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

Re: Some pronunciation questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Feb 3, 2006
      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 [
      > mages ].
      > Wright [
      > 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>
      > or before s, t. The spelling <magt> might imply that <g> could
      > sometimes stand for a voiceless sound. Elsewhere /g/ is written
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > always ideal, for example <with> ends in a voiced consonant for
      > English speakers. Maybe <think> would be a better example. 'Fat
      > Tuesday' isn't so good because a lot of varieties of British
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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.