# Germanic -g- to -ow in English ?



## ThomasK

I happened to notice that lots of English words *ending in -ow* in have a counterpart in Dutch (and German) *ending in -g - and v.v. *: _bow/ boog, morrow/ morgen, bellows/ balg, gallow/ galg_, follow/ volgen,  etc. The -g- seems to be the original form.  

Can someone describe that process and explain it? Is a development from a plosive to a ... (soft half-consonant???)? Would you know of similar developments in other languages?


----------



## Nino83

ThomasK said:


> Would you know of similar developments in other languages?


In Catalan:
_-v- > -u_ => _navem, brevem, novum > nau, breu, nou
-d- > -u_ => _pedem, credit, credere > peu, creu, creure_


----------



## ThomasK

OK, thanks: that is a fricative and indeed a plosive disappearing in the middle, which I thought was an enclisis, like in Dutch _neder> neer_, but not sure. But the main question for me is the ending: here the m, the t, seem gone. Do you call that softening? I think there must be another term...


----------



## Nino83

ThomasK said:


> here the m, the t, seem gone.


The loss of final _-t_ and _-m_ happened before the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire (476 A.D.), so the forms were _nave, breve, novo, pede, crede, credere_.
The intervocalic _-d-_ is mantained in Italy but was lost in the Western Romance languages (FR _croir,_ ES_ creer,_ PT_ crer,_ OC_ creire_).
In Catalan it was, yes, softened to _-u-_. Other examples are _sedere > seure, videre > veure_ (Old Spanish _seer, ver_, Occitan _sèire, veire_). 
I don't know other terms. This change doesn't seem to be so common.


----------



## ThomasK

Nino83 said:


> The loss of final _-t_ and _-m_ happened before the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire (476 A.D.), so the forms were _nave, breve, novo, pede, crede, credere_.
> The intervocalic _-d-_ is mantained in Italy but was lost in the Western Romance languages (FR _croir,_ ES_ creer,_ PT_ crer,_ OC_ creire_).
> In Catalan it was, yes, softened to _-u-_. Other examples are _sedere > seure, videre > veure_ (Old Spanish _seer, ver_, Occitan _sèire, veire_).
> I don't know other terms. This change doesn't seem to be so common.


This is interesting and I believe it is called 'elision', or it is at least one form of it.

However, my key question concerns the last letter (_g_ turning to _-w_). Like perhaps the _-m_ turning into _-(e)u..._ (Although m is a liquida if I am not mistaken, g might be a plosive - and those sounds are different...)


----------



## Sardokan1.0

ThomasK said:


> This is interesting and I believe it is called 'elision', or it is at least one form of it.
> 
> However, my key question concerns the last letter (_g_ turning to _-w_). Like perhaps the _-m_ turning into _-(e)u..._ (Although m is a liquida if I am not mistaken, g might be a plosive - and those sounds are different...)



the disappearance of many intervocalics happened also in the evolution of Sardinian, more often with intervocalic *B*, sometimes also with *G *or *V *or *D, *apparently there is not a clear rule about this, because in many other verbs / words those intervocalics are not omitted.

ta*b*ula -> taula (table)
ne*b*ula -> néula (fog)
fa*b*ula -> fáula (lie)
fa*b*ae -> fáe (fava bean)
ru*b*us -> rúu (blackberry bush)

te*g*ula -> téula (shingle)
fu*g*ire -> fuíre (to escape)

na*v*em -> nae (ship, wooden girder)
no*v*us -> nou (in Logudorese, Campidanese) novu (in Nuorese)
ni*v*em -> nie (snow)
ri*v*us -> riu (river)

se*d*ere -> séere, sétzere (to sit)
cre*d*ere -> créere (to believe)
bro*d*ium -> brou (broth)
pe*d*em -> pé (foot)


----------



## Messquito

What I read on _The Germanic Languages_ edited by Ekkehard Konig & Johan van der Auwera:
Ans van Kemenade:


> In the course of the Middle English period a new series of diphthongs developed. The first set resulted from the vocalization after a vowel of the Old English voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ (spelled <g>). After a front vowel, /ɣ/ first developed to the palatal approximant [j] and subsequently became the second part of a front diphthong, thus: OEng. dæg > MEng. dai 'day'; OEng. weg > MEng. wei 'way'; OEng. segl > MEng. sail 'sail'; OEng. ege > MEng. eile 'eye'. After back vowels, /ɣ/ changed first to [w], then to the second part of a back diphthong: OEng. lagu > MEng. lawe 'law'; OEng. agan > MEng. owen 'own'; OEng. boga > MEng. bowe 'bow'
> ......
> Similarly when following a liquid: OEng. folgian > MEng.folşen laterfolwen; OEng. morgen > MEng. morsen later morwe 'morrow'.


To sum up ([g] following liquid):
[g] voiced velar stop
↓ after a liquid, the touch of the tongue and the velar weakens, producing a fricative, rather than the firm stop
[ɣ] voiced velar fricative ([ɣ] is like a [w] without the involvement of the lips)
↓ the lips is involved in producing the sound
[w] voiced labio-velar approximant
↓ a rounded vowel appears between to make production smoother
[ow] ([lw]>[low], [rw]>[row])
↓ [w] weakens as the second part of the diphthong
[oʊ]


----------



## Messquito

In Chinese and other languages with Chinese influences, the pair [g] and [w] also exists; take 我(I) for example:
*Chinese: [wo]
Japanese: [ga]
Hokkien: [ɣoa]*
Korean: [a] [na]
Vietnamese: [ŋa]
It is hypothesized that in old Chinese there were [ŋɑ], which developed into different results in different languages.

Other examples:
玩
*Chinese: [wan]
Japanese: [gan]
Hokkien: [ɣoan]
Korean: [wan]*
瓦
*Chinese: [wa]
Japanese: [ga/e]
Hokkien: [ɣoan]
Korean: [wa]
*
As I observe, similar to your case, this happens with back vowels [a] and [o], but not front vowel [e].


----------



## ahvalj

It is plausible that Late Common Germanic only had voiced spirants (*_ƀ, *đ, *ǥ, *ǥʷ_) after vowels (their long counterparts were probably stops though — *_b:, *d:, *g:, *gʷ:_). In particular, Old High German is the only language that at the end of the 1st millennium had the intervocalic _-g-_ (as a lenis stop): all the other languages had _ǥ.
_
P. S. The Dutch pronunciation of _g_ as a spirant in all positions may reflect the original situation. For example, the older Germanic rendering of the word _graecus_ as e. g. Gothic _kreks_ (kreks - Wiktionary) suggests that the language still lacked the initial _g-_ (which was _ǥ-_) at the time of borrowing.


----------



## Testing1234567

Messquito said:


> What I read on _The Germanic Languages_ edited by Ekkehard Konig & Johan van der Auwera:
> Ans van Kemenade:
> 
> To sum up ([g] following liquid):
> [g] voiced velar stop
> ↓ after a liquid, the touch of the tongue and the velar weakens, producing a fricative, rather than the firm stop
> [ɣ] voiced velar fricative ([ɣ] is like a [w] without the involvement of the lips)
> ↓ the lips is involved in producing the sound
> [w] voiced labio-velar approximant
> ↓ a rounded vowel appears between to make production smoother
> [ow] ([lw]>[low], [rw]>[row])
> ↓ [w] weakens as the second part of the diphthong
> [oʊ]



Indeed, "folwen", "folȝen", and "folgen" are attested Middle English spellings of the verb to follow (-en is an old suffix for verbs that is essentially gone in Modern English), which would correspond to the consonants /w/, /j/, and /ɣ/ respectively.



Messquito said:


> In Chinese and other languages with Chinese influences, the pair [g] and [w] also exists; take 我(I) for example:
> *Chinese: [wo]
> Japanese: [ga]
> Hokkien: [ɣoa]*
> Korean: [a] [na]
> Vietnamese: [ŋa]
> It is hypothesized that in old Chinese there were [ŋɑ], which developed into different results in different languages.
> 
> Other examples:
> 玩
> *Chinese: [wan]
> Japanese: [gan]
> Hokkien: [ɣoan]
> Korean: [wan]*
> 瓦
> *Chinese: [wa]
> Japanese: [ga/e]
> Hokkien: [ɣoan]
> Korean: [wa]
> *
> As I observe, similar to your case, this happens with back vowels [a] and [o], but not front vowel [e].



[g] and even [ŋ] are preserved in some dialects of Chinese, for certain vowels. Even seemingly impossible-to-preserve combinations like [ŋi] (疑) and [ŋy] (魚) are preserved in some dialects.


----------



## Testing1234567

ThomasK said:


> I happened to notice that lots of English words *ending in -ow* in have a counterpart in Dutch (and German) *ending in -g - and v.v. *: _bow/ boog, morrow/ morgen, bellows/ balg, gallow/ galg_, follow/ volgen,  etc. The -g- seems to be the original form.
> 
> Can someone describe that process and explain it? Is a development from a plosive to a ... (soft half-consonant???)? Would you know of similar developments in other languages?


Such a process is called lenition and has influenced the development of French (and other Romance languages) a lot.

*Lenition of /k/ and /g/ in Romance languages
*
Latin NOCTEM (accusative of NOX "night") [ˈnɔk.tɛm] > [ˈnɔ*k*.tɛ̃] > [ˈnɔ*j*t] Old French _noit_ > [ˈnɥi] French _nuit_ "night"
Latin NOCTEM (accusative of NOX "night") [ˈnɔk.tɛm] > [ˈnɔ*k*.tɛ̃] > [ˈnɔ*j*tɛ] > [ˈnɔt͡ʃɛ] Spanish _noche_ "night"
Latin GAVDIA (plural of GAUDIUM "joy") [ˈ*g*aw.dja] > [ˈ*d͡ʒ*ɔ.jə] Old French _joie_ > [ˈ*ʒ*wa] French _joie_ "joy"
Latin GELV̄ "frost" [ˈ*ɡ*ɛ.ɫuː] > [ˈ*ɡʲ*ɛ.lʊ] > [*d͡ʒ*ɛl] Old French _gel_ > [*ʒ*ɛl] French _gel_ "frost"
Latin GELV̄ "frost" [ˈ*ɡ*ɛ.ɫuː] > [ˈ*ɡʲ*ɛ.lʊ] > [*j*ɛ.lɔ] Spanish _hielo_ "ice"
Latin SĒCV̄RVM (accusative of SĒCV̄RVS "sure") [seːˈ*k*uː.rʊm] > [seˈ*ɣ*u.rʊ̃] > [səˈyr] Old French _seur_ > French _sûr_ "sure" (here the consonant is completely annihilated)



Nino83 said:


> In Catalan:
> _-v- > -u_ => _navem, brevem, novum > nau, breu, nou
> -d- > -u_ => _pedem, credit, credere > peu, creu, creure_



The _-d-_ > _-u-_ is quite special, as other Romance languages either have them develop into _-i-_ or stay as _-d-_. Do you know some theories behind the formation of _-u-_?


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for these comments. Very informative. It is becoming quite clear now!

The 'ow' is a diphthong indeed. Could/ should have thought of that.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> The Dutch pronunciation of _g_ as a spirant in all positions may reflect the original situation.


I am all but convinced of that, at least as far as proto-WGrm in concerned. Almost all Middle German dialect have that and the palatalised spirantised g in words like _yellow _is also typical for Northern WGrm. It is hard to imagine how this palatalised form should have emerged without previous (general) spirantisation. In many Middle German dialects, this palatalised form is universal at the beginning and is not confined to situations where a front (_Gold ist ganz gut --> Jold ist janz jut_).


----------



## Nino83

Sardokan1.0 said:


> ta*b*ula -> taula (table)


Differently from the Catalan shift _d > u_, the Sardinian examples show only the loss of intervocalic consonants, which is quite common in the Romance linguistic area. 


Testing1234567 said:


> Do you know some theories behind the formation of _-u-_?


I don't. I only know the historical developement. Maybe in some Catalan literature there will be someing about it. The interesting thing is that neither Occitan nor Aragonese have a similar shift.


----------



## Dymn

Perhaps the epenthetic _g- _in Romance germanisms which started with _w-_ has something to do? Like in French _gagner, guêpe, garder, guerre_, etc.?



Testing1234567 said:


> The _-d-_ > _-u-_ is quite special, as other Romance languages either have them develop into _-i-_ or stay as _-d-_. Do you know some theories behind the formation of _-u-_?


I have never understood it either. I think the development of the second person plural is a similar phenomenon:

"you (pl) sing": _cantatis _(Latin) > _cantats _(Old Cat.)_ > cantau _(Balearic Cat.)_ > canteu _(Continental Cat.)

Could anybody help us out? @Penyafort ?


----------



## ahvalj

I guess, _d>đ>v>w_. Perhaps the same with its voiceless counterpart: _ʦ>þ>ф>w _(_nucem>noʦ>*noþ>*noф>now_).


----------



## Dymn

Sounds plausible. In Majorca (or some parts of it), "they say" and "they believe" is _diven _and _creven _(Standard Catalan _diuen _and _creuen_, Latin _dicunt _and _credunt_). It's either a link in the chain you propose, or a posterior w > v development.


----------



## Testing1234567

Dymn said:


> "you (pl) sing": _cantatis _(Latin) > _cantats _(Old Cat.)_ > cantau _(Balearic Cat.)_ > canteu _(Continental Cat.)



I know nothing about Catalan, but why do you say that Continental Catalan is derived from Balearic Catalan?



ahvalj said:


> I guess, _d>đ>v>w_. Perhaps the same with its voiceless counterpart: _ʦ>þ>ф>w _(_nucem>noʦ>*noþ>*noф>now_).



Can this theory can explain CRĒDERE > _creure_? Also, the /d/ > /k,g/ in more than one of the forms of _creure_ is quite curious.


----------



## ahvalj

Testing1234567 said:


> Can this theory can explain CRĒDERE > _creure_?


Yes: normally in Romance _đ>ı̯_ (Occitan _creire_ — creire - Wiktionary), but Catalan uniquely has labial vocalization of the dentals (cp. Votic _pe̮dra_ : Finnish _peura_ "deer", Karelian _adra_ : Finnish _aura_ "wooden plough").



Testing1234567 said:


> Also, the /d/ > /k,g/ in more than one of the forms of _creure_ is quite curious.


That seems to be the consonantization _w>gw>g>k,_ cp. the Catalan (haver - Wiktionary) and Occitan (aver - Wiktionary) conjugation of _habēre, _or that of _debēre_ (dever - Wiktionary and deure - Wiktionary), or of _bibere_ (beure - Wiktionary and beure - Wiktionary), or of _velle_ (voler - Wiktionary and voler - Wiktionary) etc.


----------



## Dymn

Testing1234567 said:


> I know nothing about Catalan, but why do you say that Continental Catalan is derived from Balearic Catalan?


Sorry, no, it is not, what I was trying to say is that the original form _cantau _was kept in the Balearic Islands whereas it developed to _canteu _in the continental varieties. Anyway this is irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> I have never understood it either. I think the development of the second person plural is a similar phenomenon:
> 
> "you (pl) sing": _cantatis _(Latin) > _cantats _(Old Cat.)_ > cantau _(Balearic Cat.)_ > canteu _(Continental Cat.)
> 
> Could anybody help us out? @Penyafort ?



The change into -u of the [ð] coming either from a -D or a -CE/CI i -TY took place very early in Catalan (11th, 12th centuries):

_pede(m) > peð > peu
cruce(m) > crodz (_crotz)_ > crou > crəu/crɛu (creu)_​
The change in the second plural might have been or not a matter of analogy, but it was produced much latelier (15th century), apparently due to bigger reluctance to change a verbal ending:

_cantatis (Latin) > *cantaðes > cantaðz _(cantatz) > _cantað > cantau (> canteu)_​


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ...Would you know of similar developments in other languages?


A somewhat similar evolution happened also in old Hungarian.

An example - a participle of the verb _menni _(= to go):
*meneg > meneh [meneγ] (A.D. 1055) >  menev/meneu [meneβ] > meneü > menő (today)

Notes:
1) The ending _-g_ in *_meneg _comes from the Finno-Ugric *_-k_ and around the 10th/11th centuries it corresponded to a voiced guttural sound [γ]. We have no exact information about it's pronunciation in the previous stages of the Hungarian language.
2) As to _menev/meneu_, I have not examined if this participle appears _exactly _in these forms in medieval written documents, however other participles/adjectives of the same kind surely do (e.g. _volov, keseruv, iarov,_ ...).
3) The modern form _menő _is the result of a general monophthongization, however some dialects still maintain the diphthong _eü._


----------

