwell
1969 and 1985; Stockwell and Minkova 2002; cf. Wright and Wright 1928: 43).
Liberman (1992: 81–82) speculates that the threatened merger of the high vowels
with mid vowels upon lengthening may have been the reason for their general lack
of lengthening or even a reversal of their lengthening. It was hardly their nature as
high vowels or their relatively short duration (geringe/minimale Eigendauer), as
has been maintained (Ten Brink 1876: 212–13; Morsbach 1896: 84–85; Horn and
Lehnert 1954: 660; Berndt 1960: 25–28), which prevented them from lengthening.
It is enough to look at the other Germanic languages to see that this is false, even if
some dialects tend not to lengthen them as well. Originally the lengthened mid
vowels remained distinct from their old long counterparts. Yet beginning in late
Middle English, the old and new ę̄ , ǭ merged in the South Midlands and South,
while they remain distinct in the northern dialects, such as those of Scots,
Lancashire, and Yorkshire (Luick 1914–40: 401; Orton 1952). While old and
new long a merged in northern English, they remained distinct in the Midlands and
the South, since OE ā had become ǭ .
Lengthening before sequences with the sonorants l, r, m, n is irregular in
English, as in the other languages. They have come into the standard
language with short vowels in words like: ME hamer (“hammer”, fader
(“father”), sadel (“saddle”), water (“water”), seven (“seven”), as opposed to
words like ME crādel (“cradle”), hāsel (“hazel”). Since in most of the other
languages, m in hammer, summer was lengthened at the time of OSL, it
probably was in English as well. Henry Sweet’s (1888: 168; cf. Luick
1914–40: 405–06) term for examples like this was “back shortening,”
which implies that there was lengthening in all words with the environment
for OSL with subsequent shortening in words of this type, i.e., that there
was a sound law. Yet in light of the comparative evidence and the
fluctuation and doublets attested, it seems best to merely reconstruct varia-

tion even in the earliest times. The question of re-shortening versus
retained shortness will come up in other languages as well.
Re-shortening must be assumed, however, in cases where there was origin-
ally paradigm alternation between short vowels in monosyllables and long
vowels in disyllables. The workings of analogy were already well understood
by Luick (1903: 113), but have still been an object of interest to the present day
(cf. Dresher and Lahiri 1999; Dresher 2000). Analogy could work in either
direction, so the scope of lengthening is much smaller than in German, for
example. We end up with short vowels in words like ME sun/sōnes (pl.; “son”),
cum/cōmes (þou; “come”), live/lēves (þou; “live”), but long vowels in ME dōre
“door”), spēre “spear”), stēre “young bull, rudder”). Aside from the geographic
limitations on the lengthening of high vowels, analogy is one reason there is
less lengthening in English than in other languages.
3.2.3.2 High German

In High German, lengthening was more regular than in English. Despite variation
before sonorants, there was analogy only in the direction of long vowels in
monosyllables based on word-forms with so-called open syllables. This causes
an obvious difference between northern versus central and southern pronunciation
of Standard German (cf. Section 3.2.2.1). Also, in High German areas with
complete OSL, vowels were lengthened for the most part regardless of vowel
height. The difficulty with German, as discussed in Section 3.1.2, is that lengthen-
ing is not complete before all simple consonants. The notable exceptions are present
not only before following -er, -el, -em, -en, but also before t, m. Oftentimes, these
two environments coincide, in which case lengthening is generally absent before m,
but may be present before t: Ger. Hammer (“hammer”), Himmel (“sky, heaven”),
Semmel (“flour roll”), Nummer (“number”), Sommer (“summer”), kommen
(“come”); Vetter (“male cousin”), Wetter (“weather”), Butter (“butter”), Sattel
(“saddle”), Schatten (“shade, shadow”), geritten pret. part. (“ridden”), geschnitten
pret. part. (“cut”) Dotter (“yolk”), versus Name (“name”), Vater (“father”), Kater
(“tomcat”), Knoten (“knot”), Spaten (“spade”), treten (“tread”), waten (“wade”),
beten (“pray”), kneten (“knead”), jäten (“to weed”). Long and short pronunciations
of the accented vowel in Titel (“title”), Artikel (“article”) are listed in Duden, with
the long vowel variant listed first. If there is no lengthening, t and m were gemi-
nated, although this is not apparent in Modern Standard German after the simpli-
fication of geminates. These words are attested with retained geminates in southern
Upper German. The short vowels have been ascribed to analogy with the corre-
sponding monosyllables, but there is no reason analogy should be more prevalent
with just these two consonants. When other consonants immediately following the
accented vowel, there is variation: doppelt (“double”), Koppel (“leash”), Krüppel
(“cripple”), Donner (“thunder”), Söller (“house addition supported by posts”)
versus Makel (“spot, stain”), Artikel (“article”). The lack of lengthening in words
of this type is often attributed to syncope of the unaccented vowel with cluster
formation. Be that as it may, it seems better to view these cases as original variation,
rather than attributing the short vowels to secondary re-shortening, which would
only serve to retain the status as a sound law for OSL.
Almost 100 years before Russ’ article, Paul (1884: 114–15), noted that there was
always lengthening if the consonant immediately following the accented vowel
was lenis: Leber (“liver”), Faden (“thread”), Magen (“stomach”); Ofen (“oven”),
Esel (“donkey”). When t and m are not followed by a sonorant, there is variation:
bitte (MHG bite; “please”), Gatte (MHG gate; “husband”), Kette (MHG keten(e);
“chain”), Sitte (MHG site; “custome”) versus Bote (“messenger”), Zote (“obscen-
ity, dirty joke”), Kröte (“toad”); Name (“name”), nehmen (“take”), schämen (“feel
ashamed of”), ziemen (“be proper”), Schemel (“stool”). In monosyllables with t, m,
there is no lengthening in words like the following: Blatt (MHG blat; “leaf”),
Schnitt (MHG snit; “cut, incision”), Tritt (MHG trit; “step, kick”). Russ (1969:
85–88) considers the absence of lengthening before t, m to be the rule and
lengthening to be the exception, so by his thinking t and m should be fortis
consonants (cf. d’Alquen 1979). He attributes the exceptions to analogy, spelling
variants, and dialect mixture, although, he admits, some words do not fit any of
these categories. The special status of t and m derives, for Russ, from the view that
consonant length is irrelevant in Middle High German, except for t/tt, m/mm
following short vowels. On the other hand, he considers strength irrelevant for r,
l, m, n. The overarching explanation is that consonant strength is primary, while
consonant length is secondary. Yet, given what we know about consonant strength
(cf. Section 1.2), it does not seem possible to tease out a distinction between
consonant strength and length in postvocalic consonants in Standard German.
Lengthening has taken place quite regularly in most Middle and Upper German
dialects. Looking first at Upper German dialects, we find that Swabian dialects
have regular lengthening, except before t, m in open syllables. Here are examples
from the dialect of the northern Black Forest (Baur 1967: 35–36, 55): ʃnaːb̥ l (Ger.
Schnabel; “beak, bill”), hoːb̥ lə (hobeln; “to plane”), faːd̥ ə (Faden; “thread”), b̥ oːd̥ ə
(Boden; “ground, soil”), waːɡ̊ ə (Wagen; “wagon, car”), fliːɡ̊ l (Flügel; “wing”);
haːfə (Hafen; “harbor”), oːfə (Ofen; “oven”), haːsə (Hase; “hare”), hoːsə (Hose;
“pants”); d̥ siːlə (zielen; “take aim”), ɡ̊ ʃd̥ oːlə pret. part (gestohlen; ‘stolen”), faːrə
(fahren; “haul, drive”), faːnə (Fahne; “flag”), hoːnex (Honig; “honey”), but fad̥ er
(Vater; “father”), b̥ od̥ (Bote; “messenger”), b̥ ɛd̥ ə (beten; “pray”), naːmə/name
(Name; “name”), ʃeml (Schimmel; “white horse”), homər (Hammer; “hammer”);

and in monosyllables, except before t: lob̥ (Lob; “praise”), raːd̥ (Rad; “wheel”), haːɡ̊
(Hag; “hedge”), ɡ̊ laːs (Glas); ʃb̥ iːl (Spiel; “game, play”), weːr (Wehr; “defense”),
d̥ saːm (zahm; “tame”), soː (Sohn; “son”), but b̥ lad̥ (Blatt; “leaf”).
Certain Low Alemannic dialects show irregular lengthening before both
sonorants and obstruents. From this area, the dialect of Rheinbischofsheim
(Weik 1913: 15, 34–36) has been described. Compare examples from
Rheinbischofsheim: d̥ saːlə (zahlen; “pay”), weːlə (wählen; “choose, select”),
hoːlə (holen; “fetch, get”), ʃpaːrə (sparen; “save ‘, b̥ eːr (Beere; “berry”), weːrə
(wehren; “restrain”), faːrə (fahren; “haul, drive”), raːmə (Rahmen), but kheni
(König; “king”), honi (Honig; “honey”), namə (Name; “name”), himəl (Himmel;
“sky”), somər (Sommer; “summer”), aβər (aber; “but, however”), ʃd̥ oβə (Stube;
“room”), ɡ̊ aβəl (Gabel; “fork”). In Rheinbischofsheim and in Barr in Alsace
(Keller 1961: 131) there is complementary length in monosyllables, regardless of
the etymological value of the length of both vowel and consonant.
Yet there are some exceptional areas in Upper German, especially those dis-
cussed in Section 3.2.1.2. Despite the lack of complete lengthening in open
syllables in most of South and Middle Alemannic, it did occur in the northeast
and northwest. The areas in the northeast include the southern Middle Alemannic
dialects of Vorarlberg and Liechtenstein, parts of eastern Switzerland, in Maienfeld
(Meinherz 1920: 86ff, see below for a list). In the northwest, the following dialects
have complete OSL: South Alemannic Todtmoos-Schwarzenbach (Kaiser 1910:
27–31) and Markgräflerland (Beck 1926: 187–88) in southernmost Baden and
Baselstadt (Heusler 1888: 24) and Baselland (Schläpfer 1956: 23–24) in
Switzerland. In the area around Biel in Berner Seeland (Baumgartner 1922:
76–77), lengthening has reportedly been reversed.
Let us now turn to Middle German. East Middle German dialects, which were
the basis of Luther’s language, are quite similar to the Standard language. West
Middle German dialects are a bit more varied. Rhine Franconian dialects are
similar to East Middle German dialects, but there are more short vowels retained
before -er, -el, -en, -em. A representative dialect is that of Zell in the Odenwald in
Hessen (Freiling 1929), where lengthening before t is more regular than in
Standard German: lɛːβə (Ger. leben; “live”), βɛːβə (weben; “weave”), b̥ ɔːrə
(baden; “bathe”), ɡ̊ rɔːd (gerade; “straight, even”), b̥ ɛːrə (beten; “pray”), ʃliːrə
(MHG slite, Ger. Schlitten; “sled”), mɔːxə (Magen; “stomach”), ʃleːx pl. (Schlag
“blow, strike”), ɔuβə (Ofen; “oven”), lɛːsə (lesen; “read”), ʃiːnə (Schiene; “rail,
track”), woːnə (wohnen; “live, reside”), ʃb̥ iːlə (spielen; “play”), hɔulə (holen;
“fetch, get”), mɔːlə (malen; “to paint”), b̥ ɛiə (Beere; “berry”), noːmə (Name;
“name”), roːmə (Rahmen; “frame”), but b̥ od̥ (Bote; “messenger”); lɔub̥ (Lob;
“praise”), b̥ lɔːd̥ (MHG blat, Ger. Blatt; “leaf”), b̥ rɛːd̥ (MHG bret, Ger. Brett;
“board, plank”), d̥ ɔːx (Tag; “day”), wɛːx (Weg; “way”), hɔuf (Hof; “courtyard”),
ɡ̊ rɔːs (Gras; “grass”), viːl (viel; “much, many”), mɛːl (Mehl; “meal”), b̥ ɔːər (bar;
“bare”), loːm (lahm; “lame”), ʃoːm (Scham; “shame”), but ɡ̊ rob̥ (grob; “course,
rough”). Some short vowels are retained before endings with sonorants, espe-
cially -el, -er: ɡaβəl (Gabel; “fork”), ʃd̥ iβəl (Stiefel; “boot”), iβər (über; “over”),
fad̥ er (Vater; “father”), lɛrər (Leder; “leather”), oβə (oben; “above”), hamər
(Hammer; “hammer”), sumər (Sommer; “summer”). Rhotacism of old t is
a later change. Other Rhine Franconian dialects are similar, but a few descrip-
tions, like those of Mainz (Valentin 1934: 24, 32) and Saarbrücken (Kuntze 1932:
45), mention exceptions of the high vowels, especially u.
Short vowels in so-called open syllables are more widespread in Mosel
Franconian dialects. Many dialect descriptions mention exceptions of high
vowels, like those of Arel in Belgium (Bertrang 1921: 54ff), Saargau (Müller-
Wehingen 1930: 7–18), Saarhölzbach (Thies 1912: 38–44), and Ottweiler
(Scholl 1913: 23–36). For Sörth in Westerwald (Hommer 1915: 5–14), excep-
tions are reported for all vowels. Compare examples from the dialect of
Saarlouis (Lehnert 1926: 77), where most vowels are still short before endings
with sonorants: avæ (aber; “but, however”), huvəl (Hobel; “plane (tool)”), ivəl
(übel; “evil”), bød̥ əm (Boden; “ground, soil”), fad̥ æ (Faden; “thread”), hivəl
(Hügel; “hill”), ʃd̥ ivəl (Stiefel; “boot”), ʃβeəvəl (Schwefel; “sulfur”), mil
(Mühle; “mill”), hynix (Honig; “honey”), khinik (König; “king”). Old long
vowels are sometimes shortened in this dialect.
Ripuarian dialects show less vowel lengthening than Mosel Franconian dia-
lects, but it is not completely absent in any of them. Münch (1904: 30–35) denied
OSL for any Ripuarian dialect, but went on to give examples of lengthening
before fricatives and sonorants. In some dialects OSL is the rule, as in Aachen
(Welter 1938: 1–8), Schelsen (Greferath 1922: 6–13), and Eupen in Belgium
(Welter 1929: 22–23). In Malmedy and Vith (Hecker 1972: 71ff), on the other
hand, OSL is very limited. Compare, as one example, the following forms from
Schlebusch, now part of the city of Leverkusen, in Bergisches Land (Bubner
1935: 43), where there is some OSL of the mid and low vowels, but none of the
high vowels: æːvəns (eben; “even”), bəwæːjə (bewegen; “move”), kraːɣə
(Kragen; “collar”), waːɣə (Wagen; “wagon, car”), bɔːɣə (Bogen; “bow”),
jəlɔːɣə pret. part. (lügen “lie”), haːs (Hase; “hare”), hæːn (Hähne; “roosters”),
but zebə (sieben; “seven”), ʃtevəl (Stiefel; “boot”), øvə (über; “over”),
jevəl (Giebel; “gable”), jədrevə pret. part. (“drive, chase”), knɔdə
(Knoten; “knot”), flatə (Fladen; “flat cake”), ʃlofə (MLG slupen, Ger.
Pantoffel; “slipper”), spelə (spielen; “to play”), ʃtɛlə (stehlen; “steal”), hole
(holen; “fetch, get”), ʃɛlə (schälen; “to peel”), ʃamə (schämen; “feel ashamed
of”), nɛmə (nehmen; “take”), numə (Nummer; “number”).
The important question is whether the lack of lengthening in certain West
Middle German dialects is original or OSL has been reversed. These areas have
been documented in the handbooks and surveys (Schirmunski 1966: 181–87;
Wiesinger 1983a: 1092), but they point to a general lack of lengthening, which,
as we have seen, is not the case. The short vowels in these dialects cannot be
attributed to half-long vowels as the products of lengthening, which Victor
Michels (1921: 77–85) posited following Ten Brink (cf. Section 1.1).
In Ripuarian, the lack of OSL has been attributed to the Rhenish accentuation
by Schirmunski, but as we know from Swedish and Norwegian, tonal accents are
not antithetical to vowel lengthening in open syllables and OSL is not completely
lacking, by any means. The short vowels in open syllables in western Middle
German dialects are likely re-shortened, rather than unlengthened vowels, prob-
ably owing to the same type of analogy present in some words in English, i.e., to
short vowels in monosyllables. It seems highly unlikely that pockets in West
Middle German would be relic areas like those in southern Upper German or
northern and eastern Scandinavian, which are generally more archaic regions and
do not lie in the middle of Germanic territory.
3.2.3.3 Scandinavian
Open syllable lengthening is present in most of Scandinavian, aside from the
Swedish and Norwegian relic areas discussed in Section 3.2.1.1. Lengthening by
analogy in monosyllables was the rule, but is not consistent, especially in Danish,
where it is not widespread today. As mentioned earlier, MSL is often viewed as pre-
dating OSL in Scandinavian. The reasons for doubting this chronology were
presented above. The Scandinavian languages are outstanding for consonant
lengthening, which was a widespread alternative to vowel lengthening.
The geographic distribution of vowel and consonant lengthening, in what has
been called the “Great Quantity Shift” by Einar Haugen, is well documented in
handbooks of Scandinavian (Torp and Falk 1898: 17–25; Noreen 1903, 2: 118–19;
Noreen 1913: 141; Brøndum-Nielsen 1950: 379–81; Hansen 1962–71, 1: 388–89;
Wessén 1966: 24 and 1968: 90–93; Haugen 1976: 258–60; Pamp 1978: 28–29; see
also Hesselman 1901 and 1904). The following are the general contours of the
distribution: in Icelandic, Faroese, and Danish there was only vowel lengthening
and no consonant lengthening except for m in Danish. In Swedish and Norwegian,
vowel lengthening predominates in Göta Swedish and in West Norwegian, as in
West Germanic, while there is a tendency to consonant lengthening in Svea and
Norrland Swedish and in East and North Norwegian. Haugen saw a connection
between Danish or continental influence and the greater tendency to vowel length-
ening. Parts of South Swedish have been making a transition from the vowel
lengthening type to the consonant lengthening type. The main difference, however,
is between Danish, excluding Bornholm Danish, on the one hand, and the remain-
ing languages, on the other. While the majority of dialects have either long vowels
or long consonants in all accented syllables, Danish exhibits short monosyllables in
the present day.
Consonant lengthening in Scandinavian is much more widespread than in
German, the only other language where it occurred at the time of OSL. Aside
from m, which was also lengthened in parts of West Germanic, it was not only
Gmc. t, but the whole series of voiceless stops, which could lengthen. Gmc. p, t,
k are more common in Scandinavian than German, since there was no affrication
and spirantization via the Second Consonant Shift. Examples from Standard
Swedish, compared to Norwegian and Icelandic, will show the differing scope of
consonant lengthening: Sw. öppen (Nw. åpen, Ic. opinn; “open”), hoppas (Nw.
håpe, ON hopas; “to hope”), måtta (OSw. māt(t)a, Ic. máti, Da. maade; “must,
have to”), mycken (Nw. mye/megen, Ic. mikill; “much, large”), vecka (Nw. veka/
uke, Ic. vika; “week”); hammare (Nw. hammar, Ic. hamarr; “hammer”), himmel
(Nw. himmel, Ic. himinn; “heaven”), gammal (Nw. gammal, Ic. gamall; “old”).
Even from this limited set of data, it already becomes clear that Standard
Norwegian, based mostly on East Norwegian dialects, lies somewhere between
Swedish, based mostly on Svea dialects, and Icelandic.
In general, lengthening is more common before the voiced consonants, includ-
ing obstruents, like those in Sw. leva (OSw. liva/leva, OIc. lifa; “live”), häva
(OSw. hæfia; “heave”), bada (“bathe”), bade (“both”), mage (“stomach”), båge
(“bow”), than before voiceless obstruents in words of the type Sw. skapa (“to
shape, create”), dräpa (OSw. dræpa; “kill”), hata (“to hate”), prata (“talk”), äta
(OSw. æta; “eat”), baka (“bake”), kaka (“cake”). Lengthening before sonorants
except m is the rule: Sw. håla (“cave”), mala (“grind”). From all these examples,
it also becomes clear that the low vowels, ON a, æ, tended to lengthen more often
than the mid and high vowels, ON i, y, u, o, even in areas with a tendency to
consonant lengthening. By contrast, dialects of the vowel lengthening type have
long vowels where the other type lengthens the consonant, except when the
consonant is m. Compare examples from Västergötland (Götlind 1940–50, 3:
62): øːpən (öppen; “open”), drøːpə (droppe; “drop of liquid”), seːta (sätta; “place,
put”), heːta (hetta; “heat”), veːka (vecka; “week”), nøːkəl (nyckel; “key”), møːsə
(mosse; “peat-moss”), bøːra (borra; “bore, drill”), køːt (kött; “meat, flesh”), fløːt
(flott; “stylish”), beːk (beck; “pitch (liquid)”), but ʃepː (skepp; “ship”), ɡamməl
(gammal; “old”), kramma (krama; “hug”).
The presence of short monosyllables in Danish west of Øresund, which

separates Jutland, Fyn, Sjælland, and the smaller islands from Skåne and
Bornholm, has been the subject of controversy. The question is whether the
vowels were originally lengthened, as in the other Scandinavian languages and
re-shortened, or whether they were never lengthened at all. The idea of re-
shortening goes back to P. K. Thorsen’s (1894: 32–33; see also Jacobsen 1910:
42–43; Noreen 1913: 141; Kusmenko 1995: 92–98) description of the dialect of
Sejerø off the northwest coast of Zealand. Boberg (1896; see also Skautrup 1944:
235–36; Brøndum-Nielsen 1950, 1: 379–81), on the other hand, proposed that
there was only very limited MSL by analogy to disyllables. Lengthening in
monosyllables was definitely present in Old Danish and marked in the manu-
scripts beginning about 1300 in the Flensburg Law – this was known already to
Kristen Lyngby (1861: 315). Extensive studies by Aage Hansen (1962–71, 1:
333–36, cf. 388–89) presented in his history of Danish phonology have shown
that MSL, in contrast to OSL, marked in the oldest manuscripts by vowel
doubling as in ODa. maat (Da. mad; “food”), øøl (øl; “beer”) or by accent
marks, was not as rare as Boberg thought. Hansen posited that all of Danish
was like Skånsk with consistent MSL and later reversal in Central and West
Danish, which may be correct. Yet he also subscribed to the notion of other
Scandinavian linguists that lengthening took place first in monosyllables.
Examples from Standard Danish will show that OSL is quite regular, except
before m, while most vowels in monosyllables are short: leːvə (Da. leve; “live”),
phiːvə (pibe; “pipe”), b̥ aːðə (bade; “bathe”), khaːɣə (kage; “cake”), uːɣə/uːə (uge;
“week”), hæːvə (have; “have”), læːsə (læse; “read”), maːlə (male; “to paint”),
ɡ̊ øːʀə (gøre; “do, perform”), b̥ aːnə (bane; “course”), hamər (hammer; “ham-
mer”), hɪmel (himmel; “sky, heaven”), ɡaməl (gammel; “old”) versus thɔb̥ (top;
“summit, peak”), ɔb̥ (op; “up”), nad̥ (nat; “night”), læd̥ (let; “light, easy”), thaɡ̊
(tak; “thanks”), ʀøɡ̊ (ryg; “back, ridge”); b̥ loð̥ (blod; “blood”), ɡ̊ uð̥ (gud; “god”),
mað̥ (mad; “food”), slaɣ̊ (slag; “blow”), d̥ ɔɣ̊ (dog; “though”); thɔʔɣ̊ /thoʔw (tog;
“train”), maj (mig; “me”), vajʔ (vej; “way, road”), sɡ̊ ɔu (skov; “forest”), lɔu (lov;
“praise, permission, law”), lɔjʔ (løg; “onion”), ʀɔjʔ (røg; “smoke”); hav̥ (hav;
“sea, ocean”), ves (vis; “wise”). Sometimes the final consonant has been voca-
lized to form a diphthong, but that does not concern us here. One must presume
that m was geminated as it was in Swedish, Norwegian, German, and probably
English, before lenition re-shortened it.
The question we are left with is why vowels were extensively re-shortened in
monosyllables. It seems that MSL by analogy was once fairly common in Danish,
at least to the degree reflected in the manuscripts. Words without MSL would have
retained final long consonants (see Section 2.3.2). I think that the cause of the
modern short monosyllables is to be sought in the Danish lenition (discussed in

Chapter 4), which reintroduced, on a large scale, the syllable type VC, via short-
ening of long consonants. With lenition of final long consonants, the over-short
monosyllable must once again have seemed normal to speakers of Danish.
Danish dialects east of the sound have MSL like the rest of Scandinavian. They
do not have the Danish lenition of long consonants, which would have reintro-
duced the short-syllable type. The following examples are from Södra Luggude in
northwestern Skåne in present day Sweden (Olséni 1887): ʀeːv (rep; “rope”),
ɡʀɑːv (grav; “grave”), fɑːd (fat; “saucer”), tɑːɡ (tak; “thanks”), kʀ̥ uːɡ (krok;
“hook”), dɑː (dag; “day”), sɡ̊ øːv (skog; “forest”), dyːr (djur; “animal”).
The West and Central Danish dialects may have been at a similar state before
the Danish lenition. As mentioned, the South Swedish dialects of southern Skåne
have been making a transition from the predominantly vowel lengthening type to
the predominantly consonant lengthening type (Liberman 1982: 205; Kusmenko
1995: 92–98). The change must be ascribed to the influence of Standard Swedish.
Dialect descriptions of the area include those by Ingers (1939: 99–100) and
Areskoug (1957: 191ff). Experiments by Åke Hansson (1969: 25–40) showed
variation of vowel length and consonant strength in individual pronunciations of
one and the same word and that at the time of his work, VC syllables of the Danish
type remained in southeastern Skåne. Yet there was no lenition of the Central and
West Danish type in these dialects (see Section 5.2.1), so one must presume that
there was an influence of Central Danish on South Swedish in these forms.
After our survey of OSL and MSL in the Germanic languages, it becomes
clear that the immediate result of vowel lengthening and the simultaneous
restricted consonant lengthening is the establishment of complementary length
of vowel and consonant in accented syllables, namely /VːC/ versus /VCː/. This
means that all accented syllables have the same phonological length (iso-
chrony), namely long. This constitutes a paradigm shift in the history of
Germanic quantity: no longer is the length of individual segments distinctive;
the burden now rests on the syllable structure. The correlation of syllable cut
was also established by vowel lengthening. The shifting of phonological
responsibility to the correlation of syllable cut leaves the door open to lenition,
the subject of Chapter 4. After lenition, syllable cut will be the only quantity
distinction that remains. Those words which did not lengthen vowels according
to the tendency of OSL fit into the new system by aligning themselves with the
words that had short vowels and long consonants in strong cut (close contact).
Therefore, they are not exceptional with the establishment of the new regime.
The present chapter has dealt primarily with open syllable lengthening,
which was responsible for establishing complementary length and the
correlation of syllable cut throughout most of the Germanic languages during

the middle period. The chapter began by establishing the environment and the
cause of OSL and its relationship to monosyllable lengthening. It is argued that
lengthening did not take place in open syllables, but before short (non-
geminated) consonants. Following Kuryłowicz and Liberman, it was posited
that vowel lengthening took place in closed syllables, because Germanic did
not have short accented syllables, since they could not be pronounced as words
in their own right. Some of the groundwork for this argument was laid in
Chapter 2. It is not a new idea that the shortness of the following consonants
was part of the environment for OSL, but it is argued here that this is the
primary factor in the environment; in fact, it is the only one that matters. MSL,
on the other hand, did not take place before short consonants, but those that had
been long following short vowels in Old Germanic. Analogy not only length-
ened the accented vowel, but shortened the following consonant, establishing
coherence in the paradigms of some of the languages, but not others.
The larger part of the chapter is a geographic survey of the occurrence of
OSL and MSL in Modern Germanic dialects. The following types have been
established: dialects with and without complete OSL, with two subtypes of
each category of dialects, namely, with and without MSL. It is argued that, next
to the most archaic dialects without complete OSL in isolated Scandinavian
dialects and in Upper German dialects, the next stage in development is
represented by a large area in the central part of the Germanic world, including
Low German, Dutch, and Frisian with complete OSL, but no MSL. These
languages allow paradigmatic variation between long and short vowels. Next
there are languages like Danish and English, with more or less MSL, owing to
analogy with disyllables. Finally, there are the most advanced languages, like
the majority of High German, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese
dialects, that have complete OSL and MSL.

Goblirsch, Kurt - Gemination, Lenition, and Vowel Lengthening - Arriving at The Goal - Vowel Lengthening PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Goblirsch, Kurt - Gemination, Lenition, and Vowel Lengthening - Arriving at The Goal - Vowel Lengthening PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Arriving at the Goal: Vowel

Lengthening in Middle Germanic

3.1 The Cause and Environment of Lengthening

3.1.1 Open Syllable, Monosyllable

conditions. More favorable conditions, which promoted earlier lengthening,

3.1.2 The Role of Consonants

of the consonant, he thought that the voicing of the following consonant

shortened compensatorily. In monosyllables, where lengthening occurred via

3.1.3 Compensatory Lengthening

Hesselman (1948–53, 1: 51–53) and Liberman (1992: 72–74), I posit a period

3.2 Geographic Distribution of Vowel Lengthening

period. It established the correlation of complementary length, which super-

3.2.1 Incomplete Open Syllable Lengthening

3.2.1.1 Isolated Areas in Swedish-Norwegian

lengthening of consonants in over-short sequences: ɡappo (gapa; “gape”),

Figure 3.1 Incomplete Open Syllable Lengthening in Scandinavian (Base

3.2.1.2 South Alemannic and Isolated Areas in Upper German

Figure 3.3 Open Syllable Lengthening in Alemannic (Base Map After

“pea”), ɡlufə (Stecknadel; “pin”), wɛsəm (schwammig; “spongy”), xisəl

3.2.2 Complete Open Syllable Lengthening without Monosyllable

3.2.2.1 Dutch, Low German, Frisian

in MDu. dach/dāghe (“day”), smal/smāle (“small”), gram/grāme (“anger”),

3.2.2.2 Isolated Areas in South Upper German

3.2.3 Complete Open Syllable Lengthening with Monosyllable

in the remaining Midlands. With such a wide distribution of traces of the

ﬂuctuation and doublets attested, it seems best to merely reconstruct varia-

3.2.3.2 High German

(Name; “name”), ʃeml (Schimmel; “white horse”), homər (Hammer; “hammer”);

The presence of short monosyllables in Danish west of Øresund, which

modern short monosyllables is to be sought in the Danish lenition (discussed in

correlation of syllable cut throughout most of the Germanic languages during

You might also like