Discussion:
swf ? in (an old German dictionary)
Add Reply
Hen Hanna
2017-06-07 05:08:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
my guess for SWF is...

Sb (Noun) -- (Uncountable) -- Feminine


which is good (maybe) for [gnat, midge]

but not for [wamba, swf. womb, belly.]

__________________________________


Full text of "An Old High German primer, with grammar, notes, and ...
https://archive.org/.../oldhighgermanpri00wrigiala/oldhighgermanp...


mag, mac ; pret. sg. mohta.
mugga, mucca, swf. gnat, midge.
mund, srn. mouth.
muor, sn. moor, swamp.
muos, sn. food.

wamba, swf. womb, belly.
wan, sm. opinion, expectation, hope.


__________________________________
muos, sn. food. <---
i can't find Muos in my (modern G.) dictionaries.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mues

HH
Franz Gnaedinger
2017-06-07 07:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
muos, sn. food. <---
i can't find Muos in my (modern G.) dictionaries.
The modern word is Mus, present in the Swiss Birchermüesli (diminutiv)
that is known all over the world, basically cereals, apples, milk and
nuts, you may add berries, yoghurt, what you like. In earlier centuries
Mus, for example of millet, was the main food for many people, even
the Roman soldiers ate mainly Mus, cereals, perhaps with an addition
of cabbage, and of course their sharp fish sauce to make it tasty.
Hen Hanna
2017-06-07 19:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by Hen Hanna
muos, sn. food. <---
i can't find Muos in my (modern G.) dictionaries.
The modern word is Mus, present in the Swiss Birchermüesli (diminutiv)
that is known all over the world, basically cereals, apples, milk and
nuts, you may add berries, yoghurt, what you like. In earlier centuries
Mus, for example of millet, was the main food for many people, even
the Roman soldiers ate mainly Mus, cereals, perhaps with an addition
of cabbage, and of course their sharp fish sauce to make it tasty.
thank you. i'll look up the [fish sauce] later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/garum
Nice !


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/muesli
(Du.) 2. mixed food for herbivores
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mues



my guess for SWF is...

Sb (Noun) -- (Uncountable) -- Feminine


unzählbar would be U

Das Wort „Butter“ ist unzählbar: Es gibt weder „Buttern“ noch „Bütter“.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoffname

HH
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-07 21:42:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
my guess for SWF is...
Sb (Noun) -- (Uncountable) -- Feminine
which is good (maybe) for [gnat, midge]
but not for [wamba, swf. womb, belly.]
mugga, mucca, swf. gnat, midge.
wamba, swf. womb, belly.
If you look at a scan of Wright's OHG Primer, the abbreviations are
explained at the head of the glossary. (Missing from the HTML-ized
version at https://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/)

sm., sf., sn. = strong masculine, etc.
wm., wf., wn. = weak masculine, etc.

Thus, "swf" refers to a feminine noun with variously strong or weak
declension.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Hen Hanna
2017-06-09 18:48:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
my guess for SWF is...
Sb (Noun) -- (Uncountable) -- Feminine
which is good (maybe) for [gnat, midge]
but not for [wamba, swf. womb, belly.]
mugga, mucca, swf. gnat, midge.
wamba, swf. womb, belly.
If you look at a scan of Wright's OHG Primer, the abbreviations are
explained at the head of the glossary. (Missing from the HTML-ized
version at https://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/)
sm., sf., sn. = strong masculine, etc.
wm., wf., wn. = weak masculine, etc.
Thus, "swf" refers to a feminine noun with variously strong or weak
declension.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber
thanks again.

it's odd that I've been studying
German for so long without bumping into
strong or weak declension.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

So "swf" refers to Mixed in the above figure? HH
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-09 21:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Christian Weisgerber
If you look at a scan of Wright's OHG Primer, the abbreviations are
explained at the head of the glossary. (Missing from the HTML-ized
version at https://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/)
sm., sf., sn. = strong masculine, etc.
wm., wf., wn. = weak masculine, etc.
Thus, "swf" refers to a feminine noun with variously strong or weak
declension.
thanks again.
it's odd that I've been studying
German for so long without bumping into
strong or weak declension.
Unfortunately, the terms "weak/strong" are applied to three entirely
different things in German(ic) grammar:

* Strong and weak VERBS.
This is of interest in historical linguistics. For modern language
teaching a distinction regular/irregular is far more useful.

* Strong, weak, and mixed ADJECTIVE declension.
That's a useful distinction you should have heard before.

* Strong and weak NOUNs.
German nouns fall into numerous declension classes. Again, for
modern language teaching there may be little benefit of classifying
some of these as strong and others as weak.
Post by Hen Hanna
http://gutenmorgenberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/grammmm-01.png
http://gutenmorgenberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/grammmm-011.png
So "swf" refers to Mixed in the above figure? HH
No. The above figure refers to ADJECTIVE declension.

The "swf" in Wright's glossary refers to a feminine NOUN that may
be variously declined as strong or weak. If you look at the chapter
on noun declension...
https://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/ohg_primer_09.htm
... you'll see prominent references to "strong" and "weak" declension.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Helmut Richter
2017-06-10 08:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Unfortunately, the terms "weak/strong" are applied to three entirely
And often explained in grammar books in a much more complicated way than
necessary or useful.

Let me add some points:

A verb is *either* strong or weak (or has some features of both), thus
being strong or weak is a feature of the verb itself.

A noun is *either* strong or weak (or has a form that there is no
difference between strong and weak), thus being strong or weak is a
feature of the noun itself.

*Each* adjective is strong in some contexts and weak in others,
thus being strong or weak is *not* a feature of the adjective itself but
of its usage in context.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
* Strong and weak VERBS.
This is of interest in historical linguistics. For modern language
teaching a distinction regular/irregular is far more useful.
Well, this is a matter of taste. The name "irregular" is not per se
better, as most irregular verbs follow regular patterns, e.g.
singen/sang/gesungen = trinken/trank/getrunken = ringen/rang/gerungen =
schwingen/schwang/geschwungen = binden/band/gebunden, ...

A more neutral nomenclature would be:

1. There are verbs that keep their stem vowel. For these, the preterite
ends with -e in the 3rd person singular and the past participle ends
with -t. These are called "weak" or "regular".

2. There are verbs that change their stem vowel as in the above example
(ablaut), following one of several ablaut patterns. For these, the
preterite has no ending -e in the 3rd person singular and the past
participle ends with -en. These are called "strong" or "irregular".

3. There are verbs that have features of both (1) and (2), e.g.
denken/dachte/gedacht, bringen/brachte/gebracht, mögen/mochte/gemocht,
..., and the modal verbs.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
* Strong, weak, and mixed ADJECTIVE declension.
That's a useful distinction you should have heard before.
When I tried to explain that in a web article, I found no reason for the
term "mixed". Much simplified, an adjective has strong declension if
there is no gender/number/case ending before, either because there is no
article or pronoun before or because the article/pronoun carries no
ending. The details follow more complicated rules, but I found none that
would have become easier had we introduced a third pattern called
"mixed". The full description is in
http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-decl/phrase/
Post by Christian Weisgerber
* Strong and weak NOUNs.
German nouns fall into numerous declension classes. Again, for
modern language teaching there may be little benefit of classifying
some of these as strong and others as weak.
With the exception of plural formation which has to be remembered, noun
declension is fairly regular. There is a genitive -s on m/n nouns and a
dative -n on all plural nouns with German plural, that's it. Nearly.

In particular, there is no need to remember a declension type, with one
exception: Masculine nouns that have a plural ending -n may have all
cases and numbers except nominative singular with an -n ending ("weak"),
or they adhere to the above rules ("strong"): gen.sg. -s, dat.pl. -n.
Inanimate weak nouns have gen.sg. -ens ending instead.

Non-masuline nouns and masculine nouns with other plural ending than -n
have a unique declension once gender and plural form are known. Nothing
to remember. The full description with some detail omitted here is in
http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-decl/noun/

The terms "weak" for adjective and noun declension are related with each
other by the common feature "all cases and numbers except nominative
singular with an -n ending". The terms "strong" for adjective and noun
declension are not related -- except by the common meaning "not strong".
--
Helmut Richter
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-10 09:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
When I tried to explain that in a web article, I found no reason for the
term "mixed". Much simplified, an adjective has strong declension if
there is no gender/number/case ending before, either because there is no
article or pronoun before or because the article/pronoun carries no
ending. The details follow more complicated rules, but I found none that
would have become easier had we introduced a third pattern called
"mixed". The full description is in
http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-decl/phrase/
In fact the principle is "the case ending should be visible somewhere,
but not necessarily everywhere". Interestingly, although German is not
a grammatical paradigm language for Interlingua, Interlingua does also
follow that principle in many respects:
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/intrlnga/1xndtoto.htm
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-10 13:11:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Unfortunately, the terms "weak/strong" are applied to three entirely
And often explained in grammar books in a much more complicated way than
necessary or useful.
A verb is *either* strong or weak (or has some features of both), thus
being strong or weak is a feature of the verb itself.
A noun is *either* strong or weak (or has a form that there is no
difference between strong and weak), thus being strong or weak is a
feature of the noun itself.
*Each* adjective is strong in some contexts and weak in others,
thus being strong or weak is *not* a feature of the adjective itself but
of its usage in context.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
* Strong and weak VERBS.
This is of interest in historical linguistics. For modern language
teaching a distinction regular/irregular is far more useful.
Well, this is a matter of taste. The name "irregular" is not per se
better, as most irregular verbs follow regular patterns, e.g.
singen/sang/gesungen = trinken/trank/getrunken = ringen/rang/gerungen =
schwingen/schwang/geschwungen = binden/band/gebunden, ...
1. There are verbs that keep their stem vowel. For these, the preterite
ends with -e in the 3rd person singular and the past participle ends
with -t. These are called "weak" or "regular".
2. There are verbs that change their stem vowel as in the above example
(ablaut), following one of several ablaut patterns. For these, the
preterite has no ending -e in the 3rd person singular and the past
participle ends with -en. These are called "strong" or "irregular".
It's useful to recall that the use of "strong" and "weak" in Semitic grammar
is exactly the opposite. In Semitic languages, the "strong" verbs are those
where all three root consonants are pronounced in every form of the verb, and the
"weak" verbs are those that are said to include one or more of the so-called
"weak consonants," viz., the glides w and y, the glottal stop, and (for some of
the Semitic languages) n. The differences follow regular, albeit complicated,
patterns, and Standard Arabic was one of the first languages to receive a
"generative phonology" analysis a la Chomsky & Halle 1968 (in Michael Brame's
MIT dissertation).
Helmut Richter
2017-06-10 19:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's useful to recall that the use of "strong" and "weak" in Semitic grammar
is exactly the opposite. In Semitic languages, the "strong" verbs are those
where all three root consonants are pronounced in every form of the verb, and the
"weak" verbs are those that are said to include one or more of the so-called
"weak consonants," viz., the glides w and y, the glottal stop, and (for some of
the Semitic languages) n.
The differences follow regular, albeit complicated,
patterns, [...]
Well, these patterns are regular in the same sense Christian objected to
calling the German ablaut series "regular": there are patterns, but
there are many situations where more than one could apply and you have
to memorize which one. Also within one pattern, there is often more than
one variant.
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-10 22:15:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's useful to recall that the use of "strong" and "weak" in Semitic grammar
is exactly the opposite. In Semitic languages, the "strong" verbs are those
where all three root consonants are pronounced in every form of the verb, and the
"weak" verbs are those that are said to include one or more of the so-called
"weak consonants," viz., the glides w and y, the glottal stop, and (for some of
the Semitic languages) n.
The differences follow regular, albeit complicated,
patterns, [...]
Well, these patterns are regular in the same sense Christian objected to
calling the German ablaut series "regular": there are patterns, but
there are many situations where more than one could apply and you have
to memorize which one. Also within one pattern, there is often more than
one variant.
Well, you consciously "memorize" the patterns only if you're an adult L2
learner. And there aren't any exceptions -- it's just one massive series
of ordered rules. (But then Janet Watson tried to force Arabic -- including
the Cairo and Yemen versions -- into the McCarthyite framework that doesn't
even work adequately for the Biblical Hebrew it was invented for.

At the 1977 NACAL, two of the Holiest Terrors of mid-century biblical
philology, Moshe Held and Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, side by side lit into John
J. McCarthy's prseentation of his MIT dissertation work, demonstrating to
their complete satisfaction that he had no adequate knowledge of Biblical
Hebrew. They didn't realize that Chomskyan linguistics wasn't about analyzing
languages, but about rewriting existing grammar-books into mathematical
formulae. (Terence Langendoen had already done it for several important
phonological papers from the Firthian school of U London linguists: BTW
J. R. Firth and Daniel Jones did not get along, which is part of why British
universities tend to have Departments of Linguistics and Phonetics or sometimes
even separate departments.)
Helmut Richter
2017-06-13 10:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's useful to recall that the use of "strong" and "weak" in Semitic grammar
is exactly the opposite. In Semitic languages, the "strong" verbs are those
where all three root consonants are pronounced in every form of the verb, and the
"weak" verbs are those that are said to include one or more of the so-called
"weak consonants," viz., the glides w and y, the glottal stop, and (for some of
the Semitic languages) n.
The differences follow regular, albeit complicated,
patterns, [...]
Well, these patterns are regular in the same sense Christian objected to
calling the German ablaut series "regular": there are patterns, but
there are many situations where more than one could apply and you have
to memorize which one. Also within one pattern, there is often more than
one variant.
Well, you consciously "memorize" the patterns only if you're an adult L2
learner. And there aren't any exceptions -- it's just one massive series
of ordered rules. (But then Janet Watson tried to force Arabic -- including
the Cairo and Yemen versions -- into the McCarthyite framework that doesn't
even work adequately for the Biblical Hebrew it was invented for.
At the 1977 NACAL, two of the Holiest Terrors of mid-century biblical
philology, Moshe Held and Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, side by side lit into John
J. McCarthy's prseentation of his MIT dissertation work, demonstrating to
their complete satisfaction that he had no adequate knowledge of Biblical
Hebrew. They didn't realize that Chomskyan linguistics wasn't about analyzing
languages, but about rewriting existing grammar-books into mathematical
formulae. (Terence Langendoen had already done it for several important
phonological papers from the Firthian school of U London linguists: BTW
J. R. Firth and Daniel Jones did not get along, which is part of why British
universities tend to have Departments of Linguistics and Phonetics or sometimes
even separate departments.)
With "more than one could apply" I meant situations like the following:

1) a pattern for the first radical being a guttural (פ״גרונית)
2) another pattern for the first radical being an Alef (פ״א)

Now, Alef (in Latin script written as ') is a guttural, so you have to
memorize for each verb with an initial Aleph which of the two patterns
is to be used:

1) 'asaf (collect) > te'esof (you(m) will collect)
2) 'amar (say) > to'mar (you(m) will say)

Pattern (1) with two short /a/ or /e/ sounds around the guttural (in the
naxt example a Chet) applies to initial gutturals but not to all of them:

1) chalam (dream) > tachalom (you(m) will dream)
3) chasar (lack) > techsar (you(m) will lack)

You have to memorize for each verb with an initial guttural whether to
apply pattern (1) or (3).

Pattern (3) resembles the strong-verb pattern (4), except the first
reduced vowel:

4) lamad (learn) > tilmad (you(m) will learn)
4) raqad (dance) > tirqod (you(m) will dance)

In patterns (1), (3), and (4), you have to memorize for each verb
whether the vowel between 2nd and 3rd radical is /a/ or /o/ in the
imperfectice aspect (or modern: in the future tense).

Other features of pattern (1) are indeed "regular, albeit complicated"
(e.g. whether /a/ or /e/ is the repeated short vowel arount the initial
guttural), but I am not aware of any regularity governing the
above-mentioned dichotomies.

At first glance, the complexity of the rules suggests that there are no
irregularities that are not covered by the rules but this is not true.
Each of the deviations is minor but they sum up to a fair share of
things to memorize for each verb. One reason for this degree of
irregularity being underestimated is that many learners of Hebrew, e.g.
theologians, learn only to read but not to produce the language, and
most differences are not crucial to understanding.
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-13 11:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's useful to recall that the use of "strong" and "weak" in Semitic grammar
is exactly the opposite. In Semitic languages, the "strong" verbs are those
where all three root consonants are pronounced in every form of the verb, and the
"weak" verbs are those that are said to include one or more of the so-called
"weak consonants," viz., the glides w and y, the glottal stop, and (for some of
the Semitic languages) n.
The differences follow regular, albeit complicated,
patterns, [...]
Well, these patterns are regular in the same sense Christian objected to
calling the German ablaut series "regular": there are patterns, but
there are many situations where more than one could apply and you have
to memorize which one. Also within one pattern, there is often more than
one variant.
Well, you consciously "memorize" the patterns only if you're an adult L2
learner. And there aren't any exceptions -- it's just one massive series
of ordered rules. (But then Janet Watson tried to force Arabic -- including
the Cairo and Yemen versions -- into the McCarthyite framework that doesn't
even work adequately for the Biblical Hebrew it was invented for.
At the 1977 NACAL, two of the Holiest Terrors of mid-century biblical
philology, Moshe Held and Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, side by side lit into John
J. McCarthy's prseentation of his MIT dissertation work, demonstrating to
their complete satisfaction that he had no adequate knowledge of Biblical
Hebrew. They didn't realize that Chomskyan linguistics wasn't about analyzing
languages, but about rewriting existing grammar-books into mathematical
formulae. (Terence Langendoen had already done it for several important
phonological papers from the Firthian school of U London linguists: BTW
J. R. Firth and Daniel Jones did not get along, which is part of why British
universities tend to have Departments of Linguistics and Phonetics or sometimes
even separate departments.)
1) a pattern for the first radical being a guttural (פ״גרונית)
2) another pattern for the first radical being an Alef (פ״א)
Now, Alef (in Latin script written as ') is a guttural, so you have to
memorize for each verb with an initial Aleph which of the two patterns
1) 'asaf (collect) > te'esof (you(m) will collect)
2) 'amar (say) > to'mar (you(m) will say)
Pattern (1) with two short /a/ or /e/ sounds around the guttural (in the
1) chalam (dream) > tachalom (you(m) will dream)
3) chasar (lack) > techsar (you(m) will lack)
You have to memorize for each verb with an initial guttural whether to
apply pattern (1) or (3).
Pattern (3) resembles the strong-verb pattern (4), except the first
4) lamad (learn) > tilmad (you(m) will learn)
4) raqad (dance) > tirqod (you(m) will dance)
In patterns (1), (3), and (4), you have to memorize for each verb
whether the vowel between 2nd and 3rd radical is /a/ or /o/ in the
imperfectice aspect (or modern: in the future tense).
Other features of pattern (1) are indeed "regular, albeit complicated"
(e.g. whether /a/ or /e/ is the repeated short vowel arount the initial
guttural), but I am not aware of any regularity governing the
above-mentioned dichotomies.
At first glance, the complexity of the rules suggests that there are no
irregularities that are not covered by the rules but this is not true.
Each of the deviations is minor but they sum up to a fair share of
things to memorize for each verb. One reason for this degree of
irregularity being underestimated is that many learners of Hebrew, e.g.
theologians, learn only to read but not to produce the language, and
most differences are not crucial to understanding.
All the patterns you show don't have to do with differing treatments
of an initial laryngeal (as they're called in the literature), but with
the various vowel patterns, which apply to strong verbs as well. They have to
be "memorized" for each verb, which is why I say Semitic doesn't use "triconsonantal
roots," but rather ordinary CCVC bases for inflection.

Saussure's "coefficients" are called "laryngeals" in IE studies because one
Herr Moeller tried to unite IE and Semitic. Not much else of his work
has survived the century!

"Speaking" Biblical Hebrew is not the point. Modern Hebrew is spoken
and in its inflection follows the classical model fairly well. Again it's
not a matter of "memorizing" for Hebrew-speakers, but of acquisition.

Some of the difficulty in "speaking" Biblical Hebrew is that the Masoretes
themselves had to reconcile 1000 or so years of different phases and
dialects without recognizing/knowing that there could be any differences between
varieties written down at different times and places, from the earliest
texts like Song of Miriam or Song of Deborah, to the latest, like Qohelet.
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-10 15:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Christian Weisgerber
* Strong and weak VERBS.
This is of interest in historical linguistics. For modern language
teaching a distinction regular/irregular is far more useful.
Well, this is a matter of taste. The name "irregular" is not per se
better, as most irregular verbs follow regular patterns, e.g.
singen/sang/gesungen = trinken/trank/getrunken = ringen/rang/gerungen =
schwingen/schwang/geschwungen = binden/band/gebunden, ...
But the pattern of vowel changes has to be individually memorized
for each verb in that class. That isn't exactly regular.
Post by Helmut Richter
1. There are verbs that keep their stem vowel. For these, the preterite
ends with -e in the 3rd person singular and the past participle ends
with -t. These are called "weak" or "regular".
2. There are verbs that change their stem vowel as in the above example
(ablaut), following one of several ablaut patterns. For these, the
preterite has no ending -e in the 3rd person singular and the past
participle ends with -en. These are called "strong" or "irregular".
3. There are verbs that have features of both (1) and (2), e.g.
denken/dachte/gedacht, bringen/brachte/gebracht, mögen/mochte/gemocht,
..., and the modal verbs.
Equating "weak" with "regular" and "strong" with "irregular" is
misleading.

WEAK verbs are those that form the preterite and the past participle
with -t.
STRONG verbs are those that change the stem vowel in the preterite
and the past participle and whose past participle ends in -en.

REGULAR verbs are weak verbs without stem changes.
IRREGULAR verbs are everything else:

* Strong verbs.
Since the ablaut pattern is unpredictable and has to be learned
for each verb, I don't see any use in considering them "regular".
Yes, they go back to a regular pattern in Proto-Indo-European,
but millennia of sound changes and analogical formations have
obliterated the ancient rules.

* Strong verbs with additional stem changes.
gehen - ging - gegangen, stehen - stand - gestanden
"Gehen" is suppletive, cobbled together from two similar
Germanic verbs. "Stehen" is a bit mysterious, seems to involve
analogy to "gehen".

* tun - tat - getan
Looks like a strong verb with additional irregularities, but it
isn't classified as such, is it?
This goes back to PIE formation different from that of the
strong verbs. Its preterite is the unique survivor of a PIE
reduplicating perfect.

* Weak verbs which also change the stem vowel.
E.g. rennen - rannte - gerannt
Whatever happened to those.

* Weak verbs with further stem changes
E.g. denken - dachte - gedacht
Something... something about sound changes that weren't leveled
out? I forgot.

* Preterite-presents: the modals and "wissen".
Their characteristic feature is that their present tense uses past
tense verb endings. Their preterite and past participle are formed
like those of weak verbs. Some of them also include vowel changes.
Again, this goes back to the PIE aspect system where some forms
with perfect endings didn't acquire past tense meaning and...
oh my god, it's all horribly complicated and why would anybody
want to know about the PIE verb system when learning German?

* "haben", weak with odd changes
This one originated as a perfectly regular weak verb but
suffered irregularization when used as an auxiliary.

* "sein"
Highly suppletive and irregular since forever.

* Miscellaneous other irregularities, some of them considered
nonstandard but widespread:
- Weak verbs picking up -en past participles
e.g. spalten - spaltete - gespalten/gespaltet
- Weak verbs picking up unetymological "strong" participles
e.g. winken - winkte - gewunken/gewinkt
- Spontaneous umlauts in weak verbs
e.g. ich frage, du frägst/fragst, er frägt/fragt
- The mögen/möchten split where the subjunctive II is turning
into a separate modal.

... and whatever else I forgot.

Much of this, of course, also exists in the other Germanic languages.
With an eye to history, you can also talk about weak and strong
verbs in English, but for language teaching purposes the distinction
is regular vs. irregular.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2017-06-12 17:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
my guess for SWF is...
Sb (Noun) -- (Uncountable) -- Feminine
which is good (maybe) for [gnat, midge]
but not for [wamba, swf. womb, belly.]
mugga, mucca, swf. gnat, midge.
wamba, swf. womb, belly.
If you look at a scan of Wright's OHG Primer, the abbreviations are
explained at the head of the glossary. (Missing from the HTML-ized
version at https://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/)
sm., sf., sn. = strong masculine, etc.
wm., wf., wn. = weak masculine, etc.
Thus, "swf" refers to a feminine noun with variously strong or weak
declension.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber
thanks again.
it's odd that I've been studying
German for so long without bumping into
strong or weak declension.
Then you can't have studied it for more than fifteen minutes.
Loading...