Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T18:24:09.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogical Weak Preterite Forms in Old Icelandic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Albert Morey Sturtevant
Albert Morey Sturtevant*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to show the probable point (or points) of contact between the strong and the weak verbal systems, which resulted in the development of a new analogical weak preterite form with dental suffix (which either existed alongside the original strong form or entirely displaced it). Cases of borrowing from an already existent weak verb (such as sϕkta ‘sank’ for sǫkk, hangða ‘hung’ for hekk) will therefore be omitted. It is, however, often doubtful whether the weak preterite was thus borrowed or was due to association between the strong and the weak verbal systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 16 , Issue 1-Part1: January-March , March 1940 , pp. 48 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © 1940 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The OHG form skafta is probably, like ON skapta, of secondary origin after the pattern of the jan-verbs with e in the present system (skepfan, skafta like sezzen, sazta); cf. stepfen, stafta (OS OE stōp). See Braune, Ahd. Gram.3-4 §347 Anm. 3, 6.

However, there is a possibility that there originally existed a weak verb *skapjan, *skapiđa and that ON skapta: OHG skafta represent forms borrowed from this verb (cf. Collitz, Das schwache Prät. 43).

2 Cf. Wilhelm Wissmann, Nomina Postverbalia in den altgerm. Sprachen (Ergänzungsheft zur ZfVglSprachf., No. 11, 1932), Chap. 2, Schwundstufige deverbative ō-Verba, 46 ff.

3 Cf. Noreen, Aisl. Gram.4 §488 Anm. 2, 3, 4.

4 That sjā (sēr), sā (Goth. saíhan, sah) escaped the influence of the weak verb may be due to the fact that the contracted forms sē: sēr, sā preserved the original ablaut variation ě: ǎ (cf. met: metr, mat; gef: gefr, gaf) in lengthened form, whereby the feeling for the strong verb was kept intact.

In the 1st ablaut series, on the other hand, the contracted forms tē: tēr, *tē < *teih resulted in vowel conformity (ē) in the present and past tense, thereby obliterating the ablaut relation and facilitating the formation of a new weak preterite form by the addition of the dental suffix; i.e. tē: tēr, *tē + đa > tēđa.

5 Cf. Wissmann 33, §71. Wissmann here suggests the possibility of a PGmc. *faldōn = OHG faltōn, in which case ON faldaða (= OHG faltōta) would represent the original weak verb. Against this is, however, the example of the other reduplicating verbs with preterite form in -aða, for which no PGmc. ōn-verb can be postulated.

6 Cf. Noreen, §496 Anm. 3.

7 The Gothic conditions are here of PGmc. origin.

8 Cf. Jellinek, Geschichte der got. Spr. §201.