Middle Dutch back vowels in rhymes

Abstract

Dutch underwent many changes in its vowel system in the course of its history. One way of exploring the phonology of the vocalic system at an earlier period of the language is to examine rhymes. The rhyming verse which is used in the moral didactic text of Ms. Marshall 29 offered an excellent opportunity to not only establish the differences between Modern and Middle Dutch, but also to trace any variation in the transition period from early to late Middle Dutch. We focused on rounded vowels, which were indicated by seven graphemes: <u>, <uu>, <uy>, <ue>, <oo>, <oe>, and <o>. Our crucial findings are the following: (i) descendants of Proto Germanic (PGmc) */au/ and */o:/ never rhyme with each other, although they could be spelt in an identical fashion and are pronounced the same in Modern Dutch, which leads us to conclude that the Middle Dutch vowel qualities were different; (ii) descendants of PGmc */u/ became /ɔ/, but when this vowel is lengthened in open syllables, it never rhymes with vowels derived from PGmc */au/, although they do in Modern Dutch; (iii) although <e> added to a vowel can mark length, in a small subset it must have indicated fronting.

Open Syllable Lengthening in Middle Dutch: Evidence from Verse

“…We first examine Mellibeus and Saladijn , whose spelling is very similar to ModD. Each text is written in a different hand but both show consistency in their spelling (Sytsema et al 2014). 11 The only variation that occurs across the texts is confined to the orthography of a specific vowel in closed syllables, namely, the descendent of PGmc † /au/, which is written as <oe> in Mellibeus but as <oo> in Saladijn .…”

“…To obtain evidence from rhyme we had to distinguish between rounded and unrounded vowels. Sytsema et al (2014) have shown that round vowels of the same PGmc origin rhyme in Saladijn and Mellibeus even if they are spelt differently (see tables 13 and 14), whereas vowels of different origins do not appear in rhyming pairs even if they are spelt the same (see table 14). Descendants of PGmc † /ō/ are consistently spelt <oe>, whereas descendants of PGmc † /au/ could be spelt <oe> or <oo>.…”

“…This is true in all the manuscripts. Thus, in some texts in Manuscript Marshall 29, goet ‘good’ rhymes with vloet ‘flood’ (both from PGmc † /ō/) and groet ‘great’ rhymes with doot ‘dead’ (from PGmc † /au/), but groet never rhymes with vroet or goet (from PGmc † /ō/, Sytsema et al 2014). Later the spelling was leveled, as can be seen in ModD.…”

“…PGmc † /ō/ became MNL /uː/. Sytsema et al (2014) have argued that this is why rhyming pairs with original long and short rounded vowels in open syllables were not found in MNL. However, unrounded short and long vowels of different descent do have the potential to rhyme, if OSL applied, since the lengthened unrounded vowels would have the same vowel quality as the original long vowels.…”

Metrical Grouping and Cliticisation in Middle Dutch: Evidence From Verse

“…The text is written in littera textualis in two columns of 48 lines each and is written by two regular hands (Sytsema et al. : 158). The Lutgart manuscript is kept in Copenhagen and dates back to around 1300.…”