Pronunciation of umlaut vowels in the history of GermanHistory of the verb positioning in GermanAre there any...
What is 6÷2×(1+2) =?
Replacement expressions
Are there any modern advantages of a fire piston?
What incentives do banks have to gather up loans into pools (backed by Ginnie Mae)and selling them?
A starship is travelling at 0.9c and collides with a small rock. Will it leave a clean hole through, or will more happen?
Can a person refuse a presidential pardon?
Graph with overlapping labels
Why do stocks necessarily drop during a recession?
Eww, those bytes are gross
What's a good word to describe a public place that looks like it wouldn't be rough?
Is it possible to grant users sftp access without shell access? If yes, how is it implemented?
Porting Linux to another platform requirements
One Half of Ten; A Riddle
LuaTex and em dashes
How would an AI self awareness kill switch work?
Consequences of lack of rigour
How to say "Brexit" in Latin?
Dilemma of explaining to interviewer that he is the reason for declining second interview
How can my powered armor quickly replace its ceramic plates?
Writing Cyrillic text to a file
How can animals be objects of ethics without being subjects as well?
Could a phylactery of a lich be a mirror or does it have to be a box?
Why would the Pakistan airspace closure cancel flights not headed to Pakistan itself?
If I delete my router's history can my ISP still provide it to my parents?
Pronunciation of umlaut vowels in the history of German
History of the verb positioning in GermanAre there any other examples of words being borrowed via their written forms only (or written forms causing reevaluations of spoken forms)?Influence of Polish and Czech on the phonology of German dialectsDo dialects without the meet-meat merger neutralize the distinction in some contexts?“Cloth” lexical set: Is there a complete description of the possible conditioning environments?Phonetics - English Pronunciation of Vowels CorpusEtymology of the unit “Marc” (German►English)What was the original pronunciation of 'ä' in German?Pronunciation of final consonants in the history of EnglishWhy proto-languages?
I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.
phonetics historical-linguistics german
add a comment |
I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.
phonetics historical-linguistics german
add a comment |
I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.
phonetics historical-linguistics german
I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.
phonetics historical-linguistics german
phonetics historical-linguistics german
edited 4 hours ago
X30Marco
asked 4 hours ago
X30MarcoX30Marco
3277
3277
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.
The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/
or */j/
in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.
The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/
, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]
. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y]
didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/
were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.
But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann was *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]
. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.
So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/
. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.
(P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)
(P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/
. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
1
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30723%2fpronunciation-of-umlaut-vowels-in-the-history-of-german%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.
The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/
or */j/
in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.
The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/
, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]
. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y]
didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/
were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.
But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann was *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]
. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.
So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/
. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.
(P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)
(P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/
. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
1
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
add a comment |
Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.
The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/
or */j/
in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.
The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/
, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]
. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y]
didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/
were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.
But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann was *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]
. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.
So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/
. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.
(P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)
(P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/
. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
1
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
add a comment |
Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.
The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/
or */j/
in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.
The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/
, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]
. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y]
didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/
were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.
But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann was *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]
. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.
So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/
. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.
(P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)
(P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/
. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)
Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.
The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/
or */j/
in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.
The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/
, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]
. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y]
didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/
were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.
But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann was *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]
. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.
So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/
. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.
(P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)
(P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/
. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)
answered 3 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
11.4k11949
11.4k11949
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
1
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
1
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.
– X30Marco
3 hours ago
1
1
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me
– user22198
2 hours ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
@X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.
– LjL
43 mins ago
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.
The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.
answered 2 hours ago
fdbfdb
16.7k12145
16.7k12145
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30723%2fpronunciation-of-umlaut-vowels-in-the-history-of-german%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown