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

Re: [gothic-l] Re: Poety to translate?

Expand Messages
  • John Stewart
    Hails Thiudans! I haven t read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed awkward to me. Does he suggest that it could be a scribal error? Where maybe
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hails Thiudans!

      I haven't read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed awkward to
      me. Does he suggest that it could be a scribal error? Where maybe Wulfila
      wrote the Gothic <f> and when it was copied, someone misread it as <Þ> (TH-)?
      (John S.)

      > on. Still I must not forget to remind us of the fact that, whatever
      > its true etymology, Wulfila wrote the word for fly, flight, capable of
      > flight, etc. with a thl- initial cluster, therefore in the poem, if we
      > take the insect as related to the root, perhaps it should be
      > *THl(i)ugo (< Gmc. *fl[e]ugon or *thl- "Fly or Moth"; or, Go. *THlugi
      > < ? *flugjan "flying insect" [Orel])? It is unfortunate we cannot know
      > precisely how this variation occured. Orel corrects to fl-, Koebler
      > seems to suggest both possibilities (except for THlahsjan ?).
      >
    • Fredrik
      Hi! The word seems to be a reduplication of a word meaning flutter, from IE pol or pal. This is related to latin papilio but with the germanic suffix -ðr-
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi!

        The word seems to be a reduplication of a word meaning flutter, from
        IE pol or pal. This is related to latin papilio but with the germanic
        suffix -ðr- from IE -tr-.
        The german word Falter (from OHG fîfaltra) is of same origin and not
        related to falten but with flattern.
        Another thing I think could be important to notice is that OHG and OE
        has long i. Cf. fîfaltra and fífealde. Also the old nordic languages
        seems to have a long i. I dont know why and if this is a later
        development. But if it was like this in pgmc gothic should have
        *feifaldrô instead.

        (facts based on runeberg.org)

        /Fredrik

        *Fifald(r)o is great! Talking about this, is the first syllable a
        reduplication? If so, the spelling should be *faifaldro (with ai [e])
        perhaps. But as far as I know (and that's not a long distance) there
        are no nouns with a (vivid) reduplication attested in Gothic, are
        they? And how is it (if it is) connected with the stem represented in
        Gothic falthan (cf. nhd. Falter : falten – maybe a later
        association?). The verb at least IS a reduplicative one (Past tense:
        faifalth).
      • Guenther Ramm
        Hails! I don’t insist on the scribal error hypothesis, but the graphical likeness of the Gothic letter for [th] and the Greek letter for [f] could speak in
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hails!
          I don’t insist on the scribal error hypothesis, but the graphical likeness of the Gothic letter for [th] and the Greek letter for [f] could speak in its favor. We know that some earlier manuscripts have the S-letter close to the Greek one while the later manuscripts use the Latin S. Could there be a similar situation with the F? I mean some early variants of Gothic alphabet could have a Greek-like F and later when these were being rewritten by Ostrogothic scribes in Italy all the confusions were made. That this hypothetical proto-F would look almost like TH is no objection – compare the letters for U and P. Due to such a confusion of U and P by Jordanes we have Gapt instead of *Gaut in Getica 79.
          Then the question is why this confusion affected only initial fl- ?

          Ualarauans


          John Stewart <john.stewart@...-heidelberg.de> wrote: Hails Thiudans!

          I haven't read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed awkward to
          me. Does he suggest that it could be a scribal error? Where maybe Wulfila
          wrote the Gothic and when it was copied, someone misread it as <Þ> (TH-)?
          (John S.)

          > on. Still I must not forget to remind us of the fact that, whatever
          > its true etymology, Wulfila wrote the word for fly, flight, capable of
          > flight, etc. with a thl- initial cluster, therefore in the poem, if we
          > take the insect as related to the root, perhaps it should be
          > *THl(i)ugo (< Gmc. *fl[e]ugon or *thl- "Fly or Moth"; or, Go. *THlugi
          > < ? *flugjan "flying insect" [Orel])? It is unfortunate we cannot know
          > precisely how this variation occured. Orel corrects to fl-, Koebler
          > seems to suggest both possibilities (except for THlahsjan ?).
          >




          You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to .
          Yahoo! Groups Links









          Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • thiudans
          Koebler s Gothic Dictionary can be seen here http://www.koeblergerhard.de/gotwbhin.html He supports the PIE *pel- etymology. I think it was Voyles who may have
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 24, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Koebler's Gothic Dictionary can be seen here

            http://www.koeblergerhard.de/gotwbhin.html


            He supports the PIE *pel- etymology. I think it was Voyles who may
            have suggested PIE *tel- > Go. thliuhan. I believe he does not place
            much weight on PIE in determining PGmc. forms.


            - In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Guenther Ramm <ualarauans@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hails!
            > I don�t insist on the scribal error hypothesis, but the graphical
            likeness of the Gothic letter for [th] and the Greek letter for [f]
            could speak in its favor. We know that some earlier manuscripts have
            the S-letter close to the Greek one while the later manuscripts use
            the Latin S. Could there be a similar situation with the F? I mean
            some early variants of Gothic alphabet could have a Greek-like F and
            later when these were being rewritten by Ostrogothic scribes in Italy
            all the confusions were made. That this hypothetical proto-F would
            look almost like TH is no objection � compare the letters for U and P.
            Due to such a confusion of U and P by Jordanes we have Gapt instead of
            *Gaut in Getica 79.
            > Then the question is why this confusion affected only initial fl- ?
            >
            > Ualarauans
            >
            >
            > John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote: Hails Thiudans!
            >
            > I haven't read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed
            awkward to
            > me. Does he suggest that it could be a scribal error? Where maybe
            Wulfila
            > wrote the Gothic and when it was copied, someone misread it as <�>
            (TH-)?
            > (John S.)
            >
            > > on. Still I must not forget to remind us of the fact that, whatever
            > > its true etymology, Wulfila wrote the word for fly, flight, capable of
            > > flight, etc. with a thl- initial cluster, therefore in the poem, if we
            > > take the insect as related to the root, perhaps it should be
            > > *THl(i)ugo (< Gmc. *fl[e]ugon or *thl- "Fly or Moth"; or, Go. *THlugi
            > > < ? *flugjan "flying insect" [Orel])? It is unfortunate we cannot know
            > > precisely how this variation occured. Orel corrects to fl-, Koebler
            > > seems to suggest both possibilities (except for THlahsjan ?).
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank
            email to .
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Send instant messages to your online friends
            http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • David Kiltz
            ... It seems rather typically Wulfilan to me. Cf. such forms as _thlauhs_ flight belonging to the same root as thliuhan. Also, e.g. _ga- thlaihan_ vs OE/OHG
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 26, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On 24.03.2006, at 09:13, John Stewart wrote:

              > I haven't read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed
              > awkward to
              > me

              It seems rather typically Wulfilan to me. Cf. such forms as _thlauhs_
              'flight' belonging to the same root as thliuhan. Also, e.g. _ga-
              thlaihan_ vs OE/OHG _flehan_, _flehon_ ...thlaqus 'tender, supple' is
              another example if it belongs with PGM *_flakuz_ 'flat, NHG flach'.

              So, PGM *_fl-_ > _thl-_ is pretty common in Wulfilan Gothic.

              -David
            • llama_nom
              D Alquen on the Gothic letter f: One s suspicion is roused in this case. A runic letter ousting a Greek runs counter to expectation. Latin F has been
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                D'Alquen on the Gothic letter f: "One's suspicion is roused in this
                case. A runic letter ousting a Greek runs counter to expectation.
                Latin F has been suggested as the model (e.g. Luft 1898, 61ff.) or
                runic under Latin influence (Mensel 1903, 463). The reason for the
                change must have been confusion with Go. þ [i.e. the phi-like sign
                used in the Codex Argenteus] and could have been introduced by
                Wulfila himself." (D'Alquen 1974, p. 47, para. 2.4.31).

                This view is criticised by Marchand on the grounds that the phi-like
                Codex Argenteus form of Go. þ may (or as he puts it "must") be
                itself an innovation on the original Gothic letter. Other forms
                that occur include a letter rather like the phi-like one, but with
                the left handle joined to the stem at both ends and the right handle
                just a stump; a symbol like an ampersand; and Marchand's preferred
                original, a kind of backwards c which slopes slightly to the right
                with a little loop in the top. This is the form used by Wiljariþ;
                it also appears in the Vienna-Salzburg Codex. He would derive it
                from a Greek form of theta current in the 4th century. The Go. f
                might still have been changed by post-Wulfilan scribes to avoid
                confusion with their þ. (Marchand 1973, p. 35, para. 2.32.f; p. 20,
                para. 1.14).

                The difference of Go. f from Greek phi has, according to Marchand,
                been used to argue that Go. f was labio-dental, in contrast to the
                Greek bilabial phi; but more often the explanation given is the
                desire to differentiate graphic forms. Marchand offers no
                preferrence on the bilabial / labio-dental question, but d'Alquen
                points to the name Dagalaiphus, as transcribed in Latin, as possibly
                indicating a bilabial pronunciation, since Lat. ph was used to
                transcribe bilabial Gk. phi.


                Gmc. initial /fl/ appears in Biblical Gothic in some words as þl, in
                others as fl (see Nordmeyer 1935 for etymologies). Four roots are
                attested for each spelling: flahtons (1Tim 2,9), flautjan (1Cor
                13,4), flauts (Gal 5,26), flodus (L 6,49), flokan (L 8,42). As
                against: þlahsjan (2Cor 10,9), gaþlahsnan (L 1,29), gaþlaihan (Mk
                10,16; 2Cor 2,7; 2Cor 5,20; 2Cor 7,6; Thess 2,11; 1Tim 5,1; 1Tim
                5,8; 1Tim 6,2; 2Tim 3,2; Tit 1,9); þlaqus (Mk 13,28); þlauhs (Mk
                13,18; þliuhan (Mk 10,23; L 3,7; J 10,5; 1Tim 6,11; 2Tim 2,22);
                afþliuhan (J 10,13); gaþliuhan (Mt 8,33; Mk 5,14; Mk 14,50; Mk
                14,52; Mk 16,8; L 8,34); unþaþliuhan (2Cor 11,33; Thess 5,3). No
                root is attested in the Bible with both versions, but this may be
                coincidence: compare the Rugian king's name Flaccitheus, as recorded
                in the Life of Saint Severinus (d. 482) by Eugippius (d. after 533),
                with Go. þlaqus `soft, ripe'.

                It's been proposed that the assimilative change fl > þl was
                conditioned by certain following velar consonants (Krause & Slocum
                2006), h, and in one instance q, though not k. Even if that's so,
                the rule isn't consistently applied: flahtom `plaits', dat.pl. The
                inconsistency over velars, even in this small sample, makes such a
                rule look very arbitrary; nevertheless it could represent a sound
                change in progress, or an imperfectly completed sound change
                according to the theory of lexical diffusion (Salmonds & Iverson
                1993--which I haven't read unfortunately, just seen cited). Another
                idea is that the fl spellings represent a different dialect to that
                of the translator(s), and that they were introduced into the text by
                later scribes (Nordmeyer 1935). Nordmeyer notes that the fl forms
                are confined to Luke and the Epistles, precisely the areas where we
                find most evidence of non-original features, such as confusion of
                ei : e. But then Nordmeyer's comment that POTAMOS is normally
                translated ahva and that flodus needed a gloss could also tie in the
                observation that certain types of sound change begin with familiar
                words and are slower to affect rarer words [
                http://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/Lexical%20Diffusion.htm ], and thus
                needn't necessarily imply a dialectal difference.

                Given d'Alquen's Ostrogothic recension theory (see my recent post
                summarising this), we can't be sure that the þl spellings are
                Wulfilan while the fl spellings are an Ostrogothic innovation. It
                could be that þl was an innovation that began in Ostrogothic but
                didn't reach all vocabulary items; or began in Ostrogothic, was
                never completed, and was then eroded partly or entirely by analogy
                with the remaining fl-forms. If the þl-forms are from the original
                translation, this would undermine the theory of an Ostrogothic
                rewrite. Does anyone know of any other sources of evidence? Any
                relevant East Germanic names recorded in Latin or Greek, besides
                Flaccitheus?

                PS. The same confusion as in Gapt for *Gauts may be seen in the
                spelling Thraustila for Thrafstila.

                Bibliography

                d'Alquen, Richard JE (1974) Gothic AI and AU, Mouton, The Hague.
                Marchand, James W (1973) The Sounds and Phonemes of Wulfila's
                Gothic, Mouton, The Hague.
                Nordmeyer, George (1935) `Gothic initial þl-', Language, Vol. 11,
                No. 3. (Sep., 1935), pp. 216-219 [ http://links.jstor.org/sici?
                sici=0097-8507%28193509%2911%3A3%3C216%3AGIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T ].
                Salmonds & Iverson (1993) 'Gothic fl-, þl- variation as lexical
                diffusion', Diachronia 10, 87-96.





                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@...> wrote:
                >
                > Koebler's Gothic Dictionary can be seen here
                >
                > http://www.koeblergerhard.de/gotwbhin.html
                >
                >
                > He supports the PIE *pel- etymology. I think it was Voyles who may
                > have suggested PIE *tel- > Go. thliuhan. I believe he does not
                place
                > much weight on PIE in determining PGmc. forms.
                >
                >
                > - In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Guenther Ramm <ualarauans@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hails!
                > > I don�t insist on the scribal error hypothesis, but the
                graphical
                > likeness of the Gothic letter for [th] and the Greek letter for [f]
                > could speak in its favor. We know that some earlier manuscripts
                have
                > the S-letter close to the Greek one while the later manuscripts use
                > the Latin S. Could there be a similar situation with the F? I mean
                > some early variants of Gothic alphabet could have a Greek-like F
                and
                > later when these were being rewritten by Ostrogothic scribes in
                Italy
                > all the confusions were made. That this hypothetical proto-F would
                > look almost like TH is no objection � compare the letters for U
                and P.
                > Due to such a confusion of U and P by Jordanes we have Gapt
                instead of
                > *Gaut in Getica 79.
                > > Then the question is why this confusion affected only initial
                fl- ?
                > >
                > > Ualarauans
                > >
                > >
                > > John Stewart <john.stewart@> wrote: Hails Thiudans!
                > >
                > > I haven't read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed
                > awkward to
                > > me. Does he suggest that it could be a scribal error? Where maybe
                > Wulfila
                > > wrote the Gothic and when it was copied, someone misread it as
                <�>
                > (TH-)?
                > > (John S.)
                > >
                > > > on. Still I must not forget to remind us of the fact that,
                whatever
                > > > its true etymology, Wulfila wrote the word for fly, flight,
                capable of
                > > > flight, etc. with a thl- initial cluster, therefore in the
                poem, if we
                > > > take the insect as related to the root, perhaps it should be
                > > > *THl(i)ugo (< Gmc. *fl[e]ugon or *thl- "Fly or Moth"; or, Go.
                *THlugi
                > > > < ? *flugjan "flying insect" [Orel])? It is unfortunate we
                cannot know
                > > > precisely how this variation occured. Orel corrects to fl-,
                Koebler
                > > > seems to suggest both possibilities (except for THlahsjan ?).
              • Guenther Ramm
                First, thanks a lot for drawing attention to D Alquen and his idea of the Gothic digraphs. For me, the view on those “earlier” borrowings (where Greek /e/
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 11, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  First, thanks a lot for drawing attention to D'Alquen and his idea of the Gothic digraphs. For me, the view on those “earlier” borrowings (where Greek /e/ and /o/ are “gothicised” into /i/ resp. /u/) as reflexes of phonetic peculiarities of the Wulfilan dialect (if I understood it correctly) was especially enlightening. I guess it would also help to explain why the loanwords of the Greek second declension with -os in Nom. Sg. so regularly go after the Gothic u-stems. Btw, is of any effect for the topic that old opinion that a good deal of these “narrow” spellings could be results of a pseudo-etymological interpretation? - that, e.g. -i- in Makidonja was seen as a stem vowel (popularly “dismembered” in Maki-donja), -i- in aggilus as a part of the suffix -il- etc.? Cf. the seemingly deliberate rendering of Greek bEthleem as bethlahaim, where the first epsilon > a (quasi a stem vowel of the first element in the compositum), and the second > ai (a diphthong after the Germanic
                  place-names on -haim). What this bethla- could mean then?
                  To the supposed confusion of the letters *faihu and *thiuth. Reading Jordanes long ago I noticed the name Safrac (Get. 134, one of Ostrogothic “primates”), mentioned also as Saphrax by Ammianus Marcellinus and Zosimus. The name itself is most probably of Alano-Iranian descent (as so many Getica names ending on -ac are). I am almost sure that I was not the first to make the following supposition, but evidently I had missed the proper literature. In short, I supposed that all the above-mentioned authors, successively or independently of each other, somehow took this name from a written Gothic source (maybe the same source where Gapt-Gaut came from), where it stood as *Sathrak(s) < Iranian *Xshathraka- “a powerful one” from Avestan xshathra- = Sanskrit kshatra- “power”, “strength” etc. If anyone knows whether this or some other etymology of the name has already been proposed I would greatly appreciate the reference. If this one is true, then here is another case of the
                  involuntary letter replacement caused by graphical likeness (of course if we accept that Gothic [f] could ever be written with a phi-like sign).
                  What concerns our fl-/thl-, so as I understood there are etymologies assuming both PIE pl- and PIE tl- for one and the same root, aren’t there? Rather typical situation for etymologists :) Apart from the graphical question I like most the idea that thl- be a later and limited (both temporally and territorially) development, and
                  > that the assimilative change fl > þl was
                  > conditioned by certain following velar consonants (Krause & Slocum
                  > 2006), h, and in one instance q, though not k.,
                  even though
                  > the rule isn't consistently applied: flahtom `plaits', dat.pl.

                  Ualarauans


                  llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:
                  Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • llama_nom
                  ... of the Gothic digraphs. For me, the view on those earlier borrowings (where Greek /e/ and /o/ are gothicised into /i/ resp. /u/) as reflexes of
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 15, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Guenther Ramm <ualarauans@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > First, thanks a lot for drawing attention to D'Alquen and his idea
                    of the Gothic digraphs. For me, the view on those "earlier"
                    borrowings (where Greek /e/ and /o/ are "gothicised" into /i/
                    resp. /u/) as reflexes of phonetic peculiarities of the Wulfilan
                    dialect (if I understood it correctly) was especially enlightening.


                    Yeah, it's a very interesting book. The more traditional view is
                    that these anamalous spellings point to Pre-Gothic loans, i.e. from
                    before the time of Wulfila's supposed bible translation. But
                    d'Alquen's proposal that they're relics of the original Wulfilan
                    spelling helps to explain some otherwise puzzling aspects of the
                    writing system, especially why <ai> and <au> were used instead of
                    simple letters based on epsilon and omicron. (Incidentally,
                    regarding another part of his study, I wonder if anyone has made a
                    similar assessment of Gothic names in Greek sources and loanwords
                    into Slavonic.)


                    > I guess it would also help to explain why the loanwords of the
                    Greek second declension with -os in Nom. Sg. so regularly go after
                    the Gothic u-stems.


                    Yes, although the traditional explanations are maybe adequate; even
                    with phonemic /O/, this declension might offer the closest match in
                    sound with Greek -os nouns.


                    > Btw, is of any effect for the topic that old opinion that a good
                    deal of these "narrow" spellings could be results of a pseudo-
                    etymological interpretation? - that, e.g. -i- in Makidonja was seen
                    as a stem vowel (popularly "dismembered" in Maki-donja), -i- in
                    aggilus as a part of the suffix -il- etc.? Cf. the seemingly
                    deliberate rendering of Greek bEthleem as bethlahaim, where the
                    first epsilon > a (quasi a stem vowel of the first element in the
                    compositum), and the second > ai (a diphthong after the Germanic
                    place-names on -haim). What this bethla- could mean then?


                    I guess the <o> of Makidonja, if it represents [o:], could be due
                    either to the Greek stress or a secondary stress in Gothic, if that
                    syllable was pronounced like the second part of a native compound.
                    Maybe due to a loss of distinction in unstressed vowels, or a
                    raising of [a] > [E], but <e> is very common as a stem vowel in
                    Latin transcriptions of Gothic names, cf. Suniefridus =
                    Sunjaifriþas. I wonder what bearing that could have on the question
                    of when an how [E] was phonemicised. D'Alquen saw loss and
                    assimilation of postvocalic /h/ as an important stage in this
                    process, but another factor could be the
                    prepositions/prefixes 'faur', 'faura' and the prefix 'fair-'. If
                    breaking only happened under stress (as seems likely), do these
                    represent originally stressed or half stressed forms that have been
                    extended by analogy to unstressed positions? Did analogy extend to
                    pronunciation, or is it just orthographic?



                    > To the supposed confusion of the letters *faihu and *thiuth.
                    Reading Jordanes long ago I noticed the name Safrac (Get. 134, one
                    of Ostrogothic "primates"), mentioned also as Saphrax by Ammianus
                    Marcellinus and Zosimus. The name itself is most probably of Alano-
                    Iranian descent (as so many Getica names ending on -ac are). I am
                    almost sure that I was not the first to make the following
                    supposition, but evidently I had missed the proper literature. In
                    short, I supposed that all the above-mentioned authors, successively
                    or independently of each other, somehow took this name from a
                    written Gothic source (maybe the same source where Gapt-Gaut came
                    from), where it stood as *Sathrak(s) < Iranian *Xshathraka- "a
                    powerful one" from Avestan xshathra- = Sanskrit kshatra-
                    "power", "strength" etc. If anyone knows whether this or some other
                    etymology of the name has already been proposed I would greatly
                    appreciate the reference. If this one is true, then here is another
                    case of the


                    Interesting. I haven't seen that idea before, but then I'm not all
                    that widely read. Could the change have been motivated in this case
                    by folk-etymology involving the Gothic name element Sab(a)-?



                    > involuntary letter replacement caused by graphical likeness (of
                    course if we accept that Gothic [f] could ever be written with a phi-
                    like sign).
                    > What concerns our fl-/thl-, so as I understood there are
                    etymologies assuming both PIE pl- and PIE tl- for one and the same
                    root, aren't there? Rather typical situation for etymologists :)
                    Apart from the graphical question I like most the idea that thl- be
                    a later and limited (both temporally and territorially) development,
                    and
                    > > that the assimilative change fl > þl was
                    > > conditioned by certain following velar consonants (Krause &
                    Slocum
                    > > 2006), h, and in one instance q, though not k.,
                    > even though
                    > > the rule isn't consistently applied: flahtom `plaits', dat.pl.



                    Nordmeyer certainly explained them all as from PIE *pl. Unless
                    there are strong reasons for positing *tl, the general *pl
                    explanation seems simplest. Now, a question for the statisticians
                    among us: which is the bigger coincidence, that fl- spellings are
                    confined to Luke and the Epistles (supposedly the areas with the
                    least conservative orthography)--this was the distribution that
                    Nordmeyer thought most significant--or that the two roots with a non-
                    velar consonant (out of eight roots attested) should both be among
                    the fl- spellings.

                    VELAR: 4x þl-, 2x fl-
                    DENTAL: 0x þl-, 2x fl-

                    The Slocum / Krause hypothesis that requires a special rule for the
                    single instance of 'k' seems to me inelegant and arbitrary,
                    especially when we can see that 'h' might or might not trigger fl- >
                    þl-. Simpler to suppose that it might or might not happen with any
                    velar. But this begs the question of why. What qualities would a
                    velar consonant have that could cause such a change (let alone what
                    quality 'k' would have to make it have a different effect from 'q'
                    and 'h')? It can hardly be assimilation or dissimilation.

                    Could it be that an assimalative change fl- > þl- happened
                    (sporadically? dialectally?) with any sort of consonant after the
                    next vowel, except for a dental? That a dental should block the
                    change could be explained as a case of dissmilation. Note the
                    dental after the velar also in 'flahtom'. That would leave just the
                    one anomaly of 'faiflokun', rather than the two problems
                    of 'flahtom' and 'faiflokun'.

                    Finally, does the fact that no one root is attested with both
                    spellings suggest that maybe the sound change was not in progress at
                    the time of the scribes, but already fixed (allowing the possibility
                    of doublets), whether the difference is dialectal or otherwise? Or
                    is this a coincidence (too)?

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