# Prepositive stem of compound word in Germanic languages



## Lusus Naturae

Greetings

I have a couple of questions.

I know two Germanic compound words of which the prepositive stems are genitive plural nouns:
_reykja_, of _Reykjavík_, genitive plural of _reykur_,
_Engla_, of _Englaland_, genitive plural of _Engle_.
Are there many such compound words in Germanic languages?

And could you help analyze the prepositive stems of two German compound words: 
is_ öster_, of _Österreich_, a noun, or an adverb from Old & Middle High German _ōstar & ōster_? 
what about_ mitter_, of _Mitternacht_?


----------



## berndf

Both are adjectives. _Österreich_  is from late OHG _ostarrichi_. The declensional form is not quite clear to me but I assume it is nominative singular neuter where the double _r_ is an assimilation from _ostaz richi _ (=_eastern realm_). In _Mitternacht_ the adjective _mitt_ (in today's German _mitt_ doesn't exist as an adjective any more, only _Mitte_ as a noun) is in dative singular feminine. The modern noun _Mitternacht_ has developed out of propositional phrases like _in mitter Nacht _(=_in mid_[adj.] _night_).


----------



## fdb

At a more general level: in ancient IE languages the Vorderglied of nominal compounds is normally the bare uninflected stem. However, in exceptional instances it can be an inflected case form, e.g. in Sanskrit divas-pati- “Lord of heaven”, where the first component is a noun in the genitive singular. We find similar things in Greek. In German we have both types, as in Rathaus (uninflected Vorderglied) versus Ratskeller (genitive Vorderglied).


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> where the first component is a noun in the genitive singular.


Or plural like _Hund*e*zwinger_. In actual fact these "Fugenlaute" that are still part of productive schemes have largely lost their grammatic significance and are often inserted simply for ease of pronunciation.


----------



## Lusus Naturae

Is _Österreich_ rendered as a noun or an adverb in other Germanic languages such as _Østrig _in Danish and_ Österrike_ in Swedish?


----------



## berndf

Lusus Naturae said:


> Is _Österreich_ rendered as a noun or an adverb in other Germanic languages such as _Østrig _in Danish and_ Österrike_ in Swedish?


The question is too meaningful as the compound word as a whole is a loan from Middle Low German which is in turn a loan from Middle High German undoing the typical High German _k_-spirantisation. The umlauting of the initial _o_ had occurred earlier in the transition from Old to Middle High German.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

berndf said:


> Or plural like _Hund*e*zwinger_. In actual fact these "Fugenlaute" that are still part of productive schemes have largely lost their grammatic significance and are often inserted simply for ease of pronunciation.


Is there any pattern in German to help you decide whether there should be an interfix such as -s- or not? Since new compound nouns can be created 'on the fly' as and when needed, it would certainly be helpful to learners of German as a second language.

In Swedish, compound nouns are linked in various ways, often with the interfix -s- (originating from a genitive suffix -s), 
but also with remnants of other (older) genitive suffixes, e.g. -o, -u, and sometimes there is no linking interfix at all. There are patterns guiding us how to form these compunds, but no rules, which makes it tricky for learners of Swedish as a foreign language. The patterns include structural as well as phonetic considerations, but I honestly don't know whether plural genitives were involved in case of the old suffixes (other than -s). In modern standard Swedish, the genitive suffix is -s both in singular and plural, and we normally regard the prepositive stem as a singular entity rather than a plural one.


----------



## berndf

No, there is not, alas. At least nothing reliable. Sometimes usage even differs regionally.


----------



## Dib

My experience as a non-native speaker of German is that the connecting "interfix" is lexically determined by the prepositive element. There may be some variation, but nouns in -ung become -ungs-, Liebe becomes Liebes-, Geburt become Geburts-, Hund becomes Hunde- (Hundejahre, Hundehütte, etc.), the n-stem nouns usually occur with an -en- (Menschenkind, Narrenschar, ...), etc. As berndf stated, it may not be 100% predictable, but there are clear patterns. I find it quite intriguing that words like Liebe and Geburt take a connecting -s-. It could never have been a part of their declension patterns, as far as I know.


----------



## fdb

Dib said:


> My experience as a non-native speaker of German is that the connecting "interfix" is lexically determined by the prepositive element.



I did mention, however, Rat+haus vs Rats+keller.


----------



## berndf

@Dib: But there is also _Hund*s*tage_. So even for the same first constituent there is no reliable rule. Some vary regionally, e.g. _Zugende_ and _Zugsende_. But by and large you are right, it depends on the first constituent and if that one is constructed with a produced suffix, usage is fairly stable for all words with the same suffix. As you pointed out, it is very often not possible to predict the infix sound from historical inflections.


----------



## Dib

Sure enough, I am not contradicting you. There is certainly no foolproof rule, as you have both rightly pointed out. However, my point is that there are clear enough (lexically determined) trends to provide the learner (and presumably an improvising native) a reasonably steady base to build on.


----------



## bearded

fdb said:


> I did mention, however, Rat+haus vs Rats+keller.


Are you sure that the s in Ratskeller represents a genitive case (as you wrote in #3) and is not there just as a ''Fugen-S'' insertion  a) for euphonic reasons, or b) in order to differentiate Rat=council from Rat=advice (as in 'ratsuchend')?


----------



## fdb

bearded said:


> Are you sure that the s in Ratskeller represents a genitive case (as you wrote in #3) and is not there just as a ''Fugen-S'' insertion  a) for euphonic reasons, or b) in order to differentiate Rat=council from Rat=advice (as in 'ratsuchend')?



I would suggest (but this is perhaps wrong) that compounds like “Mannesalter” started off as a genitival tatpuruṣa with inflected (i.e., genitive) Vorderglied. Then the -s- was reinterpreted as a “Fugenlaut”, spreading to compounds with a feminine Vorderglied like Geburt-s-tag or Universität-s-professor. Otherwise, I do not see an etymological (Germanic or IE) justification for the “Fugen-S”.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> I would suggest (but this is perhaps wrong) that compounds like “Mannesalter” started off as a genitival tatpuruṣa with inflected (i.e., genitive) Vorderglied. Then the -s- was reinterpreted as a “Fugenlaut”, spreading to compounds with a feminine Vorderglied like Geburt-s-tag or Universität-s-professor. Otherwise, I do not see an etymological (Germanic or IE) justification for the “Fugen-S”.


That is most likely so. The issue is that all the _Fungenlaut_-paradigms have stayed productive even though they have lost its morphological significance and giving any semantic or grammatical reason why one or the other Fugenlaut should be used is in synchronic analysis futile.


----------

