2.1. Summary.

Under the I&S theory, three stages of ON i-umlaut are posited. In the first stage, both i-umlaut and vowel syncope are active in Old Norse. The former fronts vowels preceding a short or long /i/ or /j/ in the following syllable, and the latter deletes a mora of length after a long syllable. Below in 1 are the derivations for the nominative singular and plural forms of a short- and a long-stem noun:

According to Iverson and Salmons (2004:93), the second stage proceeds as follows:

That is, the underlying forms /gast+iR/ and /gast+iiR/ were—on the basis of the occurrence of the surface form [gestR]—restructured to /gest+iR/ and /gest+iiR/, respectively. Hence, at this stage, the derivation was as in 2.

Finally, in the third stage, i-umlaut “died,” that is, it was no longer phonologically conditioned.¹

According to this account, the originally umlauted forms such as [steÐiR] (for which there is absolutely no graphemic evidence) all now revert to [staÐR]. In an attempt to cite a parallel case of reversion, Iverson and Salmons (2004:97–8) state:

In fact, as I argue in 2.2, the view that the Old High German (OHG) case can provide a parallel to the purported ON development rests on a misinterpretation of the OHG data, which leaves the Iverson and Salmons analysis based on a type of wholesale analogical change otherwise unattested.

2.2. Critique.

The belief that OHG umlaut originally applied across the board to all forms is an article of faith rather than one of empirical evidence. In fact, as argued in some detail in Voyles 1991, there is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that the OHG i-umlaut rule was ever exclusively phonologically conditioned. As Iverson and Salmons (2004:97–98) note, if OHG umlaut had indeed applied to the past subjunctive forms of verbs with stem-final dentals, such verbs would have become practically homophonous with the present indicative forms; for example, in (the admittedly few) cases such as the infinitival forms senten ‘send’ and resten ‘rest’, umlaut would have resulted in the past plural subjunctive forms *sentīn or *restīn (instead of the attested and non-umlauted sentīnand rastīn).²

It should also be added that, contrary to the assumption underlying the I&S theory, many—if not most—phonological changes are at least in part morphosyntactically conditioned, even from their earliest time of occurrence (see Voyles 1991). In fact, numerous instances of partial morphosyntactic conditioning in newly added phonological rules are attested. For example, in the case of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Labov (1972:190) records the simplification of word-final clusters through the deletion of the final segment.⁴

I conclude: a) that this kind of semantic ambiguity could not possibly have motivated the absence of i-umlaut in the short-stem ON nouns (and Iverson and Salmons do not posit such), and b) that the wholesale non-umlaut analogy in ON—whether by restructuring or reversion—as posited by Iverson and Salmons does not have a precedent in the OHG case, nor does it, as far as I can tell have a precedent anywhere else.

I now consider the purported parallel provided by Iverson and Salmons to the change whereby the ON underlying singular form /gast+iR/ and the plural form /gast+iiR/ were restructured to /gest+iR/ and /gest+iiR/, respectively. This change was triggered by the surface form [gestR], in which the occurrence of umlaut could not be predicted from the surface forms of long-stem words. In this sense, then, the derivations of the form had become opaque. The purported analog Iverson and Salmons cite is Dresher's (2000) analysis of Middle English (ME) open syllable lengthening.

Since the ME case is intended as a crucial parallel to the I&S interpretation of the ON change, I turn to Dresher's (2000) account in some detail. In this interpretation, there were two relevant Middle English phonological changes: open syllable lengthening (OSL) and trisyllabic shortening (TSS) (presumably occurring in that order), which are reflected in alternations of nominative singular and plural forms, such as those found in 4.

At the next stage, the vowels in inflectional endings are syncopated, yielding the forms in 5.

Dresher (2000:58–59) comments on this situation as follows:

Therefore the Modern English reflexes have various and random Middle English antecedents; tale < ME tāl; god < ME g

d; hole < ME hōl; beaver < ME bēver, and devil < ME d

vel.

Whether or not one agrees with Dresher's account is not at issue here. The point is that Iverson and Salmons cannot cite Dresher's analysis as a parallel to their account of ON i-umlaut. If it were, one would expect a restructuring on a word-by-word basis, and hence a more or less equal occurrence in Old Norse of umlauted and non-umlauted long stems (for example, gestr ‘guest’ alongside *brastr ‘lack’, instead of the actually occurring brestr), or at least some more long-stem non-umlauted forms, as opposed to the overwhelming preponderance of ON i-umlaut in the long stems. What Iverson and Salmons actually suggest is that the opacity that they posit results not in word-by-word changes à la Dresher, but rather in a new generalization, namely, umlaut in all long stems. That is, in Iverson and Salmons' terms, the long-stem forms have been “restructured,” but the proviso for the restructuring, namely “long stems,” does, in fact constitute a phonological condition. Accordingly, this analysis would seem to involve “salvaging a phonological rule from the situation,” and as such stands in direct contrast to the Dresher analysis—whether right or wrong—under which this is impossible.

3.1. Old Norse i-Umlaut.

As described in Voyles 1982 and 1992:115–118, the V theory assumes that the development of ON i-umlaut occurred as in 6, with the environment expanding in at least three successive stages:

Consider, for instance, the following derivations:

3.2. The ON Reflex of Sievers' Law.

In the ON grammar, a process of vowel insertion—probably the ON reflex of the Indo-European rule of Sievers' Law, or perhaps, a restructured version of it—was interacting with ON i-umlaut. In any case, it represents a commonly occurring type of change, which can be represented as in 8.

According to 8, /i/ is inserted before /j/ after one of the following: a long vowel or diphthong plus at least one consonant; a short vowel plus at least two consonants; two syllables (with the second one ending in at least one consonant), that is, after a closed long foot.⁶

3.3. An Account of the Old Norse Developments.

With i-umlaut and Sievers' Law both active in the ON grammar, the occurrence of long-stem i-class umlaut versus its absence in short stems can be explained as follows. Even by very early ON times, the i-class was in the process of dissolution: virtually all the feminine i-class nouns had by this time already passed into the ō-class, for example, ⁺aksl+iR ‘shoulder’ (early replacement of the i-class ending ⁺-iR by the ō-class ending ⁺-u) > ⁺akslu > Old Icelandic

xl. The same process was, albeit at a slower pace, also under way in the i-class masculine nouns. The stems of such nouns (consisting of the root plus the i-class marker /i/) received the endings that generally belonged to the a-class (with a few from the u-class). Later, the i-class marker was dropped, after which the a-class endings were the only ones retained. In view of this, the derivation of most long- and short-stem nouns proceeded as follows:

Of course, the transfer of i-class nouns into other classes was wave-like within the lexicon. Therefore, there were a few nouns that retained the i-class marker /-(i)j-/ until stage 2 of ON i-umlaut. An example of this is the short stem, but nonetheless umlauted, OI bylr ‘breeze’ < ⁺bul+jaR. Conversely, there are also a few nouns that lost the /-(i)j-/ marker early and hence did not undergo ON i-umlaut, for example, burÐr ‘birth’ < ⁺burÐ+ijaR.

Iverson and Salmons (2004:91) attempt to discern a regularity in these irregularities:

However, such cases are peripheral, and the Iverson and Salmons account is not totally accurate: the long stem sultr ‘hunger’ inflects like both gestr, as well as staÐr. And the short stem bylr ‘gust of wind’ also inflects likestaÐr, as well as gestr.

The V theory also accounts for the occurrence of ON i-umlaut in other classes. For example, in the j-class weak verbs, the ON i-umlaut occurs in long-stem forms throughout the paradigm since the i-umlaut occurred in these verbs earlier; hence, OI erfa, erfÐa, erfÐr ‘inherit’ < ⁺ar

jan, etc. However, in the short-stem j-class weak verbs, in which the i-umlaut occurred later, the umlaut did not extend to the past indicative, but still occurred in the short-stem present, which retained the /j/; hence, OI telja, talÐa, talÐr ‘tell’. Note also in this connection the long-stem j-class weak verbs, which nonetheless inflect like telja above, such as OI lýja ‘mash’, lúÐa, lúÐr < ⁺lūjan, etc. Although such verbs are long stems, they nonetheless inflect like a short-stem verb because Sievers' Law could not apply here to produce *lūijan. Therefore, the i-umlaut was not triggered by an /i/, but rather later by the /j/, as in the short-stem verbs.

Also, one can note in this connection the occurrence of i-umlaut throughout the paradigms of ja-class nouns, both short and long stems, since—unlike the i-class nouns—the ja-class nouns were not in the process of changing their declension: OI kyn < ⁺kunja, as well as l

kner ‘doctor’ < ⁺lāknijaR.

3.4. Iverson and Salmons' Critique.

Iverson and Salmons (2004:89–90, note 6) offer the following three objections to the V theory. “First, the philological base of the analysis requires reading the inscription on the Stentoften Stone as the ‘guest’ word, which […] no longer appears tenable.” That is, what was once read as i-umlauted gestumR ‘guests’ is now read as non-umlauted hagestumR ‘stallions’. However, whether or not this is the case, the objection is immaterial. The inscription probably dates from ca. 675 C.E.; even if ON i-umlaut began later than 675 C.E., this has no bearing on the V theory. That is, the V theory maintains only that ON i-umlaut was operative sometime before the attestation of classical Old Icelandic. How long or shortly before this time is immaterial for the theory.

Iverson and Salmons continue: “Second, it seems odd for Sievers' Law still to have been active at this presumably late stage of umlaut development (see Kim 2001, for example).” Two points should be made with respect to this remark. First, it is by no means clear that Kim 2001 demonstrates that Sievers' Law—or perhaps some altered version of it— had died out by ON times. In fact, Kim does not address the question of the reflex of Sievers' Law in Old Icelandic, but only its reflex in Gothic. Further, Kim (2001:100) leaves open the possibility that Sievers' Law was more active in certain “conservative daughter languages,” among which may well have been Old Icelandic. Second, and on the contrary, ON inscriptions teem with instances of the application of Sievers' Law; for example, raunijaR ‘tester’ (ca. 200 C.E.) and

irbijaR (proper name, ca. 450 C.E.; Antonsen 1975:29, 48); auja ‘luck’ (ca. 500 C.E.), where Sievers' Law has predictably not applied, versus arbija ‘inheritance’ (ca. 400 C.E.), where it has (Johannesson 1923:105, 115); and in tālija ‘tool’ (ca. 250 C.E.; Noreen 1970:392). I take these reflexes to indicate that Sievers' Law was an active phonologically conditioned rule in the ON area at this time.

Further, Krause (1971:94), who also cites numerous attestations of Sievers' Law, remarks in this connection: “Eine ganze Gruppe solcher ‘inkorrekten’ Schreibungen sind die Bildungen mit -warijaR ‘Beschützer’.”⁷

The third objection to the V theory is as follows (Iverson and Salmons 2004:90, note 6):

Iverson and Salmons are objecting to the “double affix marking,” that is, the positing of a-class endings “on top of” the i-class markers, which were retained for a time, but later lost, leaving only the a-class endings (see 9). However, pace Iverson and Salmons, systemic “double affix marking” has been seen to occur elsewhere. One instance of it is the wholesale transfer of the ōn-class weak verbs into the jan-class in Old English, Old Frisian, and Old Saxon. In these languages, there was a mass migration of all the ōn-class weak verbs into the weak jan-class. However, in this process, the ōn-verbs for a while retained their ōn-class marker, to which they added the jan-class endings. Eventually these verbs dropped the ōn-class marker, as in early West Germanic:

This transition must have occurred after the well-known Old English and Old Frisian palatalizations. Otherwise one would find Modern English */

/ instead of /meik/, and Old Frisian *matsia */

/ instead of /makia/. Also, it must have occurred after the time of Old English and Old Frisian i-umlaut; otherwise, one would find Old English *mekian and *sielfian, and Old Frisian *mekia and *selvia. Old Saxon is attested at a transitional stage in that it has makon,makojan and makian ‘make’ and sal

on, sal

ojan, and sal

ian ‘anoint’. The OHG verbs did not undergo this change; hence only machōn ‘make’ and salbōn ‘anoint’ occur.