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

Some pronunciation questions

Expand Messages
  • Fredrik
    In http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/eieol/gotol-1.html#Got01_GP02 it sais alot bout pronunciation. Some that is not as I learned this far. I guess it aint
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/eieol/gotol-1.html#Got01_GP02
      it sais alot bout pronunciation. Some that is not as I learned this
      far. I guess it aint easy to know for real how it was pronounced, but
      anyway. If anyone read this, what can you say bout it?

      Here's some I think is not for sure:
      g [x], ch as in 'Bach' finally, or before s, t.
      This means dags and dag is pronounced with [x] but daga and dagis with
      [g].

      D is [ð] and b is [v] medially after vowel or diphthong.
      OK for ð, but b as v...that means hlaiba has [v].
      Well, this also means naubaimbair has v...but that's a exception.

      E [ē], a as in 'gate'...as far as I know 'gate' is not pronounced as
      [gēt] but more as [geit]...and I don't think they mean that mena is
      pronounced as [meina].

      H [x], ch as in 'Bach'....this goes for the combination ht and initial
      with hr, hl etc. but alone? I wouldn't say hunds as [xunds].

      W as [u] when final...this I can agree with, but didn't know...is this
      like this? Waúrstw as [worstu]???

      Iu [íu], eu as in 'reuse'. Isn't this two syllables? If it's two then
      it aint no diphthong as I think it should be.
      I might be totaly wrongm but I thought iu was pronounced more as [ju]
      as in use...no [i] as in re-. Biudan as [bíuðan] or as [bjuðan]???

      OK...tell me what you think bout this...

      /Fredrik
    • llama_nom
      Some background: Braune [ http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/goth_braune_about.html#i mages ]. Wright [
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Some background:

        Braune [
        http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/goth_braune_about.html#i
        mages ].

        Wright [
        http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/goth_wright_about.html#i
        mages ].

        Streitberg [ http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1920/ ].

        Although these text books disagree with each other on some points,
        they're all worth a read. The two German ones especially go into
        the reasoning behind their proposed pronunciations and mention
        alternative proposals. For pronunciation, Braune seems the most
        reasonable to me on the whole (note: I have a later edition to the
        one online at the Germanic Lexicon Project, expanded slightly),
        although Streitberg has some extra interesting details.


        > g [x], ch as in 'Bach' finally, or before s, t.
        > This means dags and dag is pronounced with [x]


        As Wright suggests. The reasoning behind this is partly for the
        sake of symmetry. /b/ and /d/ are usually spelt <f> and <þ> finally
        or before s, t. The spelling <magt> might imply that <g> could
        sometimes stand for a voiceless sound. Elsewhere /g/ is written <h>
        before /t/, e.g. <mahta> versus <mag>, <ohta> versus <og>. But if
        Wright is right, it's strange that <g> and <h> are never confused at
        the end of a word except for <aig> and <aih>, where the confusion
        goes throughout the paradigm. Still, this is the system I'm
        following till I know better.


        > but daga and dagis with
        > [g].

        By <g> in "north German sagen", it means a fricative [G], see the
        chart of upper-case symbols here [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-
        SAMPA ]. That is the pronunciation suggested by Wright. In favour
        of a fricative pronunciation is the fact that Latin writers
        sometimes miss out the <g> between vowels, when spelling Gothic
        names, especially when it comes before a front vowel. Streitberg's
        reasoning based on "intonation" is considered flawed nowadays, but I
        don't understand it, so I can't comment.

        > D is [ð] and b is [v] medially after vowel or diphthong.
        > OK for ð, but b as v...that means hlaiba has [v].
        > Well, this also means naubaimbair has v...but that's a exception.

        Braune (or at least the edition I have) lists Gothic personal names
        where medial /b/ is spelt by Latin writers with a <v>. Wright
        suggests a voiced bilabial fricative [B], as medially in Spanish,
        which sounds very similar.


        > E [ē], a as in 'gate'...as far as I know 'gate' is not
        pronounced as
        > [gēt] but more as [geit]...and I don't think they mean that
        mena is
        > pronounced as [meina].

        You're right, as far as the usual standard pronunciations of British
        and American English go, although there are some dialects which do
        preserve the simple long vowel [e:]. I think the authors are just
        offering this as the nearest English equivalent, which is why they
        say "a rough guide to pronunciation".


        > H [x], ch as in 'Bach'....this goes for the combination ht and
        initial
        > with hr, hl etc. but alone? I wouldn't say hunds as [xunds].


        Lower down the page you may have noticed: "It is also likely that h
        is in Wulfila's time closer to the h of Modern English 'he' than it
        is to the ch of 'Bach', and similarly with hv." I use the following
        system, based on what I've read in the textbooks mentioned above,
        but I'm open to any suggestions:

        hlaifs [xlaifs]
        hrains [xrains]
        hunds [hunts]
        slahan [slahan]
        hloh [xlo:x]

        hvaiwa [w_0aiwa]
        saihvan [sEw_0an]
        sahv [sax\]

        [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA ]


        > W as [u] when final...this I can agree with, but didn't know...is
        this
        > like this? Waúrstw as [worstu]???


        An alternative suggestion favoured by the textbooks is that final
        <w> wasn't syllabic, but just indicates that the final consonant was
        pronounced with final lip-rounding, thus:

        sagq [saNk_w]
        triggw [trig:_w]
        þiwadw [þiwað_w]

        In favour of a syllabic pronunciation is the spelling <engus> in the
        Vienna-Salzburg codex. In favour of a non-syllablic pronunciation
        is the parallel with <sagq>, and the lack of any general spelling
        fluctuation between final <u> and <w>. But note the regular
        change /w/ > /u/ after a short monosyllabic root: PG *skadwaz > Go.
        skadus. The Vienna-Salzburg codex was written long after Wulfilas
        time and may indicate a change in Gothic pronunciation, or it might
        be due to confusion on the part of a High German speaker who
        transcribed the Gothic words.


        > Iu [íu], eu as in 'reuse'. Isn't this two syllables? If it's two
        then
        > it aint no diphthong as I think it should be.


        You're absolutely right as far as my British English pronunciation
        goes [%r\i:"ju:s]. I also stress it on the second syllable. The
        Gothic sound is usually taken to have been a falling diphthong in
        words such as <biudan>; that is, with the emphasis on the first
        element of the diphthong. We can tell that it was a diphthong
        because some of the Gothic texts (though not all of them) follow the
        rule that diphthongs are never split in writing at the end of a
        line. But in some words, according to Braune, <iu> does mark two
        syllables: niun, bi-uhts, ni-u, bi-u-gitai, sium (alternative
        spelling <sijum>).


        > I might be totaly wrongm but I thought iu was pronounced more as
        [ju]
        > as in use...no [i] as in re-. Biudan as [bíuðan] or as [bjuðan]???


        I don't know if that could be disproved, but the usual
        interpretation is that it was a falling diphthong, as originally in
        West and North Germanic, see above. Latin writers use <eu> in
        spelling names. If it was [ju] maybe Latin writers would have used
        <i> for the first element? (Not sure about that.) Much later, in
        Old Norse, it became the rising diphthong just as you describe and
        the second element was lengthened (and lowered before dentals in Old
        Icelandic).


        > OK...tell me what you think bout this...

        I think it's a bit of a mess! I think the explanations are not as
        clear as they could be, and that the reasoning behind them is in
        places illogical (see my recent posts). The English examples aren't
        always ideal, for example <with> ends in a voiced consonant for many
        English speakers. Maybe <think> would be a better example. 'Fat
        Tuesday' isn't so good because a lot of varieties of British English
        have a palatal [t_j] or the affricate [tS] at the beginning of
        <tuesday>. I might have chosen 'hot tap'. But even these wouldn't
        work for everyone. If they had examples from a few languages it
        would lessen the chances of confusion.

        > Some words -- e.g. bliggw- 'scourge', glaggw- 'accurate', skuggw-
        'mirror', triggw- 'faithful' -- may have contained a true prolonged
        g as in (a slow pronunciation of) English 'doggone', but this has
        probably given way to the sound [N] by the time of Wulfila's
        translation.

        Probably? I don't remember reading this before. [g:] > [N] (or do
        they mean [Ng]?) seems unlikely in view of Latin spellings of the
        names Triggua, Trigguilla. <gg> is usually considered to have been
        an ambiguous spelling, standing for [g:] or [Ng] depending on the
        etymology.

        > By the same token, given the fact that the same spelling mistakes
        are made in several languages of the other branches of Germanic, it
        is possible that the distinctions were never actually as clean as
        the historical linguist would like.

        This is very vague. I don't know what they're referring to.

        > The resonants l, m, n, r may also function as vowels. For example:
        fugls 'bird', máiþms 'treasure', táikns 'token', ligrs 'bed'.

        Most accounts I've read agree, but some think that these were non-
        syllabic. The oldest Old English poetry apparently shows a stage in
        the language before such consonants became syllabic, but then there
        are spellings in Jordanes that suggest that they were syllabic at
        this time in Gothic.

        But I quibble. It's still a nice thing to have online. Especially
        for the stuff on Crimean Gothic.

        Llama Nom
      • Le Bateman
        Can someone tell me if any of Snori s Literature has been translated into Gothic? Le ... From: Fredrik To:
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Can someone tell me if any of Snori's Literature has been translated into
          Gothic?
          Le
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@...>
          To: <gothic-l@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:38 AM
          Subject: [gothic-l] Some pronunciation questions


          In http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/eieol/gotol-1.html#Got01_GP02
          it sais alot bout pronunciation. Some that is not as I learned this
          far. I guess it aint easy to know for real how it was pronounced, but
          anyway. If anyone read this, what can you say bout it?

          Here's some I think is not for sure:
          g [x], ch as in 'Bach' finally, or before s, t.
          This means dags and dag is pronounced with [x] but daga and dagis with
          [g].

          D is [ð] and b is [v] medially after vowel or diphthong.
          OK for ð, but b as v...that means hlaiba has [v].
          Well, this also means naubaimbair has v...but that's a exception.

          E [ē], a as in 'gate'...as far as I know 'gate' is not pronounced as
          [gēt] but more as [geit]...and I don't think they mean that mena is
          pronounced as [meina].

          H [x], ch as in 'Bach'....this goes for the combination ht and initial
          with hr, hl etc. but alone? I wouldn't say hunds as [xunds].

          W as [u] when final...this I can agree with, but didn't know...is this
          like this? Waúrstw as [worstu]???

          Iu [íu], eu as in 'reuse'. Isn't this two syllables? If it's two then
          it aint no diphthong as I think it should be.
          I might be totaly wrongm but I thought iu was pronounced more as [ju]
          as in use...no [i] as in re-. Biudan as [bíuðan] or as [bjuðan]???

          OK...tell me what you think bout this...

          /Fredrik






          You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email
          to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • llama_nom
          ... translated into ... Not as far as I know. Sums manne Egeis namniþs ist aiþþau Hlius; sah bauaida in aujai þizai sei nu Hliwis awi haitana ist.
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@...> wrote:
            >
            > Can someone tell me if any of Snori's Literature has been
            translated into
            > Gothic?
            > Le

            Not as far as I know.

            Sums manne Egeis namniþs ist aiþþau Hlius; sah bauaida in aujai
            þizai sei nu Hliwis awi haitana ist. Mikilaba "filukunþeigs" was--
            þatei ist gaskeiriþ witaga mikils, aiþþau manna filu kunnands bi
            lubjaleisein aiþþau þo swaleika. Is du Ansugarda galaiþ, iþ þan
            Ansjus qum is ufkunþedun, galaþoþs was liubaleiko jah ufarassau
            ganohiþs, sweþauh managos waihteis miþ siunihvairbiþom. Jah at
            andanahtja þan drugkan skuld was, Wodans gatawida mekjans in razn
            inn bairan, jah duþe bairht was ei þar af liuhtida, jah ni habada
            liuhaþ anþar miþþanei setun du drigkan.

            (Can anyone think of a good word for 'fagna' in the sense of welcome
            and regail? I had to circumvent.)
          • Fredrik
            Thank you very much for your info bout this. I guess the pronunciation of gothic is a part that is as difficult and important to learn as the rest. I also now
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you very much for your info bout this.

              I guess the pronunciation of gothic is a part that is as difficult
              and important to learn as the rest.
              I also now realize that I know very little about pronunciation, both
              in gothic and on the whole.


              --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Some background:
              >
              > Braune [
              >
              http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/goth_braune_about.html#i
              > mages ].
              >
              > Wright [
              >
              http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/goth_wright_about.html#i
              > mages ].
              >
              > Streitberg [ http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1920/ ].
              >
              > Although these text books disagree with each other on some points,
              > they're all worth a read. The two German ones especially go into
              > the reasoning behind their proposed pronunciations and mention
              > alternative proposals. For pronunciation, Braune seems the most
              > reasonable to me on the whole (note: I have a later edition to the
              > one online at the Germanic Lexicon Project, expanded slightly),
              > although Streitberg has some extra interesting details.
              >
              >
              > > g [x], ch as in 'Bach' finally, or before s, t.
              > > This means dags and dag is pronounced with [x]
              >
              >
              > As Wright suggests. The reasoning behind this is partly for the
              > sake of symmetry. /b/ and /d/ are usually spelt <f> and <þ>
              finally
              > or before s, t. The spelling <magt> might imply that <g> could
              > sometimes stand for a voiceless sound. Elsewhere /g/ is written
              <h>
              > before /t/, e.g. <mahta> versus <mag>, <ohta> versus <og>. But if
              > Wright is right, it's strange that <g> and <h> are never confused
              at
              > the end of a word except for <aig> and <aih>, where the confusion
              > goes throughout the paradigm. Still, this is the system I'm
              > following till I know better.
              >
              >
              > > but daga and dagis with
              > > [g].
              >
              > By <g> in "north German sagen", it means a fricative [G], see the
              > chart of upper-case symbols here [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-
              > SAMPA ]. That is the pronunciation suggested by Wright. In favour
              > of a fricative pronunciation is the fact that Latin writers
              > sometimes miss out the <g> between vowels, when spelling Gothic
              > names, especially when it comes before a front vowel. Streitberg's
              > reasoning based on "intonation" is considered flawed nowadays, but
              I
              > don't understand it, so I can't comment.
              >
              > > D is [ð] and b is [v] medially after vowel or diphthong.
              > > OK for ð, but b as v...that means hlaiba has [v].
              > > Well, this also means naubaimbair has v...but that's a exception.
              >
              > Braune (or at least the edition I have) lists Gothic personal names
              > where medial /b/ is spelt by Latin writers with a <v>. Wright
              > suggests a voiced bilabial fricative [B], as medially in Spanish,
              > which sounds very similar.
              >
              >
              > > E [ē], a as in 'gate'...as far as I know 'gate' is not
              > pronounced as
              > > [gēt] but more as [geit]...and I don't think they mean that
              > mena is
              > > pronounced as [meina].
              >
              > You're right, as far as the usual standard pronunciations of
              British
              > and American English go, although there are some dialects which do
              > preserve the simple long vowel [e:]. I think the authors are just
              > offering this as the nearest English equivalent, which is why they
              > say "a rough guide to pronunciation".
              >
              >
              > > H [x], ch as in 'Bach'....this goes for the combination ht and
              > initial
              > > with hr, hl etc. but alone? I wouldn't say hunds as [xunds].
              >
              >
              > Lower down the page you may have noticed: "It is also likely that h
              > is in Wulfila's time closer to the h of Modern English 'he' than it
              > is to the ch of 'Bach', and similarly with hv." I use the
              following
              > system, based on what I've read in the textbooks mentioned above,
              > but I'm open to any suggestions:
              >
              > hlaifs [xlaifs]
              > hrains [xrains]
              > hunds [hunts]
              > slahan [slahan]
              > hloh [xlo:x]
              >
              > hvaiwa [w_0aiwa]
              > saihvan [sEw_0an]
              > sahv [sax\]
              >
              > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA ]
              >
              >
              > > W as [u] when final...this I can agree with, but didn't know...is
              > this
              > > like this? Waúrstw as [worstu]???
              >
              >
              > An alternative suggestion favoured by the textbooks is that final
              > <w> wasn't syllabic, but just indicates that the final consonant
              was
              > pronounced with final lip-rounding, thus:
              >
              > sagq [saNk_w]
              > triggw [trig:_w]
              > þiwadw [þiwað_w]
              >
              > In favour of a syllabic pronunciation is the spelling <engus> in
              the
              > Vienna-Salzburg codex. In favour of a non-syllablic pronunciation
              > is the parallel with <sagq>, and the lack of any general spelling
              > fluctuation between final <u> and <w>. But note the regular
              > change /w/ > /u/ after a short monosyllabic root: PG *skadwaz > Go.
              > skadus. The Vienna-Salzburg codex was written long after Wulfilas
              > time and may indicate a change in Gothic pronunciation, or it might
              > be due to confusion on the part of a High German speaker who
              > transcribed the Gothic words.
              >
              >
              > > Iu [íu], eu as in 'reuse'. Isn't this two syllables? If it's two
              > then
              > > it aint no diphthong as I think it should be.
              >
              >
              > You're absolutely right as far as my British English pronunciation
              > goes [%r\i:"ju:s]. I also stress it on the second syllable. The
              > Gothic sound is usually taken to have been a falling diphthong in
              > words such as <biudan>; that is, with the emphasis on the first
              > element of the diphthong. We can tell that it was a diphthong
              > because some of the Gothic texts (though not all of them) follow
              the
              > rule that diphthongs are never split in writing at the end of a
              > line. But in some words, according to Braune, <iu> does mark two
              > syllables: niun, bi-uhts, ni-u, bi-u-gitai, sium (alternative
              > spelling <sijum>).
              >
              >
              > > I might be totaly wrongm but I thought iu was pronounced more as
              > [ju]
              > > as in use...no [i] as in re-. Biudan as [bíuðan] or as [bjuðan]???
              >
              >
              > I don't know if that could be disproved, but the usual
              > interpretation is that it was a falling diphthong, as originally in
              > West and North Germanic, see above. Latin writers use <eu> in
              > spelling names. If it was [ju] maybe Latin writers would have used
              > <i> for the first element? (Not sure about that.) Much later, in
              > Old Norse, it became the rising diphthong just as you describe and
              > the second element was lengthened (and lowered before dentals in
              Old
              > Icelandic).
              >
              >
              > > OK...tell me what you think bout this...
              >
              > I think it's a bit of a mess! I think the explanations are not as
              > clear as they could be, and that the reasoning behind them is in
              > places illogical (see my recent posts). The English examples
              aren't
              > always ideal, for example <with> ends in a voiced consonant for
              many
              > English speakers. Maybe <think> would be a better example. 'Fat
              > Tuesday' isn't so good because a lot of varieties of British
              English
              > have a palatal [t_j] or the affricate [tS] at the beginning of
              > <tuesday>. I might have chosen 'hot tap'. But even these wouldn't
              > work for everyone. If they had examples from a few languages it
              > would lessen the chances of confusion.
              >
              > > Some words -- e.g. bliggw- 'scourge', glaggw- 'accurate', skuggw-
              > 'mirror', triggw- 'faithful' -- may have contained a true
              prolonged
              > g as in (a slow pronunciation of) English 'doggone', but this has
              > probably given way to the sound [N] by the time of Wulfila's
              > translation.
              >
              > Probably? I don't remember reading this before. [g:] > [N] (or do
              > they mean [Ng]?) seems unlikely in view of Latin spellings of the
              > names Triggua, Trigguilla. <gg> is usually considered to have been
              > an ambiguous spelling, standing for [g:] or [Ng] depending on the
              > etymology.
              >
              > > By the same token, given the fact that the same spelling mistakes
              > are made in several languages of the other branches of Germanic, it
              > is possible that the distinctions were never actually as clean as
              > the historical linguist would like.
              >
              > This is very vague. I don't know what they're referring to.
              >
              > > The resonants l, m, n, r may also function as vowels. For
              example:
              > fugls 'bird', máiþms 'treasure', táikns 'token', ligrs 'bed'.
              >
              > Most accounts I've read agree, but some think that these were non-
              > syllabic. The oldest Old English poetry apparently shows a stage
              in
              > the language before such consonants became syllabic, but then there
              > are spellings in Jordanes that suggest that they were syllabic at
              > this time in Gothic.
              >
              > But I quibble. It's still a nice thing to have online. Especially
              > for the stuff on Crimean Gothic.
              >
              > Llama Nom
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.