German questions

[WeepingElf]

Probably a long shot, but does anyone know how did Proto-Germanic *ajjō 'eggs' become Proto-West Germanic *aijiʀu 'id.'? Going off wiktionary here:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstr ... manic/ajją
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstr ... rmanic/aij

I guess I'm ultimately curious why German has Eier instead of *Eie or sth, given that the PIE neuter plural ending is *-eh₂.

I cannot tell you how exactly that happened, but at some point, German innovated a neuter plural ending -er which triggers umlaut. There are plenty such neuter plurals, such as Häuser 'houses', Bücher 'books' and Löcher 'holes'.

[Linguoboy]

I cannot tell you how exactly that happened, but at some point, German innovated a neuter plural ending -er which triggers umlaut. There are plenty such neuter plurals, such as Häuser 'houses', Bücher 'books' and Löcher 'holes'.

I thought it was pretty well established that this alternation was generalised from the relatively small class of Proto-Germanic z-stem nouns which continue the PIE athematic acrostatic neuter declension with *-os/-es alternation.

E.g. PIE *h₁l̥h₁onbʰos/*h₁l̥h₁onbʰes- > PGmc *lambaz/*lambiz- > PWGmc *lamb/*lambiʀ- > OHG lamb/lembir-, Mod.Ger. Lamm/Lämmer.

The generalising tendency is already on display in the Proto-West-Germanic period and only gains steam in OHG and MHG due to the large number of neuter nouns inherited without distinctive N/A plural endings. (This contrasts with English where the -s ending was generalised instead and Swedish which was content to leave the vast majority of these nouns without distinctive plurals. Cf. Eng. lamb/lambs, Sw. lamm/lamm.)

[Zju]

And here was I thinking that German and English plural markers -er and -s were cognates, what with rhotacism and such.

[WeepingElf]

Ah, I understand now.

[Travis B.]

From another thread I noticed how NHG sang was (at least normalized) MHG sanc, yet there are NHG words (e.g. StG Bank "bench") that end in /ŋk/ rather than /ŋ/. So how did some words that had /nk/ (presumably [ŋk]) in MHG end up with /ŋ/ in NHG while other words with the same ended up with /ŋk/ in NHG? Is this from analogy between different forms derived from the same stem (e.g. singen w.r.t. sanc) where /ng/ (presumably [ŋg]) became /ŋ/?

Edit: replaced sangen with singen because I had intended the infinitive, even though wir/sie/Sie sangen is cromulent German if one intends the preterite.

[Creyeditor]

Maybe it's just a weird orthographic rule? Like, write velar nasals as <ng> unless word-finally, where you write <nc>.
Edit: it seems that the cluster of a velar nasal and a velar voiceless stop was at least optionally written as <nk> in MHG. This would fit if <nc> and <nk> indicated a contrast.

[Travis B.]

Maybe it's just a weird orthographic rule? Like, write velar nasals as <ng> unless word-finally, where you write <nc>.
Edit: it seems that the cluster of a velar nasal and a velar voiceless stop was at least optionally written as <nk> in MHG. This would fit if <nc> and <nk> indicated a contrast.

Thing is that there generally is little contrast between <c> and <k> in Germanic languages' spelling in that period (except in the digraph <ch> and the trigraph <sch>) except in Romance or Latinate loans, so I would be surprised if <nc> and <nk> were not interchangeable word-finally.

[Emily]

From another thread I noticed how NHG sang was (at least normalized) MHG sanc, yet there are NHG words (e.g. StG Bank "bench") that end in /ŋk/ rather than /ŋ/. So how did some words that had /nk/ (presumably [ŋk]) in MHG end up with /ŋ/ in NHG while other words with the same ended up with /ŋk/ in NHG? Is this from analogy between different forms derived from the same stem (e.g. singen w.r.t. sanc) where /ng/ (presumably [ŋg]) became /ŋ/?

Edit: replaced sangen with singen because I had intended the infinitive, even though wir/sie/Sie sangen is cromulent German if one intends the preterite.

yes the answer is almost certainly analogy with the voiced forms

[Raphael]

How would you explain the difference between a Mauer and a Wand to someone who only knows languages, such as English, that don't distinguish between the two? I mean, my first language is German, so of course I know the difference, but I'm not at all sure how I'd explain it.

[Creyeditor]

Maybe a Mauer is a wall made of bricks (independent of its function) and a Wand is a wall that divides rooms (independent of what its made from). Some walls are both a Wand and a Mauer some may be neither (we also have the word Wall for example).

[Raphael]

Maybe a Mauer is a wall made of bricks (independent of its function) and a Wand is a wall that divides rooms (independent of what its made from). Some walls are both a Wand and a Mauer some may be neither (we also have the word Wall for example).

Good point, though I'd say a Mauer can be made of stone or concrete, too.

[WeepingElf]

Maybe a Mauer is a wall made of bricks (independent of its function) and a Wand is a wall that divides rooms (independent of what its made from). Some walls are both a Wand and a Mauer some may be neither (we also have the word Wall for example).

Good point, though I'd say a Mauer can be made of stone or concrete, too.

I'd say that a Mauer encloses or delimits an open area, while a Wand is part of a roofed structure.

[Creyeditor]

Maybe a Mauer is a wall made of bricks (independent of its function) and a Wand is a wall that divides rooms (independent of what its made from). Some walls are both a Wand and a Mauer some may be neither (we also have the word Wall for example).

Good point, though I'd say a Mauer can be made of stone or concrete, too.

Yes, true. I noticed this after writing. But a wall cannot be made of wood or paper or plastic, right?

[Creyeditor]

Maybe a Mauer is a wall made of bricks (independent of its function) and a Wand is a wall that divides rooms (independent of what its made from). Some walls are both a Wand and a Mauer some may be neither (we also have the word Wall for example).

Good point, though I'd say a Mauer can be made of stone or concrete, too.

I'd say that a Mauer encloses or delimits an open area, while a Wand is part of a roofed structure.

Good rule of thumb, but the Wand of a building also is a Mauer, right? A handyman will say stuff like: Die Mauer dahinter hat schon Schimmel abbekommen.

Also, a Trennwand can in principle delimit an open area, right?

[Travis B.]

From looking into it, the key things appear to be that a Mauer is firm and external, whereas any wall can be a Wand. Mauern are typically masonry, and when they are not, they are something figuratively firm, like the Schallmauer "sound barrier", or a Mauer in football; also, they seem to be outside of things and to not enclose a space vertically such that they meet a ceiling (but I might be wrong here). Wände on the other hand can be any sort of wall and have no connotations of firmness (e.g. a wall made out of paper in a Japanese house would be a Wand), and while the prototypical Wand seems to be a wall inside a building, things such as the face of a cliff or mountain can also be a Wand.

[Raphael]

also, they seem to be outside of things and to not enclose a space vertically such that they meet a ceiling (but I might be wrong here).

Not necessarily true; see Creyeditor's "Die Mauer dahinter hat schon Schimmel abbekommen" example.

[Creyeditor]

Well, a wall inside a building that meets the ceiling is usually a Wand and also a Mauer if it's made of bricks or concrete or stone. But you only call it that if .... I don't actually know, maybe if the material is relevant? You are right that a Mauer is usually firm. The only time it's not is when it's broken or the bricklayer did a bad job.
A Wand can also be outside. All kinds of tents and stuff have Wände.

[Travis B.]

also, they seem to be outside of things and to not enclose a space vertically such that they meet a ceiling (but I might be wrong here).

Not necessarily true; see Creyeditor's "Die Mauer dahinter hat schon Schimmel abbekommen" example.

I am I right in thinking, though, that the key word here is dahinter, i.e. it's not the wall exposed to the interior of the room but the structure behind it that is being spoken of?

[Creyeditor]

Yes, this might be true. I was thinking it's maybe because you usually don't see the material of the Mauer when you look at a Wand.

[Raphael]

also, they seem to be outside of things and to not enclose a space vertically such that they meet a ceiling (but I might be wrong here).

Not necessarily true; see Creyeditor's "Die Mauer dahinter hat schon Schimmel abbekommen" example.

I am I right in thinking, though, that the key word here is dahinter, i.e. it's not the wall exposed to the interior of the room but the structure behind it that is being spoken of?

I'd say dahinter, in this case, means behind the wallpaper. (I myself would probably see the wallpaper as part of the Wand while covering the Mauer, but I don't know how universal that is.)