Editing West Germanic languages (section)

===Origins and characteristics===
The Germanic languages are traditionally divided into three groups: West, [[East Germanic languages|East]] and [[North Germanic languages|North]] Germanic.{{sfnp |Hawkins |1987 |pp=68–76 }} In some cases, their exact relation was difficult to determine from the sparse evidence of runic inscriptions, so that some individual varieties have been difficult to classify. This is especially true for the unattested [[Jutes|Jute]] language; today, most scholars classify [[Jutes|Jute]] as a West Germanic variety with several features of North Germanic.{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |p=25–26}}{{sfnp |Seebold |1998 |p=13 }}

Until the late 20th century, some scholars claimed that all Germanic languages remained mutually intelligible throughout the [[Migration Period]], while others hold that speakers of West Germanic dialects like [[Old Frankish]] and speakers of [[Gothic language|Gothic]] were already unable to communicate fluently by around the 3rd century AD. As a result of the substantial progress in the study of Proto-West Germanic in the early 21st century, there is a growing consensus that East and West Germanic indeed would have been mutually unintelligible at that time,{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |pp=238,243}} whereas West and North Germanic remained partially intelligible.{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |p=243}}

Dialects with the features assigned to the western group formed from [[Proto-Germanic]] in the late [[Jastorf culture]] ({{Circa|1st century BC}}). The West Germanic group is characterized by a number of [[phonology|phonological]], [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] and [[Vocabulary|lexical]] innovations or archaisms not found in North and East Germanic. Examples of West Germanic phonological particularities are:{{sfnp |Robinson |1992}}{{page needed |date=December 2024}}

* The [[labialization|delabialization]] of all [[Labiovelarisation|labiovelar]] consonants except word-initially.{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |p=53 }}{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |p=61 }}{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |p=104}}
* Change of ''*-zw-'' and ''*- đw-'' to ''*-ww-'' e.g. ''*izwiz'' > ''*iwwiz'' 'you' dat.pl.; ''*feđwōr'' > ''*fewwōr'' 'four'.{{sfnp |Stiles |1985 |pp=91–94 }}{{incomplete short citation |date=May 2025}}
* {{IPA|[ð]}}, the fricative allophone of {{IPA|/d/}}, becomes {{IPA|[d]}} in all positions.{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |pp=73,104}} (The two other fricatives {{IPA|[β]}} and {{IPA|[ɣ]}} are retained.). This must have occurred after ''*-zw-'' and ''*- đw-'' have become ''*-ww-''.{{sfnp |Stiles |2013 |p=15 }}
* Replacement of the second-person singular preterite ending ''-t'' with ''-ī'' ([[indicative]] and [[subjunctive mood]]).{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |pp=71-72 }} For more than 150 years there has been a scientific debate on the best explanation of these difficult forms. Today, some linguists, beginning with J. v. Fierlinger in 1885{{sfnp |Fierlinger |1885 |pp=432–446 }} and followed by R. Löwe (1907),{{sfnp |Löwe |1906 |p=267 }}{{efn |Quoted by Hirt.{{sfnp |Hirt |1931–1934 |loc=volume 2 |p=152 }} }} O. Behaghel (1922),{{sfnp |Behaghel |1922 |p=167}} [[Jakob Sverdrup (philologist)|Jakob Sverdrup]] (1927), [[Hermann Hirt]] (1932),{{sfnp |Hirt |1931–1934 |loc=volume 2 |p=152–153 }} [[Edgar C. Polomé|E. Polomé]] (1964),{{sfnp |Polomé |1964 |pp=870– }} W. Meid (1971),{{sfnp |Meid |1971 |pp=13– }} E. Hill (2004),{{sfnp |Hill |2004 |p=281-286 }} K.-H. Mottausch{{sfnp |Mottausch |2013 }} and W. Euler (1992ff.){{sfnp |Euler |2022 |p=153–154}} explain this ending as a relic of the [[Aorist (Indo-European linguistics)|Indo-European aorist tense]]. Under this assumption, the ending ''-t'' would have replaced older ''-ī(z)''. Sceptical about this explanation – and mostly explaining these forms as influenced by [[Optative mood|optative]] forms – are [[Wilhelm Scherer|W. Scherer]] (1868), [[Willem Lodewijk van Helten|W. L. van Helten]] (before 1917), [[Edward Schröder]] (1921), Bammesberger (1986) and [[Donald Ringe|Don Ringe]] (2014).
* Loss of word-final {{IPA|/z/}}.{{sfnp |Crist |2002 }}{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |p=53 }}{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |p=43}} Only Old High German preserves it at all (as {{IPA|/r/}}) and only in single-syllable words. Following the later loss of word-final {{IPA|/a/}} and {{IPA|/aN/}}, this made the nominative and accusative of many nouns identical.
*  Loss of final ''*-a'' (including from PGmc. ''*-an#'') in polysyllables: e.g. acc. sg. OHG ''horn'' vs. ORu. ''horna'' 'horn'; this change must have occurred after the loss of word-final {{IPA|/z/}}.{{sfnp |Stiles |2013 |p=15 }}
* [[West Germanic gemination]]: lengthening of all consonants except {{IPA|/r/}} before {{IPA|/j/}}.;{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |p=53 }}{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |p=50–54}} this change must have occurred after the loss of final *-a.{{sfnp |Stiles |2013 |p=15 }}
* Change of Proto-Germanic ''*e'' to ''i'' before ''i'' and ''j''.{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |p=54 }}

A relative chronology of about 20 sound changes from Proto-Northwest Germanic to Proto-West Germanic (some of them only regional) was published by Don Ringe in 2014.{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |p=104}}

A phonological archaism of West Germanic is the preservation of ''[[grammatischer Wechsel]]'' in most verbs, particularly in Old High German.{{sfnp |Stiles |2013 |pp=24– }}{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |p=49 }} This implies the same for West Germanic,{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |p=230 }} whereas in East and North Germanic many of these alternations (in Gothic almost all of them) had been levelled out analogically by the time of the earliest texts.

A common morphological innovation of the West Germanic languages is the development of a [[gerund]].{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |pp=61, 133, 171, 174 }}

Common morphological archaisms of West Germanic include:
* The preservation of an [[instrumental case]],{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |pp=67, 70, 74, 76, 97, 113 etc. }}{{page needed |date=May 2025}}
* the preservation of the [[athematic]] verbs{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |pp=168-178 }} (e.g. [[Anglo-Saxon language|Anglo-Saxon]] ''dō(m)'', [[Old Saxon language|Old Saxon]] ''dōm'', [[Old High German|OHG.]] ''tōm'' "I do"{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |pp=170-173 }}),
* the preservation of some traces{{which|date=July 2013}} of the [[aorist]] (in Old English and Old High German, but neither in Gothic nor in [[North Germanic languages|North Germanic]]).{{sfnp |Meid |1971 |p=13 }}{{sfnp |Euler |Badenheuer |2009 |pp=168–171 }}{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |pp=138-141 }}

Furthermore, the West Germanic languages share many [[lexeme]]s not existing in North Germanic and/or East Germanic – archaisms{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |p=196–211}} as well as common neologisms.{{sfnp |Euler |2013 |pp=194-200 }}{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |p=126–128}} Some lexemes have specific meanings in West Germanic{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |pp=128–129}} and there are specific innovations in word formation and derivational morphology,{{sfnp |Ringe |Taylor |2014 |pp=129–132}} for example neologisms ending with modern English ''-ship'' (< wgerm. ''-*skapi'', cf. German ''-schaft'') like ''friendship'' (< wg. ''*friund(a)skapi'', cf. German ''Freundschaft'') are specific to the West Germanic languages and are thus seen as a Proto West Germanic innovation.{{sfnp |Ringe |2014 |p=132 }}{{incomplete short citation |date=May 2025}}{{sfnp |Euler |2022 |p=222}}