Note the difference between Seifhennersdorf and Sebnitz: In the former variety, palatals derive from velars after front vowels and sonorant consonants alike. However, in Sebnitz the choice of velar vs. palatal is determined by the vowel preceding the liquid, but only in the case of palatal stops (recall 11h, 11j), but not palatal fricatives (recall 11c, 11d).

Like West Mecklenburg, the two Sln varieties described above are unique in more than one way. In particular, none of the neighboring communities are reported to have velar noncontinuants as targets for velar fronting. The Sln variety closest geographically to Sebnitz and Seifhennersdorf for which a description is available is Wenzel (1919) (Map 5.2; recall Footnote 8). It is clear from that source that the set of targets for velar fronting consists solely of /x/ and that velar noncontinuants do not have palatal realizations, e.g. [lɪçt] 'light' (=⟦liχt⟧) vs. [lɑxŋ̍] 'laugh-inf' (=⟦lɑχᵰ⟧). The original sources for the USax varieties spoken in Schokau (Pompé 1907; Map 7.2) and the broad area in West Lausitz (Protze 1957; Map 7.2) devote considerable discussion to the phonetics of consonants and vowels. It is clear from both sources that the sole target for velar fronting is /x/ but that velar noncontinuants do not have a palatal realization. No examples were found in any of the aforementioned sources for words consisting of a back vowel plus liquid followed by /x/ which could potentially shed light on whether or not Coalescence-2 is active.

Sln dialects located further away from Sebnitz and Seifhennersdorf are not reported to have noncontinuants as targets for velar fronting either. See in particular the varieties referred to in §5.3.2 (Map 5.2), namely Kreis Jauer (Halbsguth

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

1938), Kieslingswalde (Kreis Habelschwerdt; Pautsch 1901), and the supraregional Sln dialect described by von Unwert (1908). 10

### **11.5 East Pomeranian**

Mischke (1936) describes the EPo dialects spoken once in Kreis Bütow and Kreis Rummelsburg, which I consider in that order (Map 11.2). The synchronic distribution of dorsal consonants in Kreis Bütow is depicted in (17).

Map 11.2: East Pomeranian (EPo), Low Prussian (LPr), and High Prussian (HPr). Squares indicate postsonorant velar fronting, and the circle indicates the absence of postsonorant velar fronting. 1=Teuchert (1913), 2=Semrau (1915a,b), 3=Pirk (1928), 4=Mahnke (1931), 5=Kühl (1932), 6=Mischke (1936) (Kreis Bütow), 7=Mischke (1936) (Kreis Rummelsburg), 8=Stritzel (1937) (Kreis Lauenburg), 9=Stritzel (1937) (Kreis Stolp), 10=Tita 1921 [1965], 11=Darski (1973), 12=Kuck (1933), 13=Kuck & Wiesinger (1965), 14=Wagner (1912), 15=Mitzka (1919), 16=Mitzka (1922), 17=Natau (1937), 18=Bink (1953), 19=Tessmann (1966).

10SchlSA makes no reference to palatal noncontinuants either. For example, on Map 51 for *kein* 'none', all of the realizations begin with the velar [k] (cf. 10f with [c]). In the introduction to that atlas the list of consonants (p. 5) includes palatal fricatives (both lenis and fortis), but only velar stops. In a separate chart on the same page there is a symbol for a palatalized ("palatalisiert[e]ˮ) velar nasal, but no tokens with that segment were found in the maps.

11.5 East Pomeranian

[x] surfaces word-initially before a consonant in (18a), but not before a vowel. [ɣ] and [ʝ] in (18b–18d) exemplify Contrast Type B in (2a). The vowel [ɑːi] in (18c) was historically front (cf. OSax *giotan*). An example of a [ɣ]~[ʝ] alternation is listed in (18e). The initial segment in (18a–18e) derived historically from a velar (WGmc + [ɣ]). Palatal [ʝ] (<WGmc + [j]) occurs before any type of vowel in (18f). Word-initial dorsal stops ([k c]) stand in an allophonic relationship: [k] (=⟦k⟧) surfaces before back vowels or consonants in (18g) and [c] (=⟦k´⟧) before front vowels in (18h). No data are given for a word beginning with a dorsal stop followed by a liquid plus front vowel; hence, it cannot be determined if Coalescence-2 is active. The formal rule of fronting of velars in word-initial position (see below) is triggered by all front vowels in contrast to the fronting process in neighboring Kreis Rummelsburg.

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

In the context after a sonorant, velar obstruents do not contrast with the corresponding palatals. Thus, velars ([x ɣ k g]) surface after a back vowel in (19a, 19c, 19f, 19i) and palatals ([ç ʝ c ɟ]) after a front vowel in (19b, 19d, 19g, 19j) or coronal sonorant consonant in (19e, 19h). The palatals and velars referred to in (19a–19j) derive historically from velars (WGmc + [x ɣ k]).

(19) Distribution of postsonorant dorsal fricatives:

The distribution of [ŋ] in (19k) and [ɲ] in (19l, 19m) exemplifies Contrast Type B in (2b). Historical [nd] sequences shifted to [ŋ] via Velarization in (1b), e.g. the second example under (19k). Historical [ŋ] surfaces as [ŋ] after a back vowel in the first example in (19k) and as [ɲ] after a front vowel in (19l). Palatal [ɲ] in (19m) was historically [ŋ] (cf. StG [trɑŋk]).

The initial sound in (18c, 18f) is an underling palatal (/ʝ/). In all other examples in dataset (18) the leftmost sound is an underlying velar (/x ɣ k/) which surfaces as palatal before front vowels by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. The postsonorant dorsal consonants in (19a–19l) are underlyingly velar (/x ɣ k g ŋ/) which surface as palatal after a coronal sonorant by Velar Fronting-9. The postvocalic nasal plus

### 11.5 East Pomeranian

stop sequence in (19m) is underlyingly palatal. Since the back vowel in that example was also etymologically back (cf. MHG *tranc*), the phonemicization of palatal /ɲ/ in that word was probably a consequence of analogy (§8.6.2), cf. [drɪŋkə] 'drink-inf' (=⟦drįŋ´kə⟧).11

Consider now the patterning of dorsal obstruents in Kreis Rummelsburg (Mischke 1936; Map 11.2) in (20). Note that [g] is absent entirely. All instances of [g] in Kreis Bütow are realized as [k] in Kreis Rummelsburg, e.g. Kreis Bütow [bɑgdə] backte 'bake-pret' (=19i) vs. Kreis Rummelsburg [bɑːkdə] (=⟦bɑkdə⟧).

A significant difference between Kreis Bütow and Kreis Rummelsburg is that the former dialect possesses palatal noncontinuants (recall 17), but the latter does not. This point is clear in the description of the reflexes of MLG [k] in Mischke (1936: 38–39). For example, Mischke transcribes the Kreis Bütow realization of ⟦k´i·k´ə⟧ 'look-inf' in (18h) with palatal stops, but the same word is rendered with velar stops (⟦ki·kə⟧) in Kreis Rummelsburg. Likewise palatal [ɲ] in Kreis Bütow is absent in Kreis Rummelsburg, which is decidedly velar ("ausgesprochen gutturalˮ; Mischke 1936: 32).

A second significant difference between Kreis Bütow and Kreis Rummelsburg is the set of triggers for postsonorant velar fronting. Kreis Rummelsburg has the phonemic monophthongs in Table 11.1. All phonemic vowels are included here with the exception of placeless schwa (/ə/). The three-way length distinction among certain vowels is ignored.

Table 11.1: Distinctive features for vowels (Kreis Rummelsburg)

11No words were found in the original source in which [ŋ] and [ɲ] alternate, although I consider that gap to be accidental. Examples in which Velarization (=1b) applies after a front vowel which could potentially feed velar fronting are apparently absent.

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

Among front vowels, /i i· i ɪ/ are [+high] and /eː e· ɛ æː æ·/ are [–high]. Within both groups, the split is then made between [+tense] and [–tense]. In the [coronal, –high, +tense] category, [±low] distinguishes /eː e·/ from /æː æ·/. Within each of the three [coronal, +tense] columns, length units distinguish the individual members. The same procedure assigns the features listed above to the [dorsal] vowels. It is demonstrated below that [±tense] is crucial in defining the set of triggers for postsonorant fronting.

Mischke (1936) lists seven diphthongs; the ones important for my treatment are the two ending in a front vowel, which he transcribes as ⟦ɑį ei⟧. Note that the second component of ⟦ɑį⟧ is rendered with the traditional symbol for a lax vowel, while the second part of ⟦ei⟧ with the traditional symbol for a tense vowel. I treat the second part of both diphthongs as phonologically [+tense] (=[ɑːi ei]) because their right edges behave as [+tense] vowels. As in StG, no word in Kreis Rummelsburg can end in a lax vowel. For example, there are words ending in [i·] but not [ɪ], e.g. [fri·] 'free' (=⟦fri·⟧); Mischke (1936: 20). Significantly, there are words ending in both [ei] and [ɑːi], e.g. [ʃnɑːi] 'snow' (=⟦šnɑį⟧), [dei] 'you-dat.sg' (=⟦dei⟧); Mischke (1936: 17, 20). The existence of words like those suggests that the second component of the diphthongs [ei] and [ɑːi] is phonologically [+tense].

The patterning of dorsal fricatives in word-initial position is the same as in the related variety of Kreis Bütow (recall 18). What is important is the distribution of [x ɣ] and their palatal counterparts in postsonorant position. The following datasets demonstrate that the velars never contrast with the corresponding palatals. In (21) it can be seen that [ç] surfaces after a front [+tense] monophthong in (21a) and [x] after a front [–tense] monophthong in (21b) or a back vowel in (21c). The historical reflex of the postvocalic dorsal fricatives in (21) and below is a velar sound (WGmc + [ɣ x k]). Examples like [liçt] 'light' with a short front tense vowel [i] in (21a) are important because they show that the trigger for fronting is the tenseness feature and not a feature for length.

11.5 East Pomeranian

[ʝ] and [ɣ] have the same distribution as their fortis counterparts: [ʝ] occurs after a front [+tense] monophthong in (22a) and [ɣ] after a back monophthong in (22b). There are a number of gaps that I consider to be accidental, e.g. there are apparently no short front tense monophthongs before [ʝ] and no short back vowels before [ɣ].

### (22) [ʝ] and [ɣ] (from /ɣ/):

[ç] (/ɣ/) occurs after a [+tense] monophthong in (23a) and [x] (/ɣ/) after a [– tense] monophthong in (23b) or a back vowel in (23c). [x ç] in these examples derives historically from a velar (WGmc + [ɣ]). As indicated in the first row of (23), I assume that /ɣ/ is the underlying sound for [x ç] in the synchronic phonology, although it is also possible that the original lenis sound (WGmc + /ɣ/) restructured to /x/ in those words where there is no longer a lenis alternant. Underlying /ɣ/ remains velar in (23b, 23c) and shifts to palatal in (23a) by the fronting rule I posit below. In both sets of examples, the underlying lenis sound undergoes Final Fortition in coda position.

### (23) [ç] and [x] (from /ɣ/):

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

Palatals occur after a diphthong whose second member is [+tense] in (24a) and velars elsewhere in (24b):

(24) Palatals (from /x ɣ/) after a diphthong:

After a coronal sonorant consonant ([r l n]) palatals surface, as in (25). The realization of /x ɣ/ as palatal after [r l n] is not conditioned by the type of vowel preceding that consonant; hence, Coalescence-1 is not present in the phonology of this dialect.

(25) Palatals (from (from /x ɣ/) after a coronal consonant:

Postsonorant palatal fricatives in (21a, 22a, 23a, 24a) derive from the corresponding velars after a front [+tense] vowel by (26a) and after a consonant in (25) by (26b); recall §3.4. Since [±tense] is distinctive for vowels but not for consonants the two rules cannot be collapsed into one.

(26) a. Velar Fronting-10: [+tense] [coronal] [ −son +cont] [dorsal] b. Velar Fronting-3: [ +cons +son ] [coronal] [ −son +cont] [dorsal]

### 11.5 East Pomeranian

Tita (1921 [1965]) discusses the EPo dialect once spoken in the town of Kamnitz (Map 11.2). That author does not consider whether or not the velar nasal [ŋ] has a palatal realization. The dorsal obstruents for Kamnitz are listed in (27). The dialect does not have [g].

The phonemic front vowels are /i ɪ eː ɛː ɛ/, the phonemic back vowels are /u ʊ oː o ɔː ɔ ǝ ɑː ɑ/, and the phonemic diphthongs are /ɑi ɛi ɑu ɛu/. I demonstrate below that velar fronting is active in postsonorant position and that it requires /ɛ/ – but not its long counterpart /ɛː/ – to be analyzed phonologically as [+low]; recall Rheintal (§3.4). The distinctive features for the phonemic vowels (excluding placeless schwa) are presented in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2: Distinctive features for vowels (Kamnitz)

Front vowels and back vowels are [coronal] and [dorsal] respectively. Within those two groups, the feature values [+low] and [–low] are assigned, and then within the two [–low] groups, the vowels are marked as [±high] and [±tense].

Kamnitz exhibits Contrast Type B in (2a) for word-initial [ɣ] and [ʝ]. [ɣ] (<WGmc + [ɣ]) occurs before a consonant in (28a) or any back vowel with the exception of [ɑi] or [ə] in (28b), but never before a front vowel. The original velar (+ [ɣ]) is now realized as a palatal [ʝ] before the back vowels [ɑi] or [ə] in (28c) or front vowels in (28d). As in many other dialects, the original velar now participates in [ɣ]~[ʝ] alternations in (28e). Palatal [ʝ] (<WGmc + [j]) occurs before

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

any type of vowel in (28f). Note that [ɣ] and [ʝ] contrast before the same back vowel in examples like [ɣɔːn] 'yarn' in (28b) vs. [ʝɔːɣə] 'hunt-inf' in (28f). Tita (1921 [1965]: 57) observes that [k] (⟦k⟧) is realized as velar or palatal depending on the context. On the basis of his data it can be concluded that [k] occurs before a consonant in (28g) or any back vowel in (28h) and [c] before any front vowel in (28i).

### (28) Word-initial dorsal obstruents:

In postsonorant position, [x ɣ] and [ç ʝ] never contrast. The generalization is that [x] occurs after a back vowel in (29a) or [ɛ] in (29b), while [ç] surfaces after front vowels other than [ɛ] in (29c) or a coronal sonorant consonant in (29d). The same generalizations hold for [ɣ ʝ] in (29e–29g) and for [x ç] derived historically from WGmc + [ɣ] in (29h–29k). Umlaut alternations of the type [ɔ]~[ɛ] provide further support that [x] occurs after [ɛ] (see 29l). Velar [k] and palatal [c] (both from WGmc + [k]) never contrast; the former occurs after back vowels in (29m) and the former after front vowels in (29n). No examples were found in the original source with [k] or [c] after a coronal sonorant consonant. At least one example (29o) has palatal [c] (< WGmc + [k]) in the context after a historically syncopated front vowel (which is visible in the StG orthography).12

12Tita (1921 [1965]) does not provide an example for [c] after [ɛ], although he does give the one item [vɛlc] 'which' (=⟦węlk⟧), in which [c] (=⟦k⟧) occurs after the sequence [ɛl]. Two treatments

### 11.5 East Pomeranian

(29) Postsonorant dorsal obstruents:

The set of targets for the fronting of velars in word-initial position in (28) is /ɣ k/, and the set of triggers consists of front vowels but not coronal consonants. Synchronically derived [ʝ] is situated before a front vowel in (28d) and the second word in (28e). The palatal allophone [c] in (28i) derives from /k/. The fronting of word-initial /ɣ k/ is accomplished by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. All other instances of [ʝ] are underlying palatals (28c, 28f).

 Fronting in (a) and (b) is accomplished with (30) and (26b) respectively.

suggest themselves for the fronting of /k/ in [vɛlc]: (a) velar fronting is triggered by /l/ (recall 26b), or (b) the fronting of /k/ is indirectly triggered by the vowel /ɛ/: Coalescence-1 merges the [coronal] feature for /ɛ/ and /l/, and then velar fronting spreads [coronal] from any front vowel to a velar stop. Since no additional examples are provided I leave this question open.

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

(30) Velar Fronting-2:

$$
\begin{bmatrix}
\text{[-Low]} & \begin{bmatrix}
\text{-son} \\
\text{+CONT}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}
$$

$$
\begin{bmatrix}
\text{[-rosonAL]} & \begin{bmatrix}
\text{[-ONSLL]}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}
$$

The distribution of dorsal obstruents in the town of Lauenburg (Pirk 1928; Map 11.2) is depicted in (31). Word-initial [g] is an allophone of /ɣ/. I comment on the status of dorsal nasals below.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(31)} & \text{a.} & \text{/} \text{\textquotedblleft} & \text{/} \text{\textquotedblright} & & \text{/} \text{\textquotedblleft} \\ & & \text{\textquotedblleft} & \text{\textquotedblleft} \\ & & \text{[g]} & \text{[j]} & \text{[k]} & \text{[c]} \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{b.} & \text{/} \text{\textquotedblleft} & & \text{/} \text{\textquotedblright} & & \text{/} \text{\textquotedblleft} \\ & \text{\textquotedblleft} & & \text{[c]} & \text{[k]} \\ & \text{[x]} & \text{[y]} & \text{[y]} & \text{[j]} & \text{[k]} \end{array}$$

As illustrated in (32a–32f), Lauenburg exhibits Contrast Type B in (2a) for word-initial [g] and [ʝ]. The post-palatal back vowel in (32c) was historically front and shifted to a back vowel by either Vowel Retraction or Vowel Reduction. [g ʝ] in (32a–32e) derive from a historical velar (WGmc + [ɣ]). Palatal [ʝ] (<WGmc + [j]) in (32f) stands before any type of vowel. [c] and [k] never contrast: The latter surfaces before a back vowel in (32g) or consonant in (32h) and the former before a front vowel in (32i). [k]~[c] alternations are attested in (32j). I interpret Pirk's ⟦ɑ⟧ as a low front vowel ([æ]) because it is one of the umlauted (fronted) realizations of back vowels.

(32) Word-initial dorsal obstruents:

### 11.5 East Pomeranian

Velar fricatives [x ɣ] never contrast with the corresponding palatals in postsonorant position: The velars occur after back vowels in (33a, 33c) and the palatals [ç ʝ] after front vowels in (33b, 33d). No examples were found in which dorsal fricatives occur after consonants. The lenis palatal stop [ɟ] is the reflex of an earlier geminate (+ [gg]) after a front vowel in (33e); cf. OSax *hruggi* 'back'. No examples are provided in the original source for modern reflexes of a phonetic [g] (<WGmc + [gg] after back vowels). The relationship between [k] and [c] is not the same as the relationship between the other velar and palatal pairs discussed above. Velar [k] occurs after back vowels in (33f) but never after front vowels, and [c] can be found in many items after a front vowel in (33g). [k]~[c] alternations in (33h) are also attested. However, palatal [c] also occurs in a context other than after a front vowel in diminutives in (33i) and at the right edge of nouns and certain verbs in (33j). [k c] in the examples referred to here derive from WGmc + [k].

(33) Postsonorant dorsal obstruents:

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

The word-initial sound in (32a, 32b, 32d, 32e) is velar /ɣ/, which surfaces as [ʝ] before a front vowel by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. Elsewhere (before a back vowel or consonant) that /ɣ/ is realized as [g] by g-Formation-2 (§8.4). In the context before a back vowel in (32c, 32f), the word-initial [ʝ] is an underlying palatal (/ʝ/). The word-initial sound in (32g–32j) is /k/, which surfaces as [c] before a front vowel by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6 and otherwise as [k].

In postsonorant position velar /x ɣ/ are realized as palatal after a front vowel in (33b, 33d) by Velar Fronting-8. I analyze the stop in (33e) as an allophone of /g/, which surfaces as palatal [ɟ] by Velar Fronting-8. The same process creates [c] from /k/ in (33f–33h). The [c] in (33i, 33j) is an underlying palatal (/c/).13 14

Two varieties of EPo that are the essentially the same in terms of velar fronting are the ones once spoken in close proximity, namely Sępóno Krajeńskie (Darski

13Pirk (1928) does not comment on whether or not [ŋ] has a palatal realization in the neighborhood of front vowels. A few words in his grammar suggest that the sound transcribed as ⟦ŋ⟧ is phonetically [ɲ] after a front vowel because the palatal stop (and not the velar stop) follows that nasal, e.g. [pɪɲcstə] 'Pentecost' (=⟦piŋkʹstə⟧). I tentatively conclude that /ŋ/ is one of the targets for velar fronting. This suggests that the [ɲc] in words like ⟦piŋkʹstə⟧ is underlyingly /ŋk/, which surfaces as [ɲc] by Velar Fronting-8.

14It is not clear what the generalization is involving the alternations in (33j), but the occurrence of [k] and [c] after a back vowel plus [l] suggests that /c/ is a phonemic palatal because it contrasts with /k/. One could argue that the occurrence of [k] or [c] after a liquid in wordfinal position is a consequence of the stem vowel, i.e. [k] if that vowel is back and [c] if it is front. However, after [r], only [c] surfaces, even if the vowel preceding that [r] is back, e.g [mɑrcə] 'notice-inf' (=⟦mɑ̊rkʹə⟧). (The same generalization holds for the palatal fricatives [ç ʝ], e.g. [bɑrç] 'mountain' (=⟦bɑ̊rχ⟧), [bɑrʝə] 'mountain-pl' (=⟦bɑ̊rɡə⟧)). It is conceivable that the set of triggers for postsonorant velar fronting includes all front vowels and /r/, but not /l/. If this were the correct treatment, it would be the only case in the present study in which only /r/ but not /l/ serves as trigger. Alternatively, there may be words not mentioned in Pirk (1928) containing [k] after [r], which would contrast with [c], as in (33j) for the context after /l/. I leave this question open.

### 11.5 East Pomeranian

1973; Map 11.2) and Kreis Konitz (Semrau 1915a,b; Map 11.2). I describe below the latter variety.15

The phonemic dorsal consonants for Kreis Konitz are depicted in (34). In that system there are velar and palatal fricatives ([ɣ]/[ʝ] and [x]/[ç]), velar and palatal nasals ([ŋ]/[ɲ]), and the velar stop [k]. There is no palatal stop ([c]) corresponding to [k].

In Semrau's system [k x g ɣ ŋ] correspond to ⟦k x ɡ ʓ ŋ⟧. For palatals, [ç]=⟦c⟧ or ⟦tc⟧ depending on the etymological source: ⟦c⟧ is historically a fricative (<+ [x] or + [ɣ]) and ⟦tc⟧ a historical stop (<+ [k]) The dialect-specific sound change from [k] to [ç] is shown to be active synchronically. [ʝ] (=⟦ᵈj⟧) is described as a voiced lenis palatal fricative ("palataler Reibelaut, stimmhafte lenisˮ). As implied by the raised "dˮ, [ʝ] (=⟦ᵈj⟧) can be realized as an affricate in some places within Kreis Konitz (recall Footnote 15). Semrau is clear that her ⟦tc⟧ is a voiceless fortis palatal fricative ("palataler Reibelaut, stimmlose fortisˮ), which is rendered in my transcription as [ç].

Word-initial position exemplifies Contrast Type B in (2a) for [k] (/k/) and [ç] (/ç/) as well as [g] (/ɣ/) and [ʝ] (/ʝ/): Velar [k g] surface before a back vowel in (35a, 35b), but never before a front vowel, while palatal [ç ʝ] occur before front vowels in (35c, 35d) or back vowels in (35e, 35f, 35p). In word-initial position before a consonant, [k g] only surface if the vowel following the consonant is back in (35g, 35h), while [ç ʝ] can surface if the stem vowel is front in (35i, 35j) or back in (35k, 35l). The back stem vowel in (35e, 35f, 35k, 35l) was etymologically front (e.g. [ʝɑːʃt] 'barley'; cf. OSax *gersta*); [çnɑi] 'knee'; cf. OSax *knio*). Regular

15One difference between the two varieties is the nature of the velar fronting outputs. Recall from §10.5 that Sępóno Krajeńskie is the only known LG variety with alveolopalatalization. The discussion in Semrau (1915a,b) does not provide a clear indication that her variety can also be so classified. The transcriptions in Darski (1973) indicate that the output for velar fronting for a velar stop target is a (sibilant) affricate (e.g. historical [k] is realized as [tɕ] in the context of front segments).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

alternations involving [k]~[ç] and [g]~[ʝ] are attested in word-initial position (in 35m–35o). [k ç] in (35) derived historically from WGmc + [k], [ʝ] in (35p) from WGmc + [j] and [g ʝ] in the remaining examples from WGmc + [ɣ].

(35) Dorsal obstruents in word-initial position

Contrast Type B is also attested in postsonorant position (=2b). In that context velars [k x ɣ] surface after a back vowel in (36a–36c) but never after a front vowel or coronal sonorant consonant. The palatals [ç ʝ] occur after a front vowel in (36d, 36e), coronal sonorant consonant in (36f, 36g) or back vowel in (36h, 36i). The [ç] in (36h) was once preceded by a coronal sonorant consonant (cf. MHG *arc* 'bad'). Example (36i) illustrates that palatal [ʝ] can occur after a back vowel. Alternations in postsonorant position between [k]~[ç] in (36j) and [ɣ]~[ʝ]/[ç] in (36k) are common. All dorsal stops and fricatives referred to above derive from historical velars (WGmc + [ɣ k]).

(36) Dorsal obstruents in postsonorant position:

### 11.5 East Pomeranian

The (2b) contrast also holds for nasals: [ŋ] surfaces only after a back vowel in (37a), but never after a front vowel or consonant, and [ɲ] after a front vowel in (37b) or a back vowel in (37c). Note the near minimal pair [zuŋə] 'sing-part' in (37a) vs. [fuɲə] 'find-part' in (37c). [ŋ]~[ɲ] alternations as in (37d) are common.

(37) Dorsal nasals in postsonorant position:

Palatal [ɲ] in (37b) derived historically from [ŋ] by velar fronting. That velar could be either an original [ŋ] (e.g. [fɪɲə] < [fɪŋə]) or a new [ŋ] created by Velarization (=1b), e.g. [ɪɲ] < [ɪŋ] < [ɪnd]). It is not clear from the original source what triggered the change from [ŋ] to [ɲ] in (37c).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

The word-initial palatal before a back vowel in (35e, 35f, 35p) or before a liquid followed by a back vowel (35k, 35l) is an underlying palatal (/ʝ/ or /ç/). Wordinitial [g]~[ʝ] alternations in (35o) are accounted for with an underlying velar (/ɣ/) that surfaces as [ʝ] before a front vowel by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6 and as [g] in the elsewhere case by g-Formation-2 (§8.4); recall Lauenburg in (31a). Nonalternating [ʝ] before a front vowel in (35d) is likewise analyzed as /ɣ/. In (35j) the [coronal] feature of the front vowel and of the preceding sonorant consonant merge to a single instantiation of [coronal] by Coalescence-2. The latter process feeds Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6, thereby creating [ʝ]. Word-initial velars before back vowels in (35a, 35b) or before back vowels separated by a consonant in (35g, 35h) are underlying velars (/k ɣ/). As described above, /ɣ/ is realized as [g] by g-Formation-2.

Kreis Konitz is the only dialect uncovered in the present survey with regular [k]~[ç] alternations. The sound underlying [k]~[ç] alternations for word-initial position (in 35m, 35n) is /k/, which undergoes fronting to the corresponding palatal (|c|) by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. That palatal stop surfaces as [ç] by (38). The change from stop to fricative is stated without a context because any derived palatal stop (|c|) is realized as the corresponding fricative, regardless of whether or not it is word-initial or postsonorant (see below). Given the distribution of [k] and [ç], I analyze [ç] in nonalternating examples like (35c) as /k/ as well. Example (35i) is accounted for formally as (35j) described in the preceding paragraph.

(38) c-Spirantization:

After a back vowel (=36h, 36i) [ç ʝ] are underlying palatals (/ç ʝ/). All other postsonorant dorsal obstruents in (36) are underlying velars (/k x ɣ/), which shift to the corresponding palatals after a coronal sonorant in (36d–36g, 36j, 36k) by Velar Fronting-9. The derived palatal (|c|) from /k/ surfaces as [ç] by c-Spirantization. The nasal (/ŋ/) in (37a, 37b, 37d) bears the [dorsal] feature and surfaces as palatal after a front vowel in (37b) by Velar Fronting-9. In the context after back vowels in (37c), [ɲ] is an underlying palatal (/ɲ/).16

16The patterning of velars and palatals in Kreis Konitz is essentially the same in the variety of Zipser German in Hobgarten (modern-day Slovakia), as described by Gréb (1921). Zipser German was a German-language island which developed from the CG dialect spoken by the people who originally settled that region at the onset of the thirteenth century. The area is

### 11.6 Low Prussian

Although velar noncontinuants typically pattern together with the velar fricatives as targets for velar fronting in EPo, other EPo varieties have a narrower set of targets. One dialect in which velar noncontinuants fail to serve as triggers for velar fronting was mentioned above, namely Kreis Rummelsburg (=20), which contrasts with the broad set of targets in the neighboring variety once spoken in Kreis Bütow in (17). A second example not mentioned earlier is Kreis Schlawe (Mahnke 1931; Map 11.2). As in Lauenburg (=31), Kreis Schlawe has a version of velar fronting that shifts /ɣ/ to [ʝ] in word-initial position before a front vowel; before a back vowel or consonant, /ɣ/ surfaces as [g] by g-Formation-2, e.g. [ʝɛlt] 'money' (=⟦ĝelt⟧) vs. [gɑːǝ] 'go-inf' (=⟦gɑ̊ǝ⟧). In postsonorant position, the two velars that undergo fronting to palatal are /x ɣ/, e.g. [lɑxǝ] 'laugh-inf' (=⟦lɑxǝ⟧) vs. [ʃlɛçt] 'bad' (=⟦šleχt⟧); [oːɣ] 'eye' (=⟦ōʒ⟧) vs. [ʃwiːʝǝ] 'be silent-inf' (=⟦swīĝǝ⟧). Mahnke (1931: 35) makes no reference to a palatal realization of [k], noting that MLG [k] is preserved in all positions as [k] (=⟦k⟧). No mention is made of a palatal realization of [ŋ]. From the formal perspective, the set of targets for velar fronting in the Kreis Schlawe variety is restricted to velar fricatives (=Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-3 in §4.3 and Velar Fronting-1).

### **11.6 Low Prussian**

In several varieties of LPr it is clear from the original sources that the targets for velar fronting (both word-initial and postsonorant) consist of velar fricatives and velar noncontinuants. In some sources for LPr the palatal realization of sounds like /k/ and /ŋ/ is simply commented on but not expressed with separate phonetic symbols, but other sources provide distinct symbols for velars and palatals and therefore enable one to draw conclusions concerning the triggers and targets for velar fronting. I consider data from one LPr variety and then conclude by discussing briefly some of the other sources for this dialect area.

a velar fronting island because it is completely surrounded by a language with [x] (/x/) with no [ç] realization (Slovak); see Hanulíková & Hamann (2010). It is interesting to observe that descriptions of other varieties of Zipser German have a more restricted set of velar fronting targets and triggers than in Hobgarten. For example, postsonorant velar fronting only affects /x/ after a coronal sonorant in the town of Leibitz, as described by Lumtzer (1894, 1896), e.g. ⟦nęχ⟧ 'not', ⟦knæ̂χt⟧ 'vassal', ⟦hɑrχn̥⟧ 'hark-inf' vs. ⟦ɡəbrǫxt⟧ 'bring-part'. By contrast, the phonetically transcribed entries in the dictionary for Dobschau (WbMD) and the phonetically transcribed texts in Kövi (1911) for Käsmark point to a narrower set of velar fronting triggers, namely the front vowels but not the coronal sonorant consonants, e.g. ⟦iχ⟧ 'I' vs. ⟦mɑnx⟧ 'many', ⟦pox⟧ 'stream'. These facts are expressed formally with Velar Fronting-13, which is discussed in §13.3.4 and §15.2.

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

Natau (1937) describes the LPr dialects once spoken in the northeastern part of East Prussia, concentrating on the small village of Willuhnen (Map 11.2). That dialect has the phonemic dorsal sounds and their realizations depicted in (39). Among those sounds are the two palatal noncontinuants [c ɲ]. Natau transcribes those sounds with the same phonetic symbol for the corresponding velars (⟦k⟧ and ⟦ŋ⟧), but he gives very clear statements regarding the velar vs. palatal distribution (p. 31–32). The stop [g] (=⟦g⟧) is present as the reflex of WGmc + [gg], e.g. ⟦rigə⟧ 'back'' but Natau does not discuss whether or not his ⟦g⟧ is velar or palatal after a front vowel.

Word-initial position (=40a–40g) illustrates Contrast Type B in (2a) for [ɣ] and [ʝ]. The initial palatal in (40f) was historically velar (WGmc + [ɣ]) and the one in (40g) was the etymological palatal. Velar and palatal stops [k]/[c] stand in an allophonic relationship. In word-initial position [k] occurs before any back vowel in (40h) or consonant in (40i) and [c] before any front vowel in (40j); Natau (1937: 31). Examples (40b, 40i) illustrate that Coalescence-2 is not active in this dialect.

11.6 Low Prussian

In postsonorant position [x ɣ] only occur after a back vowel in (41a, 41d) and [ç ʝ] after a front vowel in (41b, 41e) or liquid in (41c, 41f). [k] and [c] have a parallel distribution in (41g–41i). As in West Mecklenburg (§11.3) and Sebnitz (§11.4), [ŋk] occurs after a back vowel and [ɲc] after a front vowel.17 From the historical perspective, [x ç] derive from WGmc + [x], [ɣ ʝ] from WGmc + [ɣ], [k c] from WGmc + [k], and [ŋ ɲ] from WGmc + [ŋ].

(41) Postsonorant dorsal consonants:

From the formal point of view, the initial sound in (40a–40e) is /ɣ/, and in (40h–40j) it is /k/. Those velars surface as palatal in word-initial position before a front vowel by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. In the context before a back vowel the initial sound in (40f, 40g) is an underlying palatal (/ʝ/). In postsonorant position (=41), /x ɣ k/ shift to the corresponding palatals after a coronal sonorant by Velar Fronting-9.

In Willuhnen, velar noncontinuants and velar fricatives serve as targets for velar fronting. However, other LPr varieties once spoken in the same region (East

17Natau (1937: 26) transcribes the diminutive suffix as ⟦kə⟧, but he does not say whether or not the ⟦k⟧ is phonetically [k] or [c], e.g. ⟦kīəlkə⟧ 'wedge-dim'. In certain EPo varieties, the consonant in that suffix is realized consistently as [c], regardless of the nature of the preceding sound (e.g. Lauenburg; recall 33i).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

Prussia) have a narrower set of targets. Two very similar varieties are the ones described by Bink (1953) in and around the village of Mandtkeim and Mitzka (1919) for Königsberg (Map 11.2). It is clear from both sources that the palatal fricatives [ç ʝ] are allophones of the corresponding velars in postsonorant position, e.g. Königsberg [vʊxt] 'impact' (=⟦wuxt⟧) vs. [kɪç] 'kitchen' (=⟦kĭχ⟧); [tuːɣənt] 'virtue' (=⟦tûγǝnt⟧) vs. [kriːʝə] 'get-inf' (=⟦krîjǝ⟧). However, neither Mitkza nor Bink give any indication that there are palatal stops or a palatal nasal. From the formal perspective the set of target segments for velar fronting consists solely of velar fricatives (/ɣ x/). This requirement suggests that the correct rule is Velar Fronting-1.18

Several sources for EPr indicate that the alternation between [ɣ] and [ʝ] in word-initial position is different than in Willuhnen (recall 40). For example, in his discussion of the various subdivisions of the EPr dialect area, Ziesemer (1924) observes that in the area to the north of Königsberg, word-initial [ʝ] (< WGmc + [ɣ]) occurs before a front vowel or before a liquid followed by a front vowel (e.g. ⟦jenz⟧ 'goose-pl', ⟦jrēwə⟧ 'greave-pl'), while [ɣ] surfaces before a back vowel or before a liquid followed by a back vowel (e.g. ⟦γǭnə⟧ 'go-inf', ⟦γlɑs⟧ 'glass'). Ziesemer (1924) does not say whether or not word-initial [k] has a palatal realization. The same pattern involving word-initial [ɣ] and [ʝ] (< WGmc + [ɣ]) is reflected in the material presented in Wagner (1912) for Alt-Thorn, Mitzka (1919) for Königsberg, and Tessmann (1966) for Bieberstein bei Barten. General descriptions of EPr either give clear statements expressing the distribution of word-initial [ɣ] and [ʝ] (< WGmc + [ɣ]), or they present data with distinct symbols so that the generalizations concerning their patterning can be deduced, e.g. Förstemann (1850), Fischer (1896), Kantel (1900), and Betcke (1924). Note that consonants (liquids) in onset position are transparent to velar fronting, as in West Meckenburg (§11.3),

18The narrow set of velar fronting targets is also attested in the LG dialect once spoken to the northeast of Königsberg (Map 11.2), in modern-day Estonia and Latvia. That variety is known as Baltic German (Sallmann 1872, Mitzka 1923a,b, Masing 1926, Deeters 1939). The data presented in those sources reveal that the Baltic German region was a velar fronting island because the area was completely surrounded by languages without velar fronting (Latvian and Estonian). In Baltic German, velar fronting applied word-initially and in postsonorant position for dorsal fricative targets (/x ɣ/). In postsonorant position the triggers are coronal sonorants. Representative examples from Mitzka (1923a) are ⟦lījən⟧ 'lie-inf', ⟦niχ⟧ 'not', ⟦berjə⟧ 'mountain-pl', ⟦foljən⟧ 'follow-inf', ⟦tūγənt⟧ 'virtue', and ⟦jɑ̄xt⟧ 'hunt'. That pattern is captured formally with Velar Fronting-1. In word-initial position, /x/ does not occur, but /ɣ/ surfaces as the corresponding palatal before a front vowel and as [g] before a back vowel or consonant, e.g. ⟦jên⟧ 'go-inf' vs. ⟦ɡolt⟧ 'Gold', ⟦ɡrɑ̄pən⟧ 'iron pot', ⟦ɡrikən⟧ 'buckwheat'. Recall the Eph pattern represented by Dingelstedt am Huy from §8.4, which was expressed with Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-3 and g-Formation-2.

### 11.6 Low Prussian

Sebnitz (§11.4), and Kreis Konitz (§11.5). See also HPr (§11.7) below. From the formal perspective, the transparency of liquids in word-initial onsets requires a version of velar fronting (Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-3) and Coalescence-2, as in the aforementioned case studies.

The patterning of velars and palatals in word-initial and postsonorant position throughout the EPr dialect area is summarized in Schönfeldt (1977: 84–87). That source confirms that there are two types of dialect defined according to how word-initial [ɣ] and [ʝ] (<WGmc + [ɣ]) are distributed. First, there are places like Willuhnen – representing the eastern region in general –, where [ɣ] surfaces before back vowels or liquids, even if the vowel following the liquid is front, while [ʝ] (<WGmc + [ɣ]) occurs only before a front vowel (henceforth "Pattern P"). Second, there are the remaining regions, which obey liquid transparency, as described in the preceding paragraph (henceforth "Pattern Q"). Pattern Q is expressed in the statements Schönfeldt (1977: 84) gives for the distribution of fortis velar and palatal stops in word-initial and postsonorant position. According Schönfeldt's survey of the dialects once spoken in East Prussia and West Prussia, Pattern Q is the norm, and Pattern P is geographically restricted to a few places in the east, e.g. Willuhnen.

The two types of system described here have been known among dialectologists since the early 1840s. Lehmann (1842: 30–32) observes that for his speakers of LPr word-initial /g/ is realized as palatal ([ʝ]) before front vowels or /r l n/, but only if a front vowel follows those consonants (Pattern Q). Lehmann writes: "Das *g* wird vor *a, o* und *u* sowie vor Konsonanten richtig augesprochen, nähert sich dagegen vor *e, i, ä, ö* und *ü*, ferner vor *l, n* und *r*, wenn auf diese ein *e, i* oder Umlaut folgt, ganz dem *j*". For Lehmann's speakers there is no fronting of the other word-initial velar ([k]). Lehmann's system can be contrasted with the LPr variety described by Gortzitza (1841: 29–30), who is clear that for his speakers, all word-initial velars (/g k x/) are fronted to palatals before a front vowel but not before a back vowel or /r l n/ (Pattern P). Gortzitza lists several dozen words (in StG orthography) which illustrate the distribution of palatal ("Gaumlaut") and velar ("Kehllaut") sounds. For example, the palatal fricative ([ʝ]) occurs in words like *Geld* 'money' and *Gift* 'poison', while the corresponding velar ([g]) is realized in words like *Gans* 'goose', *Gott* 'God', *Glück* 'fortune', and *Glas* 'glass'. The same pattern obtains for word-initial [k], with the palatal segment ("Gaumlaut") attested in words like *Kinn* 'chin' and *Kerze* 'candle' and the velar ("Kehllaut") in items like *Kalk* 'lime', *Kuh* 'cow', *Klang* 'sound', and *Krieg* 'war' (Gortzitza 1841: 24-25). The same distribution of velars and palatals applies to [x] and [ç] in loanwords, e.g. palatal ("Gaumlaut") in *Chemie* 'chemistry' and *Cherub* 'cherub', but velar ("Kehllaut") in *Chaos* 'chaos' and *Christ* 'Christian' (Gortzitza 1841: 29-30).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

From the formal point of view, the data in Gortzitza (1841) representing Pattern P point to Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. By contrast liquid transparency characterized by Pattern Q as described by Lehmann (1842) requires Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6 and Coalescence-2, as in West Mecklenburg.19

Another variety of LPr with liquid transparency for word-initial position (Pattern Q) is Plautdietsch (§9.5.2). For example, in his treatment of Chortitza, Quiring (1928) has ⟦jelt⟧ 'money' and ⟦jlek⟧ 'fortune' vs. ⟦γɑust⟧ 'guest' and ⟦γrunt⟧ 'reason'. It is clear from Quiring's description of [k] on p. 68 that there is a palatal allophone, although he does not indicate this in his phonetic transcriptions. That palatal stop occurs word-initially before a front vowel or before a consonant followed by a front vowel; elsewhere the velar stop surfaces. The facts of Chortitza therefore suggest that Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6 and Coalescence-2 are active in the synchronic phonology, as in West Mecklenburg.

In postsonorant position, liquids are not transparent in Chortitza (recall 43 for Willuhnen). Thus, [x] surfaces after back vowels and [ç] after coronal sonorants (front vowels or liquids) regardless of the nature of the vowel preceding the liquids (recall the discussion on the phonemic contrast between /x/ and /ç/ in Plautdietsch in §9.5.2). The examples cited earlier with [ç] after coronal sonorants are ⟦liχt⟧ 'light', ⟦treχtɑ⟧ 'funnel', ⟦horχst⟧ 'hark-2sg' and with [x] after back vowels is the example ⟦doxt⟧ 'think-pret. The same pattern holds for the lenis counterparts [ɣ] and [ʝ], e.g. ⟦krîjən⟧ 'get-inf' and ⟦borjən⟧ 'borrow-inf' vs. ⟦hȫoγəl⟧ 'hail'. The velar stops [k] and [g] surface as velar after back vowels and as palatals after front vowels or liquids, regardless of the nature of the vowel preceding the liquid. (Palatal stops are not indicated in Quiring's phonetic transcriptions). The velar nasal surfaces after back vowels, but it is realized as palatal after front vowels; see Quiring (1928: 75). From the formal perspective, Chortitza requires Velar Fronting-9 in (16).

### **11.7 High Prussian**

I discuss first a specific variety in detail. At the end of this section I turn to additional sources for HPr.

19Lehmann (1842) does not discuss the distribution of velars and palatals in postsonorant position. Gortzitza (1841) provides many concrete examples of words illustrating that velars ([k g x]) occur after a back vowel and the corresponding palatals after a front vowel or liquid even if a back vowel precedes the liquid. (Gortzitza does not discuss the status of the velar nasal; hence it is not possible to know if his speakers fronted that sound to palatal after coronal sonorants). The data in that source therefore point to Velar Fronting-6.

### 11.7 High Prussian

The dorsal consonants of the HPr variety once spoken in Reimerswalde (Kuck & Wiesinger 1965; Map 11.2) have the distribution depicted in (42):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} \text{(42)} & \text{a.} & \text{j/} & \text{j/} & \text{k/} & \text{c/} & \text{j/} &\\ & & \text{|} & \text{|} & \text{|} & \text{|} & \text{|} & \\ & & \text{[j]} & \text{[k]} & \text{[c]} & \text{[g]} & \text{[j]} \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} & \text{b.} & \text{x/} & \text{y/} & \text{/} & \text{k/} & \text{c/} & \text{y/} & \text{y/} & \text{/} \text{y/} \\ & \text{[} & & \text{|} & & \text{|} & & \text{|} & \text{|} & \text{|} \\ & \text{[} & \text{[} & \text{[} & \text{[} \text{]} & \text{[} \text{[} \text{]} & \text{[} \text{[} \text{]} & \text{[} \text{[} \text{]} & \text{[} \text{]} \end{array} \end{array}$$

The word-initial examples in (43a–43m) exhibit Contrast Type B in (2a) for [k g] (<WGmc + [k ɣ]) and the corresponding stops [c ɟ]. [ʝ] occurs before any type of vowel. The palatal in (43n) derives from WGmc + [j] and the one in (43o) from WGmc + [ɣ].

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

In postsonorant position, [x] and [ç] never contrast: [x] occurs after back vowels in (44a) and [ç] after front vowels in (44b) or coronal sonorant consonants in (44c, 44d). [k g] and [c ɟ] illustrate Contrast Type B in (2b); see (44e–44m). Alternations between velar and palatal stops are well-attested in (44n). In contrast to [k], [g] never surfaces after a consonant, but [ʝ] does in (44o). [ʝ] surfaces after a historically elided front vowel in (44p). No examples were found in the original source for [x] after [uː], which is not a common vowel in the dialect.

### (44) Postsonorant dorsal obstruents:

11.7 High Prussian

The velar nasal and the palatal nasal stand in an allophonic relationship: [ŋ] only surfaces after a back vowel in (45a) and [ɲ] only after a front vowel in (45b– 45d). The palatal nasal has two historical sources: WGmc + [ŋ] by velar fronting in (45b) or WGmc + [nd] by Velarization from (1b) in (45c). [ŋ]~[ɲ] alternations are attested in (45e).

### (45) Dorsal nasals in postsonorant position:

In word-initial position, underlying velar stops (/k g/) surface as palatal ([c ɟ]) before a front vowel in (43c, 43d, 43l) by Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. If /k g/ are followed by a liquid plus front vowel in (43k, 43m) then the feature [coronal] of that front vowel merges with the [coronal] feature of the liquid by Coalescence-2, which then feeds Wd-Initial Velar Fronting-6. Word-initial palatal stops are underlyingly palatal (/c ɟ/) before a back vowel in (43e, 43f) or before a consonant followed by a back vowel in (43h, 43j). [ʝ] is likewise an underlying palatal in (43o).

In postsonorant position the allophones [x] and [ç] in (44a–44d) derive from /x/, which is realized as palatal [ç] after a coronal sonorant by Velar Fronting-1. For the nasal allophones [ŋ ɲ] in (45) the underlying sound is /ŋ/, which surfaces as [ɲ] after a front vowel by Velar Fronting-8. The latter process also accounts for the realization of /k g/ as [c ɟ] after a front vowel in (44g, 44h, 44n). If /k g/ are preceded by a front vowel plus liquid sequence in (44l) then Coalescence-1 merges [coronal] from the front vowel and the liquid, thereby feeding Vel-Fr-8, e.g. /vɛrk/→|v**ɛr**k|→[v**ɛrc**]. In postsonorant position palatal stops are underlying sounds (/c ɟ/) after back vowels in (44i, 44j) and after consonants preceded by back vowels in (44m). [ç ʝ] are likewise underlying sounds (quasi-phonemes /ç ʝ/) in (44p).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

Additional sources for varieties of HPr are Stuhrmann (1896), Ziesemer (1924), Kuck (1927, 1933), and Tessmann (1969). The data presented in those works were drawn from various towns and villages in the HPr dialect area. There is no significant difference for any of those authors concerning the distribution of [x] (=⟦x⟧) and [ç] (=⟦χ⟧), which surface as predictable positional variants. The sources also agree that HPr has both velar and palatal stops, although separate phonetic symbols for the palatal sounds are rarely given, e.g. Ziesemer (1924: 123). It is interesting to consider what Tessmann (1969: 116) writes on this topic. He justifies his use of a single symbol for velars and palatals because the distinction between those two places of articulation is predictable based on context, suggesting that they are allophones. However, on the same page Tessmann notes that separate symbols for the palatal series is only necessary "in special cases" ("in besonderen Fällen"). Those instances where Tessmann has separate symbols for palatal stops (⟦k'⟧ and ⟦g'⟧) are precisely the ones where the palatals occur in the context of a back vowel that was historically front, e.g. ⟦k'ɑ̄fər⟧ 'bug' (cf. StG *Käfer*), ⟦wɑ̄g'⟧ 'path' (cf. StG *Weg*), ⟦bɑ̄rg'⟧ 'mountain' (cf. StG *Berg*). A parallel example from Ziesemer (1924) is ⟦kɑinə⟧ 'germinate-inf', which the author gives as a word with an initial fortis palatal fricative; recall the parallel example from Reimerswalde in (43e). In present terms, the palatal stops in the aforementioned examples are phonemic.

### **11.8 Summary**

There are two clearly identifiable patterns for the set of velar fronting targets for both word-initial and postsonorant position, namely (A) the broad group consisting of all velar consonants, or (B) the narrow set of sounds comprising all and only velar fricatives.

Pattern (A) holds for postsonorant velar fronting in West Mecklenburg, Sebnitz, Seifhennersdorf, Kreis Bütow, Kamnitz, Laueburg, Kreis Konitz, Willuhnen, and Reimerswalde, while the narrow group of target sounds in pattern (B) is attested in Kreis Rummelsburg, Kreis Schlawe (§11.5), and Königsberg (§11.6). There are no clear-cut cases in which the set of targets consists of velar fricatives and velar stops but not the velar nasal (recall the discussion of targets in the typological literature discussed in §2.3.2). Kamnitz is a potential example, but this conclusion cannot be definitive because the original source is not clear on whether or not the velar nasal has a palatal variant after front vowels. In one dialect mentioned earlier (Bleckede; §11.3) both /x/ and /ɣ/ appear after a sonorant, but only /x/ undergoes fronting. In a number of localities there is a single dorsal fricative as a

### 11.9 Velar noncontinuant targets viewed historically

target (/x/) with velar noncontinuants not undergoing fronting, i.e. South Mecklenburg, Ivenack-Stavenhagen, Wolgast, Hemmelsdorf, Kreis Herzogtum Lauenburg from §11.3 and Groβschönau, Schokau, West Lausitz from §11.4. Since /ɣ/ is not present in those dialects it cannot be known whether or not the set of targets consist of all velar fricatives or only /x/, as in Bleckede. In Kaarβen and Barth (§11.3) it cannot be determined whether or not all velar consonants are undergoing fronting (=A) or only the fricatives (=B). Note that Barth is also a potential example of the Bleckede system where only /x/ but not /ɣ/ undergoes fronting.

The predominant pattern for word-initial position is for any velar consonant present in that context to undergo fronting (=A), i.e. West Mecklenburg, Sebnitz, Seifhennersdorf, Kreis Bütow, Kamnitz, Lauenburg, Kreis Konitz, Willuhnen, Reimerswalde.

The broadest context (coronal sonorant consonants) is well-attested in postsonorant position, i.e. Seifhennersdorf, Kreis Bütow, Kreis Konitz, Willuhnen. However, those triggers are not attested in all dialects. First, the set of triggers for a number of varieties listed above consists of front vowels but crucially not the coronal sonorant consonants. That narrow set of triggers is particularly wellattested in word-initial position, e.g. Kamnitz, Kreis Lauenburg, Willuhnen. Second, two dialects are documented with an even narrower group of triggers for postsonorant fronting: nonlow front vowels (Kamnitz) and front tense vowels (Kreis Rummelsburg). Nonlow triggers are attested in German dialects outside of the region investigated in this chapter, i.e. Rheintal (§3.4), Rhoden (§5.2), Obersaxen (§6.3). However, the front tense vowel context is otherwise without precedent in German dialects (see §12.7.1).

Several dialects discussed in the present chapter exhibit the effects of Coalescence-1 or Coalescence-2. As noted earlier, places with one of those processes are situated in the same area as the ones in which they are absent. For example, in West Mecklenburg, the /x/ after a sequence of back vowel plus liquid surfaces as [x], but after a front vowel plus liquid as [ç] (=5b,d). By contrast in South Mecklenburg /x/ surfaces in both contexts as [ç]. See §12.8.1for further discussion of how the two processes of coalescence fit into German dialects as a whole.

### **11.9 Velar noncontinuant targets viewed historically**

I consider first (§11.9.1) the historical interpretation of the two types of dialect referred to in §11.8 and then the influence non-Gmc language on that development (§11.9.2).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

### **11.9.1 Extension of velar fronting targets**

The two patterns referred to in §11.8 – broad targets (A) and narrow targets (B) – mirror two distinct historical stages. In particular, velar fronting was originally phonologized with a smaller set of targets (B), and later the set of targets was expanded to include all velar consonants (A); recall the rule generalization model from §2.4.1. That historical progression supports the implication in (46) (from §2.3.2), which German dialects obey without exception.20

(46) Implicational Universal for Velar Fronting Targets-1: If a velar stop (/k g/) undergoes velar fronting then the corresponding fricative (/x ɣ/) does as well.

As stated above, (46) correctly predicts that there are dialects in which velar stops and velar fricatives serve as targets (A) as well as dialects where only velar fricatives undergo fronting (B). However, the same implication precludes dialects in which only velar stops undergo the change but velar fricatives in the same context fail to exhibit fronting. The final clause in the preceding sentence ("...velar fricatives in the same context...") is important because there are dialects in which velar fronting targets stops, but velar fricatives are not present in that context. One example is West Mecklenburg, in which velar fronting targets /k g/ in wordinitial position (=4). Significantly, neither /x/ nor /ɣ/ occur word-initially.

Although (46) holds without exception for German, it cannot be universally valid (recall the discussion on the typology of Velar Palatalization targets in §2.3.2). Since there are many languages where velar stops undergo fronting/Velar Palatalization but not the velar fricatives, it should come as no surprise that there is no phonetic motivation for (46).

The reason (46) is correct for German is due to the history of velar fronting targets, as described above: The first targets historically were velar fricatives, while the velar noncontinuants were only added to that set at a later stage. The narrow targets have been in the language for such a long time that that version of velar fronting has had time to diffuse geographically through virtually all of modern-day Germany and most of Austria; hence, there are very few places in Germany and Austria where velar fronting could be phonologized with only velar noncontinuants as the sole targets.

20In (46) and below I juxtapose velar fricatives (/x ɣ/) with velar stops (/k g/). It may be possible to propose a similar generalization for the velar nasal (/ŋ/).

11.9 Velar noncontinuant targets viewed historically

### **11.9.2 Influence from non-Germanic languages**

The palatal noncontinuants investigated in this chapter ([c ɟ ɲ]) derived historically from the corresponding velars by some version of velar fronting. That assessment is not controversial because the original velars are preserved in other dialects. For example, in Reimerswalde (§11.7), the initial sound in the native German word 'money' is palatal ([ɟ]), i.e. [ɟɛlt], but that palatal surfaces in other dialects as velar ([g]), e.g. StG [gɛlt]. Sounds like [c ɟ ɲ] therefore have the same history as the palatal fricatives [ç ʝ] in the dialects discussed in previous chapters in the sense that both sets of sounds arose via some version of velar fronting. Those noncontinuants that are now palatal quasi-phonemes or phonemic palatals were once allophones of velars in the neighborhood of front segments that served as triggers for velar fronting. When those front sounds elided or shifted to back sounds, the palatal noncontinuant allophones were encoded directly in underlying representations.

Most dialects with expanded targets are coterritorial with at least one Slavic language, in particular either Polish and/or Kashubian (both West Slavic). Slavic languages possess phonemic sounds that are similar phonetically to [c ɟ ɲ]. Although the palatal noncontinuants discussed below had an endogenous (Germaninternal) history whose emergence is structural (phonological), I suggest that social factors (contact with Slavic languages) probably played a role in their phonologization as well.21

Before discussing the Slavic influence on German dialects, consider the way in which palatal noncontinuants arose in native German words. As a representative example, I provide three items in (47) from Reimerswalde illustrating the development of WGmc + [k] in word-initial position. These three concrete examples from one particular variety are representative of the palatal noncontinuants in the other varieties discussed above. Stage 1 represents the point where velar fronting was absent and /k/ surfaced without change as [k], although phonetic (coarticulatory) fronting is also assumed to have been present. At Stage 2, velar fronting was phonologized. That process applied in the context before front vowels, as indicated in the first and third examples. At Stage 3, Vowel Retraction restructured the vowel /iː/ to /ɑe/, a change that triggered the restructuring of the original /k/ to the phoneme /c/ at Stage 3. The change from /yː/ to /iː/ in the

21This question has been discussed in the literature for a number of years; a representative example of the type of publication that was common over one century ago is Gréb (1921) for Zipser German, who discusses the findings of Semrau (1915a,b) at length (§11.5). Another linguist who draws a correlation between palatal stops in ELG dialects and Slavic languages is Mitzka (1959: 120–124). See also the discussion in Siemens (2012: 92–98) on Plautdietsch (§9.5.2 and §11.6).

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

final example is assumed to have postdated the change from /iː/ to /ɑe/. Velar fronting continued to operate before front vowels, as in the final two examples.

Examples like [cɑen] 'germ' show that the etymological front vowel /iː/ (cf. OHG *kīmo*) has left its trace in the form of the palatal [c] (/c/), which was formerly a positional variant of /k/.22

Why did velar fronting affected velars like /k/ predominantly in those Germanspeaking areas coterritorial with Slavic languages? There was unarguably contact between speakers of Slavic languages and speakers of the German dialects examined in this chapter, and I claim that this contact probably played a role in the extension of velar fronting to velar noncontinuants.

There is more than one way in which language-contact might have played out. I describe a possible scenario which involves the acquisition of Slavic loanwords, although variations on the same theme are also conceivable. It needs to be stressed that the progression of changes described here is highly speculative. First, not all of the original sources cited earlier discuss Slavic loanwords, and second – even in those works where that type of loanword is included – not all of them contain palatal noncontinuants. Consider now the following three historical stages. WeSl designates a West Slavic language (see discussion below) and EaGm those varieties of ELG and ECG with palatal noncontinuants.

*Stage P:* EaGm had velar fronting, which only affected velar fricatives (/x ɣ/); velar noncontinuants may have been subject to coarticulatory (phonetic) fronting;

22The historical derivations in (47) are intended to illustrate that velar fronting affected velar noncontinuants like [k] in native words. Some of the examples discussed in the present chapter reveal that velar fronting also applied in loanwords; however, examples like those involve loanwords that have been well-integrated into the language, e.g. the word 'head' (and its plural) StG [kɔpf]~[kœpfə] from (43l) was originally borrowed from Latin *cūpa, cuppa*.

### 11.9 Velar noncontinuant targets viewed historically

Stage P corresponds to Stage 2 in (47) and Stage R to Stage 3. Stage Q therefore represents a point not depicted above between Stage 2 and Stage 3.

Linguistic evidence points to a phonologization of velar fronting in WCG at a very early date, namely around the ninth century (Chapter 16). The northeastern parts of pre-1945 Germany discussed in this chapter were originally populated by Slavic peoples, and German-speaking settlers only entered that region via the ostsiedlung in a series of waves beginning in the eleventh century; see Hirt (1925: 135ff.), Bach (1950: 180ff.), Mitzka (1959), and Bach (1970: 169ff.). I speculate that many of those settlers brought Stage P/Stage 2 velar fronting with them in that migration eastwards.

One difficulty involving Stage Q is that the historical rule of velar fronting was phonologized many centuries ago, and for that reason it is not clear what the nature of the palatal noncontinuants in loanwords was at that point in time. For example, modern Polish and modern Kashubian (Map A.1) have no phonemic palatal stops ([c ɟ]), although they both possess alveolopalatal affricates ([tɕ dʑ]). Did the WeSl loanwords at Stage Q contain [tɕ dʑ], or perhaps an earlier reflex of those sounds ([c ɟ])? Could [c ɟ] have been present in loanwords from a Baltic language?23 Regardless of how one answers these questions, the point is that loanwords in EaGm referred to here served as a signal to speakers that palatal noncontinuants are sounds distinct from the corresponding velars.

Consider now the connection between the acquisition of loanwords (Stage Q) and the extension of VeFr to velar noncontinuants (Stage R). Stage Q is clearly a sufficient condition for Stage R, because there are many varieties discussed above with the broad set of targets that possess WeSl loanwords. However, it remains unclear whether or not Stage Q is a necessary condition for Stage R.

As noted earlier, not all original sources for EaGm dialects discuss WeSl loanwords, so this question will ultimately need to remain open for further study. Some evidence that there is a direct correlation between the influence of WeSl

23Three candidates are Latvian, Lithanian (both East Baltic), and the extinct West Baltic language Old Prussian. Latvian contrasts /c ɟ/ and /k g/ (Urek 2016). Both Lithuanian (Augustaitis 1964) and Old Prussian (Schmalstieg 1964) contrast /k g/ and the secondarily palatalized sounds /kʲ gʲ/.

### 11 Velar noncontinuants as targets

(which might be deduced on the basis of the sheer number of Slavic loanwords) and the broader set of targets for velar fronting in postsonorant position can be observed in two neighboring EPo varieties discussed earlier (§11.5): Kreis Bütow (with a broad set of targets) and Kreis Rummelsburg (with a narrow set of targets): The source for both dialects (Mischke 1936: 73) notes that Kreis Bütow has more Slavic loanwords than Kreis Rummelsburg ("B.M. [=Kreis Bütow] hat mehr slaw. Lehnwörter als R.M. (=Kreis Rummelsburg)ˮ). In Kreis Schlawe (narrow set of targets), Mahnke (1931: 83) similarly observes that the number of Slavic loanwords is relatively very small ("verhältnismässig sehr geringˮ).24 25

Recall from §2.4.1 that sound change begins in a focal area and then spreads both temporally and geographically from that point of origin. As pointed out in that earlier section, the focal area is the place where that process has the most general set of triggers/targets. The implication is that dialects like Reimerswalde in (47) with an expanded set of target segments (all velar consonants) must have been a focal area. This is a possible interpretation, although the role of loanwords suggests that there might be an alternative. In particular, dialects like Reimerswalde might have an expanded set of targets not because they are older than dialects with a narrow set of targets (fricatives) but instead because their speakers had a greater exposure to loanwords. Since there are two conceivable interpretations for dialects like Reimerswalde with a broad set of target segment I do not consider this issue further.

In sum, the emergence of palatal noncontinuants in German dialects once spoken in the east clearly had a structural (phonological) justification, but in all likelihood a social one as well (loanwords from Slavic languages). These two factors therefore provide evidence for polycausality, as described briefly in §2.4.4. As noted in that section, my analysis of the phonemicization of [c ɟ ɲ] in LG varieties once spoken in the eastern parts of pre-1945 Germany strongly resembles the treatment for the phonemicization of lenis (voiced) fricatives in the history of English ([v z ð]); Ringe & Eska (2013: 142) and Minkova (2014: 91–93) and §8.6.1.

24A potential argument against a necessary connection between Stage Q and Stage R is posed by Kreis Konitz (§11.5). The author of the orginal source (Semrau 1915a: 144) stresses that even though her EPo dialect is surrounded by Polish-speaking communities, there was no comingling of the two languages ("keinerlei Vermischung [hat] stattgefundenˮ).

25One EPo variety discussed earlier (Lauenburg; Pirk 1928) lists the nativized realization of a small number of Slavic loanwords containing [c] (=⟦kʹ⟧). Those examples are significant because the [c] realization corresponds to [k] in the donor language (Polish), e.g. ⟦borōvkʹə⟧ 'blueberry' < Polish *borówka*. Since there is no evidence that the final vowel in the Polish example was ever front, it appears that speakers of the Lauenburg dialect treat [c] as a sound whose distribution is governed by the phonology of Lauenburg. Recall from (33i) that [c] (and not [k]) surfaces before schwa. See Jacobs (1996: 157) for similar examples involving [lj ] in Central Yiddish loanwords from Polish.

### 11.10 Areal distribution of palatal noncontinuants

The literature on this topic is in agreement that one of the reasons for phonemicization was the occurrence of French loanwords with those sounds. For example, in OE the two fricatives [f] and [v] were allophones, where the latter occurred between lenis sounds (e.g. intervocalically) and the former in the elsewhere case (e.g. word-initially). Minkova (2014) notes that there was an influx of over 800 French loanwords beginning with [v] after the eleventh century (in ME) that were not adapted with [f]; this means that there were now minimal pairs involving the inherited (Gmc) [f] and the new [v] in loanwords, e.g. *fēle* 'many' (cf. StG [fiːl]) vs. *vēle* 'veal' (< Old French). Loanwords with intervocalic [f] which failed to surface as [v] were also attested in ME, e.g. *sacrifice* < French *sacrifice*.

### **11.10 Areal distribution of palatal noncontinuants**

This chapter has taken a close look at the phonology of German dialects in which at least one velar noncontinuant serves as a target for velar fronting. It is possible to talk about those targets in more than one way. First, one could draw a distinction between velar fronting targets in word-initial position and postsonorant position. Second, one could classify those varieties in which the palatal noncontinuant outputs of velar fronting are allophones (synchronically derived palatals) vs. those in which the output sounds are underlying palatal noncontinuants (recall 2). Third, one could ask whether or not the output for a target velar stop is itself a stop, or an affricate. Instead of giving a series of tables in which such distinctions are made individually, I simply give one (Table 11.3), which includes all of the relevant studies discussed in this chapter in addition to a few others once spoken in the same region. All of these places are indicated on Map 11.3.

All of the sources listed above make it clear that the targets for velar fronting must also include velar noncontinuants even though some authors (e.g. Teuchert 1913) do not give separate symbols for those sounds (e.g. [k] vs. [c]). In that type of source no conclusions can be drawn concerning the triggers for velar fronting; hence, I do not discuss them further.

One point stressed throughout this chapter is that the more general targets characterized by the places in Table 11.3 might be narrower for other places in the same region. This point is made clear in Map 11.3, which includes all of the varieties listed in Table 11.3 (white squares) as well as the varieties in the same area discussed in this chapter where the target for velar fronting consists only of fricatives (black squares).

Map 11.3: Areal distribution of velar noncontinuant targets. Low Prussian, High Prussian, East Pomeranian, Mecklenburgish-West Pomeranian, and Silesian varieties with at least one velar noncontinuant as target for word-initial and/or postsonorant velar fronting are indicated with white squares. Varieties in the same general area in which velar fronting (word-initial and/or postsonorant) targets consist only of fricatives are indicated with black squares.

### 11.11 Conclusion

Table 11.3: Selection of LG/HG varieties in which velar noncontinuants serve as targets for velar fronting in postsonorant/word-initial position

### **11.11 Conclusion**

This chapter has examined German dialects in which the set of targets for velar fronting consists of velar fricatives like (/x ɣ/) as well as velar noncontinuants (/k g ŋ/). Thus, in contrast to the dialects discussed in Chapters 3–10 velar fronting in the case studies investigated in the present chapter has a broader set of targets. It was also demonstrated the original palatal allophones of velar noncontinuants (i.e. [c ɉ ɲ]) can have an opaque history and either quasi-phonemicize or phonemicize (i.e. /c ɉ ɲ/) according to the same paths described in Chapters 7–10.

## **12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization**

### **12.1 Introduction**

Rule generalization (§2.4.1) postulates that change begins with a highly restricted trigger and/or target in which phonetic conditions are particularly favorable and then progressively spreads through time and space to include more general triggers and/or targets. Recall how that model was applied in §11.9.1 to German dialects with an expanded set of velar fronting target segments (noncontinuants) which developed out of a narrower set (fricatives).

In this chapter I apply the model of rule generalization to a larger selection of German dialects. It is argued that velar fronting in both postsonorant and wordinitial position was originally induced by a narrow set of front segments and that the target segment was likewise restricted to a single velar (fortis) fricative. Later stages expanded the set of triggers to include more and more front sounds, while the set of targets analogously increased to include the lenis velar and then finally velar noncontinuants. The spread from a narrow set of triggers/targets to a larger one occurred both spatially and temporally. Rule generalization is depicted abstractly in Figure 2.1.

In order to successfully implement the rule generalization model it is necessary to provide an in-depth discussion of attested triggers and targets for velar fronting in word-initial and postsonorant position for a selection of varieties of German dialects. In principle, those varieties should be well-distributed geographically and should also represent all of the subdivisions of German dialects (Appendix A). To achieve that end I consider over two hundred fifty varieties of German that meet those criteria. That number includes most of the places discussed in the preceding chapters, as well as many others.

It is not feasible to provide detailed case studies for all of the works cited below. The discussion in the present chapter is therefore necessarily superficial, although care has been taken to classify those varieties in terms of targets and triggers that is consistent with the way in which those dialects are described in the original sources.

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

Since the focus below is on the set of targets and the set of triggers I do not discuss other aspects of velar fronting investigated in previous chapters. Hence, velar fronting may be allophonic in some dialects (Chapters 3–4), while in others there may be palatal quasi-phonemes (Chapter 7) or phonemic palatals (Chapters 8–10). It is also conceivable that velar fronting is counterfed by another process in the synchronic phonology (Chapter 5).

In §12.2 I introduce a methodology that enables all dialects to be classified into a small number of trigger types and target types and in §12.3 I present a survey of triggers/targets for velar fronting in German dialects (Appendix A) based on that methodology. §12.4 considers the areal distribution of triggers and targets, and §12.5 matches the trigger/target types with a series of incremental historical stages. In doing so, I demonstrate that there are certain regions where the postulated stages are represented by dialects described in the latter nineteenth century. §12.6 discusses a small number of German dialects with very rare requirements governing triggers. §12.7 investigates how the present treatment sheds light on the typological literature on Velar Palatalization. In §12.8 I discuss three additional properties of velar fronting: the adjacency of its triggers and targets (§12.8.1), its domain (§12.8.2), and the status of irregularities (§12.8.3). §12.9 considers the ways in which velars like /x/ are realized in the phonetics if they do not undergo velar fronting. A brief conclusion is provided in §12.10.

### **12.2 Preliminary discussion**

### **12.2.1 Velar fronting triggers**

The preceding chapters have demonstrated that the set of triggers for velar fronting differ minimally from dialect to dialect. The way in which those triggers can vary is reflected in the different versions for those fronting processes, expressed featurally (Appendix D). The data presented in Chapters 3–11 reveal that there are five triggers for velar fronting which account for virtually all of the dialects discussed.1 Those triggers are given in (1). In the notation adopted here and below, HFV=high front vowels, MHV=mid front vowels, LFV=low front vowels, and CC=coronal sonorant consonants.

1The set of triggers for Kreis Rummelsburg (front tense vowels) from §11.5 is omitted from the present discussion because it does not involve the height dimension. That unique example is discussed in §12.6.2 in the context of other rare dialects with nonheight features defining the triggers for velar fronting.

12.2 Preliminary discussion

$$\text{(1)}\quad \text{Five attested triggers for valar fromting:}$$

$$\begin{array}{llll} \text{a.} & \text{[HFV]} & \text{b.} & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{HFV} \\ \text{MFV} \end{Bmatrix} \\ & \text{c.} & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{MFV} \\ \text{MC} \end{Bmatrix} \\ & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{C} \\ \text{CC} \end{Bmatrix} & \text{d.} & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{HFV} \\ \text{LFV} \end{Bmatrix} \\ & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ & \text{0.} \end{Bmatrix} \\ \end{array} \end{array} \quad \text{d.} \quad \begin{Bmatrix} \text{HFV} \\ \text{MFV} \\ \text{0.} & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{HFV} \\ \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ & & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ & & \begin{Bmatrix} \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ \text{0.} & \text{0.} \\ & & \end{Bmatrix} \\ \end{array} \end{array}$$

Table 12.1 refines the way in which the triggers in (1) are to be interpreted. In the first column I indicate with letters the names of the Trigger Types, which are defined in the second and third columns.

Table 12.1: Definition of Trigger Types

For Trigger Type A, the sole set of segments inducing fronting are high front vowels (HFV), but other front segments do not serve as triggers. In order to determine whether or not Trigger Type A is the correct one, it is therefore crucial that front segments other than high front vowels ({MFV, LFV, CC}) occur in the context of the velar that undergoes fronting. Trigger Type B holds if fronting is induced by {HFV, MFV} but not by {LFV, CC}, Trigger Type C if the context for fronting is {HFV, MFV, CC} but not {LFV}, and Trigger Type D if fronting is induced by {HFV, MFV, LFV} but not by {CC}. If the context for fronting is the entire set of front segments then Trigger Type E holds.

In many dialects the set of triggers involves gaps. The attested patterns with certain front segments absent in the context of velar fronting are illustrated in the last five rows in Table 12.1, where the gaps in question are indicated with the segment type listed in the final column. If a segment type is listed in the final

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

column this means that either: (a) that segment type is entirely absent in the dialect, (b) that segment type is present in the dialect but not in the context for fronting, or (c) that it cannot be determined on the basis of the original source whether or not that segment type induces fronting.

Consider Trigger Type BB as an example: A target segment (e.g. /x/) undergoes fronting in the context of {HFV, MFV}; since {CC} is present in the context for fronting it can be safely concluded that {CC} is not included in the set of triggers. By contrast, {LFV} does not occur in the context for velar fronting. Because of that gap it cannot be known with certainty whether or not {LFV} is a trigger.

A few remarks are in order concerning the three Trigger Types where {CC} is not present in the fronting context (AA, DD, EE). In several varieties discussed earlier (e.g. Sörth; §5.4) schwa intervenes between a coronal consonant and the fronted velar (e.g. [rəç] from /rx/), but a sequence of coronal consonant plus dorsal fricative is not attested without schwa (e.g. [rç]). Recall from §5.4 that processes of schwa epenthesis and schwa fronting are active in such systems, e.g. /kɛrx/→|kɛrǝx|→|kɛrəx|→[kɛrə ̟ ç]; cf. StG ̟ *Kirche* 'church'. Likewise some dialects (Chapter 6 and Chapter 11) were shown to require that coalescence feeds velar fronting, e.g. /milx/→|m**il**x|→[m**ilç**]; cf. StG *Milch* 'milk'. In the present chapter I only consider {CC} to be a trigger for velar fronting if that consonant and the velar are adjacent; this assumption means that dialects in which schwa epenthesis and schwa fronting or coalescence are active are classified as one of the three Trigger Types where {CC} is absent from the fronting context (AA, DD, EE). See §12.8.1 for a synopsis of German dialects where a sound intervenes between the target and trigger.

The Trigger Types listed in Table 12.1 all treat coronal sonorant consonants ({CC}) uniformly. Put differently, if /r/ is a trigger for velar fronting, then /l/ and /n/ will be as well. This assumption is confirmed in the case studies discussed throughout this book, although it is conceivable that there are systems in which the consonants described by {CC} should be treated individually.

The conclusions concerning Table 12.1 are important because they either support or refute claims made in the literature on velar fronting in German or in the cross-linguistic literature on Velar Palatalization (§2.3). Three patterns and the corresponding Trigger Types are listed in (2):

	- b. Trigger Types indicating that {LFV} does not induce fronting: A, B, C, AA
	- c. Trigger Types indicating that {CC} does not induce fronting: A, B, D, BB

12.2 Preliminary discussion

I discuss the relevance of (2) for my analysis of rule generalization in German dialects in §12.4.1 and for typology in §12.7.

### **12.2.2 Velar fronting targets**

In the velar fronting varieties discussed in Chapters 3–10 the targets are restricted to one or both of the velar fricatives listed in (3a). In Chapter 11 it was demonstrated that a number of places with velar fronting select their targets from the expanded list of velar consonants listed in (3b).2

	- a. /x/, /ɣ/ b. /x/, /ɣ/, /k/, /g/, /ŋ/

The segments in (3) can either be underlying velars or velars created from other synchronic rules. For example, the latter situation obtains in dialects for a target fortis velar fricative, which can be either underlying /x/ or |x| derived from /ɣ/ by Final Fortition.

Table 12.2 defines the way in which the targets in (3) are to be interpreted. In the first column I indicate with letter names of the Target Types, which are defined below. /g/ is enclosed in parentheses in the first four Target Types because that sound is absent in many dialects.

Table 12.2: Definition of Target Types

2 I do not consider the affricate /kx/, which serves as a target segment in various UG dialects, because that sound behaves the same way as the corresponding fricative /x/.

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

Target Types L and M are well-attested in the data presented earlier: They have in common that only fricatives serve as triggers. For Target Type L, the sole fricative undergoing fronting is /x/, but for Target Type M both /x/ and /ɣ/ serve as targets for that change.

Table 12.2 lists two Target Types with potential targets absent from the velar fronting environment, namely Target Type LL and Target Type MM. Those systems hold if only one of the two dorsal fricatives is present in the fronting context but not the other. The segments listed in the final column mean either: (a) that the segment type (/x/ or /ɣ/) is absent entirely in the dialect, (b) that the segment type (/x/ or /ɣ/) is present in the dialect but not in the context for fronting, or (c) that it cannot be determined on the basis of the original source whether or not the segment in question (/x/ or /ɣ/) is present as a target.

The final row in Table 12.2 describes many of the dialects discussed in Chapter 11 with the expanded set of target segments listed in (3b). Target Type N clearly obtains if all velar consonants listed in (3b) undergo velar fronting. However, Target Type N also holds if only a subset of the velar consonants serve as targets. For example, several dialects were discussed in Chapter 11 in which the set of sounds undergoing velar fronting in word-initial position consist of /ɣ k/, but other velar sounds (e.g. /x ŋ/) do not occur in that context. Target Type N also obtains if the set of undergoers includes only /k g/, but other velars do not occur in that context.3

The classification in Table 12.2 makes it possible to reach conclusions concerning the types of sounds that can or cannot undergo velar fronting. Two patterns and the corresponding Target Types are listed in (4):

	- b. Target Types indicating that /k (g) ŋ/ do not undergo fronting: L, M, LL, MM

The significance of (4) for my analysis of rule generalization in German dialects is discussed in §12.4.2.

3Target Type N is admittedly a grab bag category because it does not differentiate the individual manner types among the sounds in (3b). The drawback with Target Type N is that dialects classified as such cannot be properly interpreted without additional discussion. For example, if /ɣ k/ serve as targets (Target Type N), then one cannot know for sure whether or not both /x/ and /ŋ/ also undergo fronting. It is demonstrated below that this type of information is important in able to draw conclusions regarding velar fronting from the typological perspective (§12.7). A similar point holds for the way in which triggers and targets spread in terms of time and space (§12.5).

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

It is assumed above that the set of triggers are the same for any two target segments. This generalization is correct for most of the varieties investigated in previous chapters, although there are some systems attested in which one target segment (e.g. /x/) has a different set of triggers than for another target segments (e.g. /ɣ/). One example discussed in this chapter is the RFr variety spoken in Beerfelden (§12.7.1). In §12.3 I focus on those varieties of German where the triggers are the same for all target segments. Some discussion of varieties of German in which the triggers for /x/ are not the same as the triggers for /ɣ/ can be found in Chapter 14.

### **12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects**

In the following paragraphs I classify a representative selection of HG and LG varieties in terms of the Target Types and Trigger Types defined in §12.2. The discussion is organized into subsections corresponding to the major dialects presented in Appendix C. All of the places cited in this section can be found on the respective locator maps (Maps 3.1–7.2 and Maps 11.1–11.2).

### **12.3.1 High and Highest Alemannic**

In H(st)Almc there is a single dorsal fricative (/x/); some varieties also possess the corresponding affricate (/kx/). Those velars are realized consistently as velar (e.g. [x]) in the overwhelming majority of H(st)Almc varieties; recall, for example, Glarus (Streiff 1915; §3.3). Additional H(st)Almc varieties of Switzerland in which [x]/[kx] are described as velar include Kerenzen (Winteler 1876: 17), Urserental in the canton of Uri (Abegg 1910: 9), Kesswil in the canton of Thurgau (Enderlin 1910: 8), St. Gallen (Hausknecht 1911: 16), Entlebuch in the canton of Lucern (Schmid 1915: 14, 17), Jaun in the canton of Freiburg (Stucki 1917: 21), the Berner Seeland (Baumgartner 1922: 11), the Zürcher Oberland (Weber 1923: 18), the Sensebezirk and the Southeast Seebezirk in the canton of Freiburg (Henzen 1927: 20), Unterschächental in the canton of Uri (Clauss 1929: 20), Schaffhausen (Wanner 1941: 8-9), Brienz in the canton of Bern (Susman Schulz 1951: 37), and Zürich (Fleischer & Schmid 2006: 244). The same generalization holds for HAlmc varieties spoken in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. For example, Kaiser (1910: 9-10) writes that there is no palatal fricative in Todtmoos-Schwarzenbach and that [x] surfaces even after front vowels ("Ein palatales *ch*, das in der nhd.

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

Gemeinsprache nach den hellen Vokalen eintritt, kennt die Mundart nicht, indem auch nach den hellen Vokalen stets gutturales *x* stehtˮ). Beck (1926: 56) similarly observes that [x] is velar in every context ("*x* ist in jeder Stellung velarˮ) in the Markgräflerland. A similar assessment is made for [x] in Jestetten by Keller (1963).

The varieties of H(st)Almc discussed in previous chapters (§3.3, §3.4, Chapter 6) with some version of velar fronting are therefore exceptions to the general pattern. In all of those places the target for that process is /x/ (and /kx/, if present). Variation among the velar fronting varieties of SwG involves the sets of sounds comprising the triggers.

In Table 12.3, I list the four velar fronting dialects of SwG discussed in previous chapters. In this and in all subsequent tables I give the corresponding Target Type and Trigger Type in the first two columns and the place where the dialect in question is/was spoken and the source in the third and fourth columns respectively. In the heading for each table I give the historical source for the target velar segment. For more detailed information concerning the location of the places listed in Table 12.3 and in all subsequent tables in §12.3 the reader is referred to Appendix C. As indicated in the heading below, the Trigger and Target Types hold for velar fronting in postsonorant position.

Table 12.3: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in H(st)Almc (<WGmc + [k x])

It can be seen that all four SwG varieties have the same Target Type. As indicated in the second column of Table 12.3, the differences among those four places is the Trigger Type: In Visperterminen the trigger is the set of high front vowels, in Obersaxen it is the high front vowels and the mid front vowels, in Rheintal it is the high front vowels, mid front vowels, and coronal sonorant consonants, and in Maienfeld it is the set of all front vowels and coronal sonorant consonants.

Table 12.4 summarizes the targets and triggers for those SwG dialects discussed earlier with word-initial velar fronting.

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

Table 12.4: Targets and triggers for (word-initial) velar fronting in H(st)Almc (<WGmc + [k])

Again, the three varieties listed here have the same Target Type, and they differ only in terms of the types of segments that trigger the fronting of a (word-initial) velar.

In Chapter15 I discuss the Trigger Types from additional H(st)Almc velar fronting areas in Switzerland and Austria (Vorarlberg, West Tyrol). In that chapter I also consider data from the linguistic atlases from those regions (SDS, VALTS).

### **12.3.2 Low Alemannic and Swabian**

### **<IP_ADDRESS> General remarks**

In the southwesternmost varieties of LAlmc, velars (/x/) are realized as velars regardless of the nature of the adjacent sound. For example, in the LAlmc dialect spoken in Basel, Heusler (1888: 69) makes it clear that [x] has no palatal variant ("Das *χ* ... ist in jeder Stellung velar, nie der 'ich-Laut'ˮ). A similar statement can be found in descriptions of LAlmc dialects spoken in Germany (Baden-Württemberg) in and around Freiburg im Breisgau, e.g. Ehret (1911: 43) and Eckerle (1936: 50), and in Alsace (Elsass), e.g. Mankel (1886: 8) for Münsterthal and Henry (1900: 61) for Colmar. The reader is referred to Map 7 in Klausmann (1985a,b), which indicates the places in and around Freiburg im Breisgau where velar fronting is and is not active. In ALA a number of maps are given for words with [x] and [ç] in Alsace. An examination of those maps indicates that Colmar (my Map 3.1) is the approximate boundary between velar fronting (to the north) and no velar fronting (to the south). A few places indicating the presence and absence of velar fronting from the maps in ALA are indicated on my Map 3.1. E.M. Hall (1991a,b) investigates the LAlmc/Swb varieties in a broad area to the south of Villingen-Schwenningen. Map 22 in that source shows that velar fronting is active in places to the east and west of Villingen-Schwenningen, but not in the places to the south. Representative examples of two velar fronting places (Tuningen and Urach) and two non-velar fronting places (Titisee-Neustadt and

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

Donaueschingen) are indicated on my Map 3.1. 4 The conclusions concerning the presence vs. absence of velar fronting in Southwest Germany are also consistent with the maps in SSA. For example, the map for words like *Sichel* 'sickle' in Volume 2 indicates a large region with [x] after a front vowel. That area extends to the south and west of Freiburg im Breisgau and to the south and southeast of Villingen-Schwenningen.

Another area characterized by the absence of velar fronting is the eastern part of the Swb dialect region. Consider first the assessment of Moser (1936: 8), who concerns himself with the dialect spoken in the Staudengebiet (southwest of Augsburg). Moser writes that the palatal articulation does not occur in the dialect, even in the neighborhood of front vowels. ("Die palatale Artikulation findet sich in unserer Mda. nicht, selbst nicht in der Nachbarschaft heller Vokale wie i, e ..."). The same observation is made by König (1970: 46) for Graben, ca. 25 south of Augsburg.5 In fact, the assessment of Moser and König concerning the realization of [x] holds for a much larger expanse. Ibrom (1971) investigates the broad region between Augsburg and Donauwörth and observes that the one dorsal fricative is realized consistently as [x] (p. 252-254). The maps in volume 7.2 of SBS provide similar data for the broad region between Augsburg and Ulm (see my Map 3.1).

As indicated on Map 3.1, the southeast part of the Swb dialect area both velar fronting as well as the absence of velar fronting are attested. For example, SBS Map 173 for *Sichel* 'sickle' indicates the realization [sɪxl] (=⟦sįxl ̩ ⟧) in Ebersbach ̥ (near Kaufbeuren). The maps in VALTS also reveal the absence of velar fronting in Wangen im Allgäu. By contrast, the SSA map for *Sichel* 'sickle' alluded to above indicates velar fronting for Niederwangen, and Bausinger & Ruoff (1959) show that velar fronting is attested for Beuren.

4One of the first linguists to discuss the distribution of [x] and [ç] in terms of geography was Fischer (1895). In that work, Fischer observes (pp. 68-69) that the dorsal ("gutturalˮ) fricative is consistently realized as [x] after any type of vowel in SwG but that north of the Alps ("[n]ördlich der Albˮ) the same fricative is articulated as velar after back vowels and palatal after front vowels. Fischer similarly observes (pp. 63-64) that postvocalic [g] is pronounced [ç]/[x] according to context ("je nach der Lautumgebungˮ) in the north and northeast (of the Swb dialect region) and that [g] has the palatal articulation ([j]) after front vowels or [r] in the northwest (Rhineland). The latter generalization is depicted on his Map 20. Fischer writes (p. 68) that one of the reasons he was unable to determine a clear isogloss separating velar fronting areas from non-velar fronting ones – to use my terminology – is that north of the Alps dorsal fricatives have more than two places of articulation (recall §1.5).

5König's observation holds for the speech of the elderly. He adds that [x] is realized as palatal in unstressed syllables – presumably only after front segments – at faster rates of speech and by younger speakers.

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

The conservative (non-velar fronting) places described above should not detract from the predominant pattern for LAlmc/Swb, whereby velars like /x/ are realized as the corresponding palatals ([ç]) in the context after front sounds. Velar fronting is not attested in LAlmc/Swb in word-initial position. In all of the sources cited here the sole target for (postsonorant) velar fronting fronting is /x/ (Target Type LL). Recall from earlier discussion that this means /x/ is the sole target for velar fronting because the corresponding lenis sound /ɣ/ is absent. As a general rule, velar fronting applies after all coronal sonorants, although a few varieties are attested with a narrower set of triggers. In particular, some systems possess a low front vowel (/æ/); in one set of dialects that sound serves as a trigger for velar fronting, but in another set it does not.

I make a few brief comments below on some of the LAlmc/Swb varieties with uncommon triggers. Table 12.5 provides a summary of the Trigger Types and Target Types for the LAlmc/Swb sources I have consulted. A complex case of triggers varying within a small area is discussed after Table 12.5.

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Low Alemannic**

Rheinbischofsheim has the full set of velar fronting triggers (Trigger Type E), e.g. [hɛçt] 'pike', [blæç] 'tin', [dmelç] 'the milk' vs. [nɑːxt] 'night'. In Forbach and in a number of communities to the east of Freiburg im Breisgau (Glottertal, Elztal, St. Peter, St. Märgen, Gütenbach) there are no low front vowels and epenthesis prohibits /x/ from occurring next to a consonant (=Trigger Type EE). Examples from Forbach include [liçt] 'light', [gnɛːçt] 'vassal' vs. [hoːx] 'high'.

In Oberschopfheim the set of triggers for fronting consists solely of nonlow front vowels (Trigger Type AA), e.g. [heçt] 'pike' vs. [blæx] 'tin', [nɑːxt] 'night'. For the areas in the Ortenaukreis investigated by Kilian (1935) the facts are essentially the same, e.g. [sɪçl] 'sickle', [deːçtər] 'daughter' vs. [dræːxdər] 'funnel', ̩ [noːxt] 'night'. Kilian notes that words like [dræːxdər] are realized with [ç] in communities in which [æː] corresponds to [ɛː], i.e. [drɛːçdər].

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Swabian**

One variety with the broadest set of triggers (Trigger Type E) is Erdmannsweiler (§3.2), e.g. [fræç] 'impudent', [knæːçt] 'vassal' [kalç] 'lime' vs. [lɑxə] 'laughinf'. Freudenstadt is representative of Trigger Type CC, e.g. [ʃtɛçə] 'sting', [rɛːçt] 'right', [milç] 'milk' vs. [kʰoxə] 'cook-inf', and Memmingen of Trigger Type EE, e.g. [dɛçlə] 'roof-dim' vs. [nɑxt] 'night'.6

6The phonetic transcriptions provided in the Swb dialect dictionary (SchwWb) point to Target Type L and Trigger Type CC.

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

A narrow set of triggers (Target Type AA) is attested in Bavendorf (Schöller 1939: 49). Although he does not provide separate symbols for [ç] and [x], Schöller gives a clear statement concerning the distribution of those sounds. In particular, Schöller (1939: 49) writes that [ç] occurs after front vowels (⟦e, i, ö, ü ei⟧) and [x] after back vowels (⟦ɑ ɑ̈ o u⟧). The important point to observe in this passage is that [x] surfaces after ⟦ɑ̈⟧, which is Schöller's symbol for [ɛ] (p. 9). If [ɛ] is phonologically [+low] – the dialect has no phonetic [æ] – then the set of triggers for velar fronting consists of all nonlow front vowels (Trigger Type AA).

Haag (1898) describes a set of Swb dialects spoken in the vicinity of Villingen-Schwenningen. The following passage (Haag 1898: 82) is significant because it illustrates the way in which the distribution of [x] and [ç] can vary depending on both time and place (as well as religion). In the varieties discussed below, there is no phonetically low vowel (i.e. [æ]), but [ɛ] (/ɛ/) is assumed to be phonologically low and front. Due to the intricacies described below, I do not include it in Table 12.5.

*Ch* behält in allen Stellungen seine gutturale Artikulation mit Entschiedenheit nur noch im Südwesten: ex, rextə, riix, biixtə, ɛxt, štɛxxə, migləx &; nach l mit Gleitvokal ə: : miləx, khiləxə, khaləx &. Sonst geht es nach palatalen Vokalen in ç über: iç, riçtə, riiç, biiçtə, ɛçt, štɛççə & . Nach Liquiden bleibt es guttural: šnarxlə, khalx, milx, khirxə, štrolx &; mit Entschiedenheit freilich nur noch in der älteren Generation und im Osten; die jüngere, besonderes Protestanten, hat ç übernommen; Tuttlingen-Neuhausen, verschobene ç-Insel, auch noch: štaarç, štɔarç, mɛlçə &. In der Nordwestecke, hinter 25, ausschliesslich ç: šnarçlə, khalç, milç khirç, duiç für durch &, Gleitvokal i leicht angedeutet.  Dass diese auf dem Hauptgebiet neu ist, lehrt die Zwischenstufe zwischen x und ç, die, vor allem im Südosten, für letzteres gilt, und im Munde Aeltere immer wieder mit reinem x wechselt: ix, rixtə, rɛxxtə &, weshalb hier eine feste Grenzlegung schwierig ist; ferner im Osten Heuberg, Bära, IIart bis zum Albrand, wo fast reine gutturale Artikulation herrscht: gleix, feixt, reixbax. – Im Nordosten, in katholischen Gemeinden, bleibt Guttural nach ɛ: ɛxxtə, rɛxxə; protestantische ɛççtə, rɛççə.

"*Ch* retains its guttural articulation in all positions only in the Southwest: ex, rextə, riix, biixtə, ɛxt, štɛxxə, migləx etc.; after *l* with its epenthetic vowel ə: miləx, khiləxə, khaləx etc. Otherwise it [*ch*] changes into ç after a front vowel: iç, riçtə, riiç, biiçtə, ɛçt, štɛççə etc. After liquids it remains guttural: šnarxlə, khalx, milx, khirxə, štrolx etc.; resolutely of course only in the older

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

Table 12.5: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in LAlmc and Swb (<WGmc + [k x]).

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

generation and in the East; the younger generation, especially Protestants, has adopted ç; Tuttlingen-Neuhausen, an advanced ç-island, also has: štaarç, štɔarç, mɛlçə etc. In the Northwest corner [there is] exclusively ç: šnarçlə, khalç, milç khirç, duiç for durch etc., epenthetic vowel i implied. From the West the front articulation is occurring more and more. That this is new in the main area is indicated by the intermediate sound between x and ç which, above all in the Southwest, holds for the latter and alternates in the mouth of the elderly more and more with pure x: ix, rixtə, rɛxxtə & ; for this reason a clear boundary is difficult to determine; furthermore in the East Heuberg, Bära, IIart up to Albrand, where a pure guttural articulation is still retained: gleix, feixt, reixbax. – In the Northeast, in Catholic parishes, the guttural is retained after ɛ: ɛxxtə, rɛxxə; for Protestants: ɛççtə, rɛççəˮ.

On the basis of this passage it is possible to draw the following conclusions: (a) In the southwest there are speakers of conservative non-velar fronting (Stage 1) varieties; (b) there are many speakers (i.e. those belonging to the older generation and those in the east) who have both [ç] and [x]; [ç] occurs for those speakers after front vowels but not after liquids (Trigger Type D or BB); (c) other speakers (e.g. young Protestants) have [ç] and [x], but the former sound occurs after front vowels and liquids (Trigger Type E or CC), and (d) a distinction can be drawn between Protestants ([ɛ] is a trigger for velar fronting) and Catholics ([ɛ] is not a trigger).

### **12.3.3 Bavarian and East Franconian**

### **<IP_ADDRESS> General remarks**

The periphery of the Bav dialect continuum – in particular, SBav in North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) – is characterized by the absence of velar fronting; thus, /x/ surfaces consistently as [x]. This point is clear from the many SBav non-velar fronting varieties indicated on Map 3.3. Within the SBav dialect area velar fronting is active in certain places indicated on Map 3.3, including Graz (Moosmüller 1991) and in several isolated mountain valleys of Tyrol (e.g. Egger 1909). I discuss those velar fronting enclaves in greater detail in §15.10.

Non-velar fronting areas are well-attested throughout CBav. This point is clear from Ibrom (1971), who investigates a large area in the northwest of the CBav dialect area between Augsburg and Aichach, including a large part of Northeast Swb (recall §12.3.2). On the basis of his study he concludes that the one dorsal

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

fricative (/x/) is realized either as uvular (p. 256) or velar (p. 257, 259). That assessment is confirmed on the basis of several maps in SBS, which documents nonvelar fronting from Aichach to the south along the Lech River through Grafrath and Weilheim (both indicated on Map 3.3).

Outside of the areas discussed in Ibrom (1971) there is little doubt that (postsonorant) velar fronting predominates in both urban and rural areas in the CBav. The occurrence of velar fronting in the context after sonorants in Southeast Germany can be confirmed by examining the sources cited above, which are indicated on my Map 3.3. That velar fronting is the norm for CBav is also evident from the maps in the linguistic atlases for this region (SNiB for Lower Bavaria, SOB for Upper Bavaria). This point is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 13. It is nevertheless noteworthy that the maps in Volumes 3 and 4 in SNiB and some of the other sources cited below suggest that velar fronting is absent in certain places. Thus, although velar fronting predominates in CBav, there is nothing out of the ordinary for some communities to articulate [x] even after front vowels. Such places can therefore be thought of as non-velar fronting islands – conservative enclaves which have preserved the original (WGmc) system with /x/ and no palatal allophone.7

Velar fronting in NBav/EFr has a similar status. The sources cited in this book from those dialect areas (indicated on Map 3.4) as well as the maps in the linguistic atlases for these dialect areas (SUF, SMF, SNOB, SBS) point to a region characterized by velar fronting. However, it is also not unusual to find non-velar fronting enclaves, especially in NBav. A few representative examples from SNOB and SBS are indicated on my Map 3.4.

As in Almc, the typical pattern for NBav/CBav/EFr is that the sole target for postsonorant fronting is the one fricative /x/ because /ɣ/ (< WGmc + [ɣ]) is absent (Target Type LL). Velar fronting is typically induced by all front vowels and (if present) coronal sonorant consonants. Since low front vowels are often nonoccurring, Trigger Type CC is the most widely attested. In those varieties with no low front vowels the presence of Schwa Epenthesis (§5.4) means that Trigger Type EE is also well-attested.

The Trigger Types and Target Types of all NBav/SBav/EFr varieties discussed in this book are given in Tables 12.6 and 12.7. I discuss below a few systems from this area that are typical, but I focus primarily on those patterns that are unique for the region.

7The absence of velar fronting was also noted by V. M. Schirmunski over ninety years ago in a (NBav) German-language island in Jamburg (Ukraine) (Schirmunski 1931: 255).

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Central and North Bavarian**

Unmarked Target Type LL is represented by all varieties surveyed with the exception of Kallmünz (Target Type M). In that NBav variety, etymological [ɣ] has the palatal allophone [ʝ]; e.g. [gʃiçt] 'history', [næːʝɐl] 'nail-dim' vs. [wox] 'week', [lɑːɣɐ] 'situation'. That pattern is shown below to be the unmarked one for most of CG, but it is rare for UG.

Trigger Type CC is represented by Erdmannsdorf/Zillertal, e.g. [køːç] 'porridge', [mɪlç] 'milk' vs. [mɔxn̩] 'do-inf' and Trigger Type EE by Marchfeld, [lɑːɪçt] 'light', [gŋɛːçt] 'vassal' vs. [brɑːuxŋ] 'need-inf'. Bergstetten possesses low front vowels, which serve as triggers (Trigger Type E), e.g. [ʃtiːç] 'sting', [tsæːç] 'tough', [møːlç] 'milk' vs. [troːx] 'trough'. Bergstetten can be contrasted with Großberghofen, where low front vowels do not induce velar fronting (Trigger Type AA), e.g. [rɪçtn̩] 'judge-inf', [ɛçt] 'genuine' vs. [brɔxt] 'bring-part', [ɑxt] 'eight', [tsæxɐ] 'tear'. A similar pattern obtains in Kallmüntz (Trigger Type DD).

The variety of CBav described by Maier (1965) deserves special comment because the data in that source reveal that the dialect is unique for its area. Maier investigates a broad CBav-speaking region in Upper Bavaria which is bounded in the south by Austria, to the east by the Inn River, and to the west by the Isar River. In his description of the ch-sound ("ch-Lautˮ), Maier (1965: 4) observes that the region exhibits variation concerning the realization of the sound(s) depicted by those letters. The generalization is that in one corner of the larger region – defined as Kiefersfelden, Oberaudorf, and Niederaudorf – the only dorsal fricative is velar [x] (=⟦x⟧) even in the context after front vowels, e.g. [tixtə] 'capable', [ʃlɛxt] 'bad', [ɔxt] 'eight'. Hence, those three places can therefore be thought of as non-velar fronting islands. By contrast, in the other areas within the region – e.g. Maier's Isarwinkel, defined in terms of the villages and towns he lists on p. 1 – there are two dorsal fricatives, namely [x] and [ç] (=⟦χ⟧). The data in Maier (1965) reveal that the triggers for postsonorant velar fronting in Isarwinkel (Map 3.3) consist of all and only front vowels (including the low front vowels [æ]), but not the coronal consonants. Thus, Isarwinkel represents Trigger Type D, which is rare among German dialects. Examples from the original source include the following: [tiҫtə] 'capable', [ʃlɛҫt] 'bad', [ræç] 'smoke' vs. [kruːx] 'smell', [tɒxtɐ] 'daughter', [bɔːx] 'stream', [lɛrx] 'lark', [milx] 'milk'.

One NBav variety is attested in which only front vowels but not coronal consonants are triggers for velar fronting (Eisendorf; Seemüller 1908c). According to the data from that source (=Trigger Type BB), [ç] surfaces after front vowels (no low front vowel is attested) and [x] after back vowels and liquids ([l r]), e.g. [iç] 'I', [ʃlɛçt] 'bad' vs. [woxɒ] 'week-pl', [dmyːlx] 'the milk', [bɑrx] 'mountain-pl'.

12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

### **<IP_ADDRESS> East Franconian**

Unmarked Target Type LL is represented by all varieties surveyed with the exception of Schmalkalden (Target Type M) and Schefflenz (Target Type L). Representative examples from Schmalkalden are [lɛçt] 'light', [giːʝə] 'violin' vs. [buːx] 'book', [boːɣə] 'bow'. Schefflenz is unusual in that it possesses both /x/ and /ɣ/, and yet only the former serves as a trigger for velar fronting, e.g. [iːç] 'I', [brɛçə] 'breakinf', [mɑnç] 'many' vs. [lɑxə] 'laugh-inf', [fouɣl] 'bird', [fɛɣl ̩ ] 'bird-pl', [iːɣl ̩ ]̩ 'hedgehog'. That pattern (Target Type L) is otherwise restricted to LG (Wph), e.g. Soest (§4.3).

Unmarked Trigger Type CC is represented by Bonnland, e.g. [ɛçə] 'oak tree', [lɛrçə] 'lark' vs. [joux] 'yoke'. In a few varieties low front vowels can be shown to induce velar fronting, e.g. Waldau (Trigger Type E) [brɛç] 'break-inf', [væːç] 'soft', [blæç] 'pale', [ɛlç] 'elk' vs. [lɑx] 'laugh-inf'. By contrast, West Central Franconia (Trigger Type C) and Schmalkalden (Trigger Type AA) both possess low front vowels, which do not serve as triggers, e.g. Schmalkalden [knæːxt] 'vassal', [sæɣə] 'blessing' (together with data from that variety given above); West Central Franconia [liçt] 'light', [milç] 'milk' vs. [buːx] 'book', [hɔːx] 'high', [ʃlæxt] 'bad'.

In sum, the material cited above points to a region with a clearly unmarked pattern which is disrupted only by a few outliers described above. However, the reader is referred to Chapter 13, which shows on the basis of data from SNiB that the most uncommon set of velar fronting triggers documented in the present chapter (high front vowels) is the norm in the villages and towns of Upper Bavaria.

### **12.3.4 West Central German**

### **<IP_ADDRESS> General remarks**

In the WCG dialect region a few conservative non-velar fronting places are situated in the northwest of the Rpn/LFr dialect continuum along the Dutch/Belgian border (Map 5.1). One such LFr variety is the one described by Ramisch (1908) for the area south of Geldern. Two non-velar fronting Rpn places in East Belgium are Kreis Eupen (Welter 1929) and Montzen (Welter 1933), e.g. Kreis Eupen [lɪiɣə] 'lie-inf', [lyxt] 'lie-3sg'. Further south, a cluster of non-velar fronting MFr varieties are indicated on Map 5.3, but those places will be shown in §14.6.3 to have lost the once historically active rule of velar fronting. By contrast, in the non-velar fronting varieties described by Ramisch (1908) and Welter (1929, 1933) velar fronting was never active historically.

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

Table 12.6: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in SBav, CBav, and NBav (<WGmc + [k x])

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

Table 12.7: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in EFr (<WGmc + [k x ɣ])

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

The linguistic atlases for WCG give no indication of non-velar fronting places, even along the country borders separating German (WCG) from other languages. In ALLG there are a number of maps for German Lorraine (Deutsch-Lothringen), which includes the area between Thionville and Sarrebourg (see my Map 5.3). Map 7 (*lachen* 'laugh-inf') and Map 116 (*hauch* 'breath') in ALLG indicate consistent realizations with [x] after various back vowels, while Map 160 (*streicheln* 'pet-inf'), Map 200 (*bleich* 'pale'), and Map 269 (*Milch* 'milk') reveal that [ç] appears after any coronal sonorant throughout the region without exception. MRhSA likewise gives no indication that there are conservative enclaves without velar fronting, even among those places along the borders with France, Luxembourg, and Belgium.

Two places in the northeastern part of the Rpn dialect area had not yet phonologized velar fronting in the late nineteenth century: Mülheim an der Ruhr (Maurmann 1889) and Remscheid (Holthausen 1885a,b). It is fairly clear from those descriptions that the ich-Laut is absent. Maurmann (1889: 10) indicates this by placing his velar consonants [k g x ɣ ŋ] in a separate column from his one palatal ([ʝ]), although his description of the phonetics (p. 11) suggests that there is some coarticulatory fronting of velars. Holthausen (1885a) is very clear that velar fronting was not active at that time. He writes (p. 406): "x ist – *ch* in *acht*, vor und nach palatalen vocalen wird seine bildungsstelle – wie auch dies des *k* – ein klein wenig nach vorn verschoben, ohne dass jedoch die palatale articulation des *ch* in *ich* erreicht würde". ("*x* is – *ch* in *acht*, its place of articulation before and after front vowels – like that of k – advanced slightly towards the front without reaching the palatal articulation of the *ch* in *ich*"). That quote and the discussion in that article suggest that there is some coarticulatory fronting of postsonorant and word-initial /x/ but that velar fronting had not yet been phonologized. Both Mülheim an der Ruhr and Remscheid appear to be non-velar fronting islands because they are surrounded by dorsal fronting varieties. For example, Remscheid is located about 5km from Wermelskirchen to the south and 5km from Ronsdorf to the north, but both of those places have velar fronting (see Holthaus 1887 and Hasenclever 1905 on Map 5.1).

Those non-velar fronting varieties aside, the generalization is that postsonorant velar fronting is present throughout the WCG area. In contrast to several of the H(st)Almc and Wph varieties discussed earlier, velar fronting in WCG is not active synchronically in word-initial position. The diachronic change whereby word-initial + [ɣ] surfaces as the corresponding palatal ([ʝ]) before any type of sound is a common change throughout CFr (=Rpn/MFr). That topic is postponed until Chapter 14 because it illustrates that velar fronting can apply as a nonassimilatory change.

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

In postsonorant position the set of targets for WCG consists of /x/ and – if present – /ɣ/ (Target Type M). See Viëtor (1875: 7) for an early description of colloquial speech (Umgangssprache) specifically in RFr where this broad set of targets is presupposed. Many of the varieties below are classified as Target Type LL because /ɣ/ is absent. In only a few rare cases does /x/ but not /ɣ/ undergo velar fronting (Target Type L). This contrasts with the typical pattern for Wpf (§12.3.6). The difference between Target Type M for CG (Rpn) and Target Type L for ELG (Wph) was already recognized in 1915 by Otto Lobbes (Lobbes 1915; Map 5.1).  Dagegen weichen die Mdaa. nördlich und östlich der Ürdinger Linie erheblich von den ripuarischen Mdaa. … An Stelle des stimmhaften palatalen Reibelautes … der rip. Mdaa. haben wir im Inlaut de[n] stimmhafte[n] velare[n] Spirant(en) (γ), der aber auch nach palatalem Vocal seinen velaren Charackter beibehält.

"In Ripuarian we have a palatal voiced fricative (j), which also stands wordinternally after front vowels, while the velar voiced fricative (γ) occurs after back vowels ... By contrast, the dialects north and east of the Uerdingen line deviate considerably from the Ripuarian dialects ... In place of the voiced palatal fricative ... of the Ripuarian dialects we have word-internally the voiced velar fricative (γ), which also retains its velar character even after front vowelsˮ.

In terms of triggers the clear pattern for WCG dialects is for all coronal sonorants to induce the change from velar to palatal, including low front vowels (if present). Recall that the broadest set of triggers is reflected with Trigger Type E. In a small number of cases identified below, low front vowels are present (/æ/), but they fail to trigger velar fronting (=Trigger Type C, AA, or CC).

The present findings concerning targets and triggers for postsonorant velar fronting are also documented in dialect dictionaries. Three dictionaries for Rpn (KWb and WbKM for Cologne and WbUS for the Lower Sieg region (die untere Sieg) – a large area in and around Bonn – document Trigger Type E and Target Type M. (KWb provides a description on pp. 15-17 of how to pronounce the spelling of *ch* and *g*. KWb and WbUS give phonetic transcriptions for each lexical entry with different symbols for the lenis palatal and velar fricatives). More extensive (multiple volume) dialect dictionaries provide details concerning the

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

pronunciation of words in specific places. One example is SHesWb for South Hesse, which provides phonetic transcriptions with separate symbols for velars and palatals; recall from §9.5 that SHesWb encodes the [x] vs. [ç] contrast. In that source, multiple phonetic transcriptions corresponding to specific places in the broad region are provided for any given word. In SHesWb, [x] regularly occurs after back vowels (e.g. *Loch* 'hole') and [ç] after front vowels and liquids (e.g. *Licht* 'light', *Dolch* 'dagger'); since no low front vowel is present this pattern corresponds to Target Type C. The same source reveals that some places are attested with Target Type M (e.g. *Lager* 'camp' with [ɣ] and *fegen* 'sweep-inf' with [ʝ]) and others with the rare Target Type L (e.g. *Lager* 'camp' and *fegen* 'sweep-inf' with [ʝ]). A second multiple volume dialect dictionary for WCG is RWb for the Rheinland. Like SHesWb, RWb provides phonetically transcribed words in numerous places for any given word. The area defined by RWb includes LFr, Rpn, RFr, and MFr. Segments inducing velar fronting imply that Trigger Type C is typical for the region, although a closer scrutiny of RWb may reveal different Trigger Types. Target Type LL and M are typical for RWb, although it is clear from the occurrence of [ɣ] in a word-internal onset after a front vowel that the same source also recognizes Target Type L.

I discuss first the three Hes dialects (EHes, NHes, CHes) and provide a summary of the targets and triggers in Table 12.8. I then consider LFr, CFr (MFr/Rpn), and RFr and give a summary in Table 12.9.

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Central Hessian, North Hessian, and East Hessian**

According to all sources consulted, velar fronting affects both /x/ and /ɣ/ (Target Type M) or only /x/ if /ɣ/ is not present (Target Type LL). Target Type M is represented by Oberellenbach, e.g. [iʝəl] 'hedgehog', [sæːʝn̩] 'say-inf', [blæç] 'tin', [mɛlç] 'milk', [ærʝər] 'anger' vs. [βoːɣə] 'scale', [kɔx] 'cook'. No Hes variety has been uncovered with /x/ and /ɣ/ in which only /x/ triggers velar fronting (Target Type L).

If a low front vowel is present then that vowel typically induces velar fronting, e.g. (Trigger Type E) Oberellenbach (see above). A second example is Central Vogelsberg [ʃlɛçt] 'bad', [bræçə] 'break-inf', [mɛlç] 'milk' vs. [nox] 'still'. Atzenhain/Grünberg (§9.2) represents a variety in which low front vowels fail to induce velar fronting (Trigger Type AA), e.g. [gəsiçt] 'face', [breːç] 'break-inf' vs. [bux] 'book', [nɔːxt] 'night', [blæx] 'tin'.

Not included in Table 12.8 is the EHes region around Bad Hersfeld (Martin 1957), which nicely illustrates the way in which triggers and targets can differ from place to place. Throughout the area, /x/ surfaces as [ç] after a nonlow front

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

Table 12.8: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in EHes, NHes, and CHes (<WGmc + [k x ɣ])

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

vowel or consonant (e.g. [liçt] 'light', [mɛlç] 'milk') and [x] after a back vowel (e.g. [ɔːxt] 'eight'). After [æː] the dorsal fricative is realized as [ç] to the east of Bad Hersfeld and as [x] to the west, e.g. [ʃlæːçt] vs. [ʃlæːxt] 'bad', [flæːçt] vs. [flæːxt] 'braid'. The [x] realization is attested in Kirchheim (Reckerode, Rotterode, Gershausen) and Nieraula (Kleba, Niederjossa, Hattenbach), while [ç] occurs in Wölfershausen, Unterneurode, Hillartshausen and Wehrshausen (Martin 1957: 31, 100). Martin's regional variety also elucidates the distinction between Trigger Type M and Trigger Type LL: In the north, /ɣ/ is realized as [ɣ] in a word-internal onset after a back vowel (e.g. [ʃvɔːɣəɐ] 'brother-in-law'), but in the south (where [x] is realized after [æː]), /ɣ/ has restructured to /x/, e.g. [ʃvɔːxəɐ] 'brother-in-law'.

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Low Franconian**

Few descriptions of LFr are available, and hence it is not possible to say what the typical Target Type and Trigger Type are for that dialect area. Two varieties are attested with Target Type L, namely Kalkar (§8.2) and Homberg. The sources for those places also reveal that low front vowels are velar fronting triggers (Trigger Type D), e.g. Kalkar [pleçt] 'duty', [flæçtə] 'braid' vs. [kloxt] 'gap', [ʀɛːɣə] 'rain'. The facts are similar in Kleve (Trigger Type DD).

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Central Franconian and Rhenish Franconian**

Target Type M is the norm for CFr and RFr. A MFr variety illustrating Target Type M (Sörth) was discussed earlier (§5.4). A second MFr variety is Sehlem, e.g. [knɛːçt] 'vassal, [hæːçəl] 'hackle', [ʃpiːʝəl] 'mirror', vs. [vɔx] 'week', [frɑːɣə] 'askinf', and a Target Type M from RFr is Zaisenhausen, e.g. [prɛçə] 'break-inf', [iːʝl]̩ 'hedgehog' vs. [lɑxə] 'laugh-inf', [froːɣə] 'ask-inf'.

Typical for CFr and RFr is the nonoccurrence of dorsal fricatives after consonants due to Schwa Epenthesis, e.g. (Rpn) Dülken [veːç] 'path', [bøyʝən] 'bendinf' vs. [frɑxt] 'freight', [drɑːɣə] 'carry-inf' and [foləç] 'consequence' (from /folɣ/). A similar pattern obtains in Wermelskirchen (Rpn), although that dialect allows palatals to surface after liquids in a word-internal onset, e.g. [ʃprɛçən] 'speak-inf', [fɛːʝən] 'sweep-inf', [folʝən] 'follow-inf' vs. [lɔx] 'hole', [fuːɣəl] 'bird'.

Two RFr varieties unique to their area are Mönchzell and Heppenheim because they both exhibit Target Type L, e.g. Mönchzell [blɛç] 'tin', [ʀæçt] 'right', [feʝə] 'sweep-inf', [folʝə] 'follow-inf' vs. [wox] 'week', [kʊɣl] 'ball', [flɪɣl ̩ ] 'wing'; Hep- ̩ penheim [ʃlɛːç] 'bad', [fɛnçl] 'fennel', vs. [foɣl ̩ ] 'bird', [ʃtɑiɣə] 'climb-inf', [lɑxə] ̩ 'laugh-inf'.

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

Table 12.9: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in LFr, MFr, Rpn, and RFr (<WGmc + [k x ɣ])

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

According to all of the sources for CFr and RFr surveyed, if a low front vowel is present then it serves as a trigger for velar fronting (Trigger Type D, E, DD). In this respect, CFr and RFr differ from Hes ones.

### **12.3.5 East Central German**

### **<IP_ADDRESS> General remarks**

The present survey has failed to discover any references to non-velar fronting enclaves in the ECG dialect region; hence, all places discussed below have some version of postsonorant velar fronting. Word-initial velar fronting occurs in HPr (§11.7) and the two Sln varieties referred to above (§11.4), but that type of system is otherwise unattested in this area. In NUSax-SMk it is common for the modern reflex of WGmc + [ɣ] to be realized as the corresponding palatal, but this development is not discussed until Chapter 14.

One nearly exceptionless generalization holding for the sources cited is that if /x ɣ/ are present, then both sounds undergo (postsonorant) velar fronting (Target Type M). One ECG dialect has been found – commented on below – possessing /x ɣ/, in which only /x/ undergoes fronting (Target Type L). Recall from Chapter 11 that two varieties of Sln (Sebnitz and Seifhennersdorf) as well as HPr (Reimerswalde) have a broad set of targets for velar fronting because it includes velar stops and the velar nasal (Target Type N).

### 12.3 Survey of triggers and targets for velar fronting in German dialects

As a general rule, the velar fronting triggers subsume all front vowels, including low front vowels (if present), and coronal sonorant consonants (Trigger Type E). A small number of varieties commented on below have been discovered in which low front vowels fail to trigger velar fronting. A pattern that is even more rare is one in which only front vowels but not coronal sonorant consonants induce velar fronting. A few such places (Trigger Type BB) have been identified and are discussed below.

I consider now the individual groupings within ECG, beginning with Thrn, USax, and NUSax-SMk, and then I turn to Sln and HPr. The generalizations concerning targets and triggers are summarized in Tables 12.10–12.13.

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Thuringian, Upper Saxon, and North Upper Saxon-South Markish**

Target Type M is represented by Leinefelde (Thrn), e.g. [zɪçl] 'sickle', [tsɛʝn ̩ ̩] 'goat', [plæç] 'tin', [næːçr] 'closer', [pʊrç] 'castle' vs. [lɔx] 'hole', [loːɣr ̩ ] 'camp'. ̩ Since historical + [ɣ] restructured to [x] (/x/) in most varieties of Thrn/USax, Target Type LL is the predominant pattern, e.g. Sondershausen (Thrn) [brɛçə] 'break-inf', [blæç] 'tin', [forçə] 'furrow' vs. [buːx] 'book'. A rare case of Target Type M for USax is attested in Salzfurtkapelle, e.g. [bleç] 'tin', [iːʝəl] 'hedgehog', [balʝən] 'scuffle-inf', [zorʝə] 'worry' vs. [brauxən] 'need-inf', [krɑːɣən] 'collar'. The one case of Target Type L known to me is Eisenach (Thrn), e.g. [ɛç] 'I' vs. [pɑxt] 'lease', [boːɣn̩] 'bow', [beːɣn̩] 'bow-pl'.

Trigger Type E is illustrated by Zschorlau (USax), e.g. [heç] 'height', [læçt] 'light', [dolç] 'dagger' vs. [rɑːx] 'smoke'. Four sources consulted make it clear that there are low front vowels that fail to induce velar fronting (Trigger Type C). That pattern is reflected in USax (Vorerzgebirge) and Thrn (Buttelstedt, Southwest Thuringian, Eichsfeld), e.g. Vorerzgebirge [knɛçt] 'vassal', [doːrç] 'through' vs. [nuːx] 'still', [nɑxt] 'night', [wæːxŋ] 'because of'. The [æː] in the latter example is described in the original source as low front vowel ("überhelles *a* tiefster Mittelzungenvokal …"); Bergmann (1965: 43).8

One unique place in this region where velar fronting fails to apply after [r] (Target Type BB) is Itzgrund, which occupies the southern corner of the Thrn dialect region (Map 7.2). Spangenberg (1989: 128) notes that the entire Thrn region is characterized by (postsonorant) velar fronting. He writes that after a consonant [ç] typically occurs but that in Itzgrund [x] is commonly realized after the rhotic. ("Nach Kons. erscheint wie in der StSpr. ç, doch im Itzgr begegnet nach r wie in der Mda auch häufig x …"). The three examples Spangenberg gives are [dʊrx] 'through', [ʃnɑːrxt] 'snore-3sg', and [kirxŋkoːr] 'church choir'.

8According to the transcriptions provided in the dictionary for USax (ObersWb), it is evident that the target for velar fronting is /x/ (Target Type LL) and that the process is induced by coronal sonorants (Trigger Type CC).

### 12 Targets, triggers, and rule generalization

Table 12.10: Targets and triggers for (postsonorant) velar fronting in Thrn (<WGmc + [k x ɣ])

### **<IP_ADDRESS> Silesian and High Prussian**