Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:12661 news.sysadmin:1613 sci.lang:3393 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!icsi!stolcke From: stolcke@icsi.berkeley.edu (Andreas Stolcke) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,news.sysadmin,sci.lang Subject: Re: umlaut Message-ID: <26887@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 20 Nov 88 00:44:30 GMT References: <1460@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <698@packard.UUCP> <3803@imag.imag.fr> <15200@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: stolcke@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Andreas Stolcke) Organization: UC Berkeley & International Computer Science Institute Lines: 22 In article <15200@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bondc@iuvax.UUCP (Clay M Bond) writes: > >>Bussmann's dictionary states that the original umlaut (the initial >>assimilation) is indeed an all-germanic phenomenon, i.e. occurred >>independently in all germanic languages. Again, due to later > >No, absolutely not. One of the distinguishing hallmarks of the Eastern >Germanic languages (Gothic) was that it had no umlaut. However, most >Germanicists (and their articles) use the phrase "all Germanic languages" >(or words to that effect), when in fact they mean, "all North and West >Germanic languages." Why, I wonder, is Wulfila so ignored? :-) > You're right, of course. Bussmann actually gives Gothic as an exception, it was just negligence on my part. -- Andreas Stolcke (stolcke@ernie.Berkeley.EDU) -- Andreas Stolcke (stolcke@ernie.Berkeley.EDU)