List of tables

Part of

Reshaping of the Nominal Inflection in Early Northern West Germanic
Elżbieta Adamczyk
[NOWELE Supplement Series 31] 2018
► pp. xvii–xxvi

List of tables

Table 2.1Classification of Proto-Germanic nominal stems

Table 2.2Inflection of the major productive nominal stem classes in Proto-Germanic

Table 2.3Reconstructed PGmc. i-stem paradigm of *gastiz ‘guest’

Table 2.4Reconstructed PGmc. u-stem paradigm of *sunuz ‘son’

Table 2.5Reconstructed PGmc. root noun paradigm of *fōt- ‘foot’

Table 2.6Reconstructed PGmc. r-stem paradigm of *brōðēr ‘brother’

Table 2.7Reconstructed PGmc. s-stem paradigm of *lambaz ‘lamb’

Table 2.8Reconstructed PGmc. nd-stem paradigm of *frijōnd- ‘friend’

Table 2.9The development of PGmc. nom. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.10The development of PGmc. acc. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.11The development of PGmc. gen. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.12The development of PGmc. dat. sg. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.13The development of PGmc. nom. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.14The development of PGmc. acc. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.15The development of PGmc. gen. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 2.16The development of PGmc. dat. pl. inflections in the early Germanic languages

Table 3.1The competing inflections in the OE light-syllable masculine and heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 3.2Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems

Table 3.3Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 3.4The percentage of innovation in the dat. sg. and acc. sg. in the OE heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 3.5The percentage of innovation in the acc. sg. in the OE heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 3.6Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE i-stems

Table 3.7The competing inflections in the OE light-syllable masculine and feminine u-stems

Table 3.8Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in OE the masculine u-stems

Table 3.9Distribution of competing inflections in the paradigm of OE magu

Table 3.10Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE light- and heavy-syllable feminine u-stems

Table 3.11Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE u-stems

Table 3.12Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE u-stems

Table 3.13Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE u-stems

Table 3.14Distribution of innovative forms in the OE u-stems with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.15The competing inflections in the OE masculine and feminine root nouns

Table 3.16Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE masculine root nouns

Table 3.17Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE light-syllable feminine root nouns

Table 3.18Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE heavy-syllable feminine root nouns

Table 3.19Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns

Table 3.20Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns

Table 3.21Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns

Table 3.22Distribution of innovative inflections in the OE root nouns with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.23The competing inflections in the OE masculine and feminine r-stems

Table 3.24Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE masculine r-stems

Table 3.25Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE feminine r-stems

Table 3.26Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in OE gebrōþru and gesweostru

Table 3.27Overall distribution of innovative inflections in the OE r-stems

Table 3.28Distribution of innovative inflections in the plural and the proportion of plural inflection in the individual OE r-stems

Table 3.29Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE r-stems

Table 3.30Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE r-stems

Table 3.31Distribution of innovative forms in the OE r-stems with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.32The competing inflections in the OE s-stems

Table 3.33Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE s-stems

Table 3.34Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE s-stems

Table 3.35Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE s-stems

Table 3.36Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE s-stems

Table 3.37Distribution of innovative forms in the OE s-stems with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.38Stages of the development of the OE s-stems

Table 3.39Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the paradigm of OE child

Table 3.40Distribution of the a-stem forms in the plural of cild with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.41The competing inflections in the OE monosyllabic nd-stems

Table 3.42Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE monosyllabic nd-stems (frēond and fēond)

Table 3.43Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE disyllabic nd-stems

Table 3.44Distribution of innovative inflections in the two types of the OE nd-stems

Table 3.45Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE nd-stems

Table 3.46Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE nd-stems

Table 3.47Distribution of innovative forms in the OE nd-stems with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.48The competing inflections in the OE þ-stems

Table 3.49Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE þ-stems

Table 3.50Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE þ-stems

Table 3.51Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE þ-stems

Table 3.52Distribution of innovative forms in the OE þ-stem paradigm with respect to dialect and period

Table 3.53Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old English

Table 3.54Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE minor stems per class

Table 3.55Distribution of innovative inflections in the OE minor stems with respect to number

Table 3.56The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OE minor stems

Table 3.57The correlation between the innovation level in the plural paradigms and the plural proportion

Table 3.58Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OE minors

Table 3.59Diachronic distribution of innovative inflections in the OE minor stems

Table 3.60Distribution of innovative features in the OE minor stems with respect to period

Table 3.61Dialectal distribution of innovative inflections in the OE minor stems

Table 3.62Distribution of innovative features in the OE minor stems with respect to dialect

Table 4.1The competing inflections in the OFris. light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems

Table 4.2The competing inflections in the OFris. light-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 4.3The competing inflections in the OFris. heavy-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems

Table 4.4The competing inflections in the OFris. heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 4.5Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems

Table 4.6Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 4.7Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. i-stems

Table 4.8The attested singular forms in the paradigm of OFris. wrald ‘world’

Table 4.9The attested singular forms in the paradigm of OFris. dēde ‘deed’

Table 4.10The attested singular forms in the paradigm of OFris. plicht ‘duty’

Table 4.11The effect of different interpretations on the level of archaism of the paradigms

Table 4.12The competing inflections in the OFris. light- and heavy-syllable masculine u-stems

Table 4.13Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. light- and heavy-syllable masculine u-stems

Table 4.14Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. feminine u-stems

Table 4.15Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. neuter u-stems

Table 4.16Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. masculine, feminine and neuter u-stems

Table 4.17Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. u-stems

Table 4.18The competing inflections in the OFris. masculine and feminine root nouns

Table 4.19Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. masculine root nouns

Table 4.20Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. feminine root nouns

Table 4.21Overall distribution of archaic and innovative forms in the OFris. root nouns

Table 4.22The competing inflections in the OFris. masculine r-stems

Table 4.23Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. masculine r-stems

Table 4.24Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. feminine r-stems

Table 4.25Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. r-stems

Table 4.26The competing inflections in the OFris. s-stems

Table 4.27Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. s-stems

Table 4.28Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. s-stems

Table 4.29The competing inflections in the OFris. nd-stems

Table 4.30Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. nd-stems

Table 4.31Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. nd-stems

Table 4.32Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old Frisian

Table 4.33Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. minor stems per class

Table 4.34Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. vocalic and consonantal stems

Table 4.35Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. minor stems

Table 4.36Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OFris. minor stems with respect to number

Table 4.37The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OFris. minor stems

Table 4.38The correlation between the percentage of innovative inflection in the plural and the proportion of the plural inflection

Table 5.1The productive paradigms serving as templates for the restructuring of the OS minor stems

Table 5.2Grapho-phonemic correspondences and their morphological consequences

Table 5.3The competing inflections in the OS light-syllable masculine i-stems

Table 5.4The competing inflections in the OS heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 5.5Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems

Table 5.6Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 5.7Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS heavy-syllable masculine and neuter i-stems

Table 5.8Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS heavy-syllable feminine i-stems

Table 5.9Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS i-stems

Table 5.10The overlapping inflections in the OS i-stem, ja-stem and a-stems

Table 5.11The interpretation of inflections in the OS dat. sg.

Table 5.12The competing inflections in the OS light-syllable masculine u-stems

Table 5.13The competing inflections in the OS feminine heavy-syllable u-stems

Table 5.14Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light- and heavy- syllable masculine u-stems

Table 5.15Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS light- and heavy-syllable feminine u-stems

Table 5.16Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS u-stems

Table 5.17Interpretations of the dat. sg. and nom. pl. inflections in the OS u-stem paradigm

Table 5.18The competing inflections in the OS masculine root nouns

Table 5.19The competing inflections in the OS feminine root nouns

Table 5.20Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS masculine root nouns, including the paradigm of OS man(n)

Table 5.21Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS feminine root nouns

Table 5.22Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS root nouns

Table 5.23The competing inflections in the OS masculine r-stems

Table 5.24Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS r-stems

Table 5.25The competing inflections in the OS s-stems

Table 5.26Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS s-stems

Table 5.27The competing inflections in the OS nd-stems (mon.)

Table 5.28The competing inflections in the OS nd-stems (dis.)

Table 5.29Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS monosyllabic nd-stems

Table 5.30Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS disyllabic nd-stems

Table 5.31Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS nd-stems

Table 5.32Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS nd-stems

Table 5.33Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old Saxon

Table 5.34Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS minor stems per class

Table 5.35Distribution of innovative inflections in the OS singular and plural paradigms

Table 5.36The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OS minor stems

Table 5.37Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OS minor stems

Table 5.38The percentage of archaic and innovative inflections in minor stems in individual OS sources

Table 5.39Common inflectional pattern based on the OS u-stems and i-stems

Table 6.1Productive paradigms serving as templates for the restructuring of inflection in OLF

Table 6.2The OLF heavy-syllable masculine and feminine i-stems

Table 6.3The competing inflections in the OLF light-syllable masculine u-stems

Table 6.4Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF masculine, neuter and feminine u-stems

Table 6.5Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF u-stems

Table 6.6The interpretation of the OLF u-stems in two different perspectives

Table 6.7The competing inflections in the OLF masculine root nouns

Table 6.8The competing inflections in the OLF feminine root nouns

Table 6.9Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF masculine and feminine root noun paradigms

Table 6.10Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF root nouns

Table 6.11The competing inflections in the OLF feminine r-stems

Table 6.12Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF masculine and feminine r-stems

Table 6.13Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF r-stems

Table 6.14The competing inflections in the OLF s-stems

Table 6.15The competing inflections in the OLF nd-stems

Table 6.16Distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF nd-stems

Table 6.17Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF nd-stems

Table 6.18Directions of interdeclensional transfers of minor stems in Old Low Franconian

Table 6.19Summary of the distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF minor stems per class

Table 6.20Distribution of innovative inflections in the OLF minor stems with respect to number

Table 6.21The correlation between the salience of plural markers and the innovation level in the OLF minor stems

Table 6.22Overall distribution of archaic and innovative inflections in the OLF minor stems

Table 6.23The percentage of innovative inflections in the minor stems in individual OLF sources

Table 7.1Directions of analogical transfers in the early Northern West Germanic languages: An overview

Table 7.2The total amount of innovative inflection in minor paradigms in the investigated languages

Table 7.3Overall percentage of innovation in the minor paradigms in the investigated languages

Table 7.4Distribution of innovative forms in the minor paradigms with respect to number

Table 7.5Distribution of innovative forms across individual classes with respect to number

Table 7.6Distribution of innovative forms with respect to number in vocalic and consonantal stems

Table 7.7Distribution of innovative features in the singular paradigm across individual classes

Table 7.8Distribution of innovative features in the plural paradigm across individual classes

Table 7.9The correlation between the percentage of innovation in the plural paradigms and the salience of inflectional markers

Table 7.10The correlation between the percentage of neutral forms and the level of innovation in the minor paradigms in Old English, Old Frisian and Old Saxon

Table 8.1Distribution of innovative forms in the dat. sg. of OE fōt and meolc