Pronunciation of umlaut vowels in the history of German












5















I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.










share|improve this question





























    5















    I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.










    share|improve this question



























      5












      5








      5


      1






      I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.










      share|improve this question
















      I know that the umlaut vowels were also written as ae oe and ue,and this orthography shows the process of assimilation with an high vowel.But were these vowels ever actually pronounced as a diphthong,before they became fronted?For example schön being pronounced as schoen,with both vowels being pronounced separately as a diphthong?I think there must've been some sort of intermediate stage of pronunciation between Old High German sconi and Modern German schön.







      phonetics historical-linguistics german






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 14 hours ago







      X30Marco

















      asked 14 hours ago









      X30MarcoX30Marco

      3527




      3527






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13














          Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.



          The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/ or */j/ in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.



          The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y] didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/ were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.



          But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann "man" used to be *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.



          So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.



          (P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)



          (P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

            – X30Marco
            13 hours ago








          • 1





            It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

            – user22198
            13 hours ago






          • 1





            @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

            – LjL
            11 hours ago



















          4














          The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "312"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30723%2fpronunciation-of-umlaut-vowels-in-the-history-of-german%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            13














            Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.



            The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/ or */j/ in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.



            The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y] didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/ were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.



            But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann "man" used to be *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.



            So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.



            (P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)



            (P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)






            share|improve this answer


























            • Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

              – X30Marco
              13 hours ago








            • 1





              It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

              – user22198
              13 hours ago






            • 1





              @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

              – LjL
              11 hours ago
















            13














            Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.



            The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/ or */j/ in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.



            The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y] didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/ were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.



            But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann "man" used to be *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.



            So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.



            (P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)



            (P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)






            share|improve this answer


























            • Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

              – X30Marco
              13 hours ago








            • 1





              It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

              – user22198
              13 hours ago






            • 1





              @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

              – LjL
              11 hours ago














            13












            13








            13







            Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.



            The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/ or */j/ in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.



            The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y] didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/ were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.



            But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann "man" used to be *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.



            So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.



            (P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)



            (P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)






            share|improve this answer















            Umlaut itself—as in the process, not the dots—was a sort of vowel harmony that was productive for a long time in Germanic. The thing you're asking about specifically is called i-umlaut; there was also a-umlaut and u-umlaut.



            The way it's generally understood (in Proto-Germanic), when there was a back vowel in one syllable, and an */i/ or */j/ in the next syllable, the back vowel shifted forward in the mouth. Phonetically, this is quite reasonable: these sorts of harmony processes (where vowels shift forward or back to match the syllables around them) are common, and you also see them in e.g. modern Turkish and Finnish.



            The back vowels in Proto-Germanic were */a o u/, which would have had front allophones *[æ ø y]. In the earliest written records, this allophony isn't written: it was fully predictable from the context, and *[æ ø y] didn't show up anywhere else, so there was no ambiguity. The front allophones were used if */i j/ were in the next syllable, the back allophones otherwise. Nice and straightforward.



            But then, sound changes happened, and certain suffixes started disappearing. For example, the plural of *mann "man" used to be *manniz, with a nice predictable [æ]. But when that suffix disappeared, the early Germanics were left with *mann and *mænn. The umlaut had become phonemic.



            So now, how to write this? The Latin alphabet didn't have letters for these sounds! So different languages improvised in different ways. Old English used æ, oe, y for /æ ø y/. The Germans used ae, oe, ue, which developed into ä, ö, ü through abbreviation. In Norway, they used æ, ø, y. But by comparing the developments in different languages, it seems clear that these all represented the same phonemes, and that they were monophthongs, not diphthongs.



            (P.S. English ended up losing all these fronted vowels, merging them into other phonemes. You can see some of their descendants in man~men, foot~feet, mouse~mice. There was also a vowel length distinction that I'm ignoring here for simplicity: for full details, Wikipedia has a nice chart.)



            (P.P.S. Old English was originally written in the Futhorc alphabet, which did have specific runes for /æ ø y/. But then the Latin alphabet took over, so they had to make do with ligatures and digraphs.)







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 5 hours ago

























            answered 13 hours ago









            DraconisDraconis

            11.5k11950




            11.5k11950













            • Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

              – X30Marco
              13 hours ago








            • 1





              It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

              – user22198
              13 hours ago






            • 1





              @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

              – LjL
              11 hours ago



















            • Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

              – X30Marco
              13 hours ago








            • 1





              It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

              – user22198
              13 hours ago






            • 1





              @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

              – LjL
              11 hours ago

















            Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

            – X30Marco
            13 hours ago







            Thanks for the detailed answer, but I already understood the concept of Umlaut. My question was about the original pronunciation of those vowels that shifted. From what you've said there was no intermediate stage between the pronunciation of the vowels,and they were already pronounced as their fronted allophones. But now that I think about it,in the dutch word schoon this phenomenon didn't happen. This means that originally the vowels weren't pronounced as their fronted allophones. .I think that the vowels shifted their quality gradually.

            – X30Marco
            13 hours ago






            1




            1





            It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

            – user22198
            13 hours ago





            It think it is because the umlaut you see in schön seems to only have happened after and only in the old high German branch and in the old Saxon branch. The proto-Germanic word from where schoon and schön came is *skauniz, I am not 100% sure, but I think that i-umlaut didn't affect dipthongs (based on what I saw from *skauniz descendants). That's why the old English equivalent is sċīene, that later evolved to "modern" sheen. I'll do a better research on this and, if someone doesn't answer it, I will bring here what I found! If I am wrong, please some one correct me

            – user22198
            13 hours ago




            1




            1





            @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

            – LjL
            11 hours ago





            @X30Marco I think this answer does cover the "original" pronunciation of these vowels: specifically, it says they were fronted allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ occurring due to a vowel harmony process; so there was no intermediate pronunciation as diphthongs, which the answer mentions. As to Dutch schoon, Wikipedia says western Dutch dialects were largely unaffected by i-umlaut, while it looks like the word was pronounced with umlaut in eastern dialects.

            – LjL
            11 hours ago











            4














            The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.






            share|improve this answer




























              4














              The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.






              share|improve this answer


























                4












                4








                4







                The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.






                share|improve this answer













                The answer to your question is no. The German umlauted vowels were never diphthongs. In early New High German they were written as a, o, and u with a small superscript e. Later, this “e” was reduced to two dots. The spellings with ae, oe, and ue are merely typographical attempts to deal with the miniature “e”.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 12 hours ago









                fdbfdb

                16.7k12145




                16.7k12145






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30723%2fpronunciation-of-umlaut-vowels-in-the-history-of-german%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                    Alcedinidae

                    Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]