294 GERMANIC LANGUAGES 



Indo-Eur. e in the infinitive and present of the third, fourth, and fifth 

 ablaut-series, as well as in the past participle of the fifth ablaut-series, 

 e. g. Goth, bindan, niman, ga-nisan, binda, nima, ga-nisa, ga-nisans. 

 Also in words like ifc=Lat. ego, /iw/=Gr. WI/TC, and many others. 



As far as Gothic alone is concerned, no difference is perceptible 

 between the two varieties. They are treated exactly alike and are, 

 e. g. both changed to ai (probably a peculiar spelling for e, suggested 

 by the later Greek pronunciation of the diphthong at) before r and 

 h; e. g. taihun, preterite plural, and taihans, past participle of teihan 

 "to declare," bairan "to bear," faihu = Ger. Vieh, etc. 



So far, then, the vowels i and u would appear to be parallel. There 

 remains, however, in Old High German and in other Old Germanic 

 dialects one peculiar instance, the one I have had to mention 

 above as an unexplained exception from Holtzmann's rule, in 

 which the distinction between Indo-Eur. i and e appears to have 

 been preserved. We find in Old High German in the past participle 

 of the fifth ablaut-series the vowel e instead of Goth, i, e. g. gi- 

 nesan = Goth, ga-nisans. This e is regular and in accordance with 

 Holtzmann's rule. In the past participle of the first ablaut-series, 

 however, Goth, i remains unchanged in Old High German, con- 

 trary to Holtzmann's rule; e. g. gi-bizzan = Goth, bitans. Since in 

 the former case we find in the cognate Indo-European languages 

 the vowel e ( = Sanskr. a) , e. g. Greek vfo^ai, Sanskr. nasate, and 

 in the latter case the vowel i, e. g. Lat. findo, Sanskr. bhid, it looks, 

 indeed, as if here an Indo-European distinction had been preserved. 



Let us grant for a moment that Old Norse and the West Germanic 

 languages, as whose representative we have selected Old High German , 

 are sensitive enough to distinguish before an a of the following 

 syllable between Gothic i = Indo-Eur. e and Goth, i = Indo-Eur. 

 i. How shall we account for the fact that the same disinction is in 

 other, and, it would seem, quite similar cases utterly lacking? The 

 preterite present verb O. H. G. weiz = Goth, wait follows the first 

 ablaut-series in forming the past participle, gi-wizzan, and retains 

 the vowel i also in the infinitive, wizzan, and the present participle, 

 wizzaidi. The preterite, however, shows in addition to wissa (also 

 wista) the form wessa (and westa). Nouns like O. H. G. nest = Lat. 

 nidus (Indo Eur. ni-sdo-s), O. H. G. wer = Lat. vir (Sanskr. 

 vira-s), furnish additional proof that Holtzmann's rule applies to 

 Indo-Eur. i no less than to Indo-Eur. e. 



It follows that the exception from Holtzmann's rule, found informs 

 like gi-bizzan, gi-wizzan, etc., must be explained without regard to 

 the Indo-European distinction between i and e. The line, moreover, 

 on which the explanation is to be sought is clearly indicated by 

 other Old High German forms. Of the preterite present verb bi-darf 

 we find in Old High German the infinitive bi-durfan, whose irregular 



