Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pronunciation questions

Expand Messages
  • Fredrik
    Hi all! I d like to know how words ending in -jus in singular would be in plural. Like waddjus. How to say walls? Is there any rule when gg is pronounced as ng
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all!

      I'd like to know how words ending in -jus in singular would be in
      plural.
      Like waddjus. How to say walls?

      Is there any rule when gg is pronounced as ng and when as gg?
      Like siggwan, that is like singwan, right? But triggws like ggw?

      Also wanna know if there's any evidence about letter x, how it should
      be pronounced, or if not, what you think about it.
      I've been told that it should be as k, but couldn't it be possible
      that it was as a german ach-sound?

      I have also thought about another thing. The letter w is sometimes
      pronounced as y, and then, sometimes, it is written as y when using
      roman letters. I think that is ok. But if that's so, why not write v
      instead of b is those cases when the letter b was used for a v-sound?
      E.g. naubaimbair is spelled with b, coz they had no v but when using
      roman letters it could be written as nauvaimbair. Or what do you
      think about that???

      /Fredrik
    • Francisc Czobor
      Hi Fredrik, Your questions are quite difficult and I expected someone who knows better to answer them. I ll try my best. 1. words ending in -jus: *waddjus
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Fredrik,

        Your questions are quite difficult and I expected someone who knows
        better to answer them. I'll try my best.

        1. words ending in -jus: *waddjus "wall" is attested in the compounds
        baurgswaddjus "city wall", grunduwaddjus "ground-wall, groundwork,
        foundation", and midgardiwaddjus / mithgardawaddjus "dividing wall,
        partition". According to Koebler, all these are attested only in
        singular forms: Nom. -waddjus, Gen. -waddjaus, Dat. -waddjau, Acc. -
        waddju (thus like a regular u-stem). Another word ending in -jus,
        namely drunjus "sound, call", is attested only in Nom. sg.
        In plural appears the problem, since the Nom. pl. ending for u-stems
        (masc. and probably also fem.) is -jus, but sg. -jus ~ pl. -j-jus is
        not thinkable.
        One can try to infer what could be the ending following the sound
        changes from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and Proto-Germanic (PGmc).
        So for masc.& fem. u-stems we have:
        Nom. sg.: PIE *-us > PGmc *-uz > Goth. -us
        Nom. pl.: PIE *-ewes > PGmc. *-iwiz > Goth. -jus

        Similarly, for masc. & fem. ju-stems we should have:
        Nom. pl.: PIE *-yewes > PGmc. *-jiwiz > Goth. ??? (maybe -jius ???)
        (thus waddjus would be in plural *waddjius ?? Hard to believe ...)

        2. I think the only rule to distinguish the two kinds of "gg" is the
        etymologic rule: when gg comes from Germanic ng or from Greek gg
        (pronounced ng), then it should be pronounced ng; when it appears as -
        ggw- < PGmc. *-ww-, then it should be pronounced gg.

        3. The letter "x" appears only in words borrowed from Greek. While
        the educated Goths pronounced it probably like in Greek (at that time
        probably already a sort of "ach-sound", rather than an aspirated k),
        the common people (as far as they knew/used such neologisms) most
        probably approximated it by more familiar sounds: k or h.

        4. The letter w appears for y only in words borrowed from Greek, to
        transcribe the Greek ypsilon; in fact, the Gothic letter for [w]
        comes from the uppercase Greek ypsilon ("Y").

        5. They write "naubaimbair" instead of "nauvaimbair" for the same
        reason for they write e.g. "laggs" instead of "langs": in order to
        keep the transcription close to the original spelling. Otherwise, if
        we write phonetically, why should we write "nauvaimbair" and
        not "november", for instance?

        Francisc

        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@h...> wrote:
        > Hi all!
        >
        > I'd like to know how words ending in -jus in singular would be in
        > plural.
        > Like waddjus. How to say walls?
        >
        > Is there any rule when gg is pronounced as ng and when as gg?
        > Like siggwan, that is like singwan, right? But triggws like ggw?
        >
        > Also wanna know if there's any evidence about letter x, how it
        should
        > be pronounced, or if not, what you think about it.
        > I've been told that it should be as k, but couldn't it be possible
        > that it was as a german ach-sound?
        >
        > I have also thought about another thing. The letter w is sometimes
        > pronounced as y, and then, sometimes, it is written as y when using
        > roman letters. I think that is ok. But if that's so, why not write
        v
        > instead of b is those cases when the letter b was used for a v-
        sound?
        > E.g. naubaimbair is spelled with b, coz they had no v but when
        using
        > roman letters it could be written as nauvaimbair. Or what do you
        > think about that???
        >
        > /Fredrik
      • llama_nom
        ... Hi Fredrik, Nominative plural not attested for such words, as far as I can think. I checked: waddjus, assarjus, stubjus, drunjus. Are there any others?
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@h...> wrote:
          > Hi all!
          >
          > I'd like to know how words ending in -jus in singular would be in
          > plural.
          > Like waddjus. How to say walls?


          Hi Fredrik,

          Nominative plural not attested for such words, as far as I can
          think. I checked: waddjus, assarjus, stubjus, drunjus. Are there
          any others? I can only imagine that it was the same as the
          nominative singular. *wajj- > waddj. *–iwiz > *-iuz > -jus. waddj
          + jus = waddjus (the combination -jjus is impossible after a
          consonant). See Wright §150.


          >
          > Is there any rule when gg is pronounced as ng and when as gg?
          > Like siggwan, that is like singwan, right? But triggws like ggw?


          No rule. That's right in both cases. Usually the only way to tell
          is by the etymology, that is by comparing cognates in other
          languages. There are occasions where /Ng/ is spelt <ng> instead of
          <gg> (bringiþ, bringandans), but otherwise you have to look outside
          of Gothic. Luckily there aren't that many where the spelling <gg>
          = /gg/, so not much to remember: bliggwan, usbliggwan (OHG bliuwan);
          glaggwo, glaggwaba, glaggwuba, *glaggwus (ON glöggr, OE gleaw, OHG
          glau); skuggwa (ON skuggi "shadow", skugg-sjá "mirror", OE scúwa,
          OHG scûwo "shadow"); triggws, triggwaba, triggwa (ON tryggr, OE
          tríewe, OHG triuwi). See Wright §151.


          > Also wanna know if there's any evidence about letter x, how it
          should
          > be pronounced, or if not, what you think about it.
          > I've been told that it should be as k, but couldn't it be possible
          > that it was as a german ach-sound?

          The evidence points rather to the pronunciation /k/. The ach-sound,
          [x], is not thought to have occurred initially in Gothic, except
          perhaps as an allophone of /h/ before /l/, /n/ and /r/. Greek <x>
          is usually represented by Gothic <k> (e.g. Col 4,7: Twkeikus (A),
          Twkekus (B) = TUXIKOS), except in Xristus and aiwxaristia, and three
          other names where Gothic <x> alternates with <k>. Twice a
          hypercorrection occurs: 2Tim 4,10 Xreskus = KRHSKHS; Zaxxaiaus =
          ZAKXAIOU Neh 7,14. Most likely the unusual spelling Xristus is for
          symbolic reasons, as with the special abbreviations for frauja &
          guþ. See Streitberg §20.4. It's quite possible that the Goths were
          already familiar with the name Christ in its Latin form before they
          became Christians.

          http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1920/#REF-toc



          > I have also thought about another thing. The letter w is sometimes
          > pronounced as y, and then, sometimes, it is written as y when
          using
          > roman letters.

          My current guess is that when <w> is used as vowel in Greek
          loanwords (representing Greek upsilon), it was pronounced as a high
          front vowel = Gothic /i/.

          (1) In Modern Greek, upsilon has become [i]. Note the spellings
          Lwstrws = LUSTROIS (2Tim 3,11 AB); Fwnikiska (FOINIKISSA).

          (2) Codex Segonensis/Parisina, late 9th c. has <Simaion> which the
          Codex Arg. spells <Swmaions>. In this same manuscript, a list of
          equivalent letters in Roman and Gothic script matches Roman <i> to
          Gothic <w>.

          http://www.gotica.de/

          (3) West Germanic *kîrikôn (attested in English, German, Dutch,
          Frisian, and as a loan word from English in Old Norse), whence
          English church, probably came from Greek kurikon (<kuriakon) via
          Gothic. The Oxford English Dictionary: "...a word adopted in
          Germanic as *kîrjak- would phonetically become *kîrjik-, and this
          normally in WGer kîrik-. Possibly also *kîrjika might, by
          metathesis, give the *kîrikja app. required for OE. ciricean; but
          the OE. palatalization might simply be due to the prec. i as in ic,
          ME. ich, I pron." Re. OE forms like cyrce (beside cirice), the OED
          says: "The form cyrice, often erroneously assumed as the original,
          is only a later variant of cirice (with y from i before r, as in
          cyrs-, fyren, etc.); c before original OE. y (umlaut of u) could not
          give modern ch-, but only k-" In this case it's not umlaut of u,
          but presumably the point is that it wasn't interpreted as such
          either.

          The OED goes on: "There are points of difficulty in the form of
          kirika and its gender. Its identification with KURIAKON assumes the
          representation of Gr. U by i in Teutonic. Ulphilas did not so
          represent U; nor did he use u, but retained the Gothic letter
          corresponding in alphabetic place and form to Gr.U, which he
          otherwise used for v or w. But, before the development of umlaut,
          and consequent evolution of y as a Teutonic sound, i was really the
          nearest Teutonic sound to U, and in point of fact is its usual
          representative."

          Re. the long vowel, the OED prints a plural KURIAKA, with long U,
          stress on final syllable. But Streitberg says that length in Greek
          at this time was only a function of stress. The sequence /ir/ is
          unusual in Gothic, possibly encouraging lengthening (but maybe not:
          cf. hiri, hirjats, hirjiþ). Or could it be due to the shift of
          stress to the initial syllable as normal in Germanic. But the OED
          also prints reconstructed forms with a short vowel *kirik-. "The
          continental German forms point to *kirika, *kîrika." Could the –
          jako have been reinterpreted as the Gothic diminutive –iko?


          > But if that's so, why not write v
          > instead of b is those cases when the letter b was used for a v-
          sound?
          > E.g. naubaimbair is spelled with b, coz they had no v but when
          using
          > roman letters it could be written as nauvaimbair. Or what do you
          > think about that???

          There are a lot of unknowns regarding Gothic pronunciation, so
          radical changes in orthography would sometimes involve an
          interpretation, which could prove incorrect and have to be revised.
          Medial /b/ after a vowel is usually considered to have been a
          bilabial fricative, as in modern Spanish, where the letters <v> and
          <b> are interchangeable from a phonetic point of view, their use
          only fixed by convention or for historical reasons. But there are
          disagreements about how to interpret the meagre evidence for Gothic
          pronunciation, so a modified orthography could be controversial. If
          some people are reading a particular sound as bilabial [B], others
          as or [v] or [b], it's nice to have a logical orthography that
          caters for all tastes. Importantly, there is no ambiguity with
          Gothic <b>, since the presumed differences in pronunciation are
          allophonic (entirely predictable by position) not phonemic. But the
          sequence <air> is ambiguous, as it could, just going by the
          spelling, be /áir/ or, as it is, /aír/. So if you wanted to make a
          modified orthography for Gothic, that might be the place to start.
          Although again, that could involve making decisions about the value
          of certain letters that might have to be revised in the light of new
          information. Adopting the spelling <ng> where appropriate would be
          a logical and unproblematic step, and has manuscript authority,
          although such spellings are very much in the minority. I have seen
          some academic papers that do this, and also use the spellings <e>
          and <o> for <aí> and <aú>, for convenience when discussing sound
          changes or comparing Gothic forms with cognates.

          Llama Nom
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.