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

Re: Gothic Online (a course by Todd B Krause and Jonathan Slocum)

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    ... proper ... proper ... of ... us), ... than ... or ... Actually anomalous for , or vice versa, is found in all cases of the u-stem singular, but
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > Lesson 4
      >
      > "In Luke 4.3 we find a nominative form sunáus instead of the
      proper
      > nominative sunus 'son'; a similar form diabuláus replaces the
      proper
      > nominative diabulus in Luke 4.5. It is likely that, shortly after
      > the time of Wulfila (if not before), the diphthong áu was
      > monophthongized and subsequently indistinguishable from u, leading
      > to occasional scribal confusion."
      >
      > The fluctuation between <u> and <au> is confined to certain cases
      of
      > the singular of u-stem nouns (the nominative is almost always -
      us),
      > and is usually seen as a specific morphological change, rather
      than
      > a general phonetic one. There is no regular confusion between <u>
      > and <au> elsewhere in stressed or unstressed syllables. Whether
      or
      > when /áu/ was monophthongised is another question...


      Actually anomalous <au> for <u>, or vice versa, is found in all
      cases of the u-stem singular, but especially the acc. and voc.

      nom. x4
      voc. x8
      acc. x10
      gen. x5
      dat. x3

      There are similar examples of confusion between <au> and <u> in both
      roots and inflections of foreign names and loanwords. But they are
      not generally confused, as far as I know, in the roots of native
      Gothic words, nor in verbal inflections, nor in the plural of u-
      stems, as might be expected if <u> and <au> had merged in
      pronunciation.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.