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

Re: [norse_course] Re: No V or W in Futhark

Expand Messages
  • Eyja Bassadottir
    ... One thing that makes me agree with this is the 13th c. use of hv in writing (well, at least in the standardized ON -- haven t seen the manuscripts to see
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 8 6:03 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, bmscotttg <BMScott@...> wrote:


      --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, asvardhrafn@... wrote:

      > Germanic W's tend to be pronounced V or VW does that help its
      > like v and w pronounced at the same time without tightening
      > enough to say f

      The Proto-Germanic consonant that became Old Norse /v/ was
      probably pronounced like English /w/, and this pronunciation
      probably persisted into Proto-Scandinavian and even into the
      language of the early Viking period.

      .


      One thing that makes me agree with this is the 13th c. use of 'hv' in writing (well, at least in the standardized ON -- haven't seen the manuscripts to see how this is actually spelt).  'h' before a consonant denotes voicelessness ('hl' = voiceless 'l', 'hr' = voiceless 'r').  'hv' in this pattern doesn't make sense -- the voiceless equivalent of 'v' is an 'f', and they had and used that letter.  It does make sense to me when you interpret the 'v' as a 'w' sound (like in German), and thus this is a labalized 'h'.  This interpretation fits in nicely with historical linguistics: 'what' in English originally being /hwat/ < AS [hwæt] (or that same labalized 'h' -- still preserved in some dialects of English, though continuously shrinking in population) which is the cognate to Old Norse hvat "what".  So, I think there is evidence that 'v' can be interpreted (or at minimum the 'v' in the combination 'hv', though I might argue that) as a /w/ sound as late as 13th c. in Iceland.


      ~Eyja
    • asvardhrafn@yahoo.ca
      That brings a question I have had for a while how do you pronounce hl Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network ... From: Eyja Bassadottir
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 8 6:28 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        That brings a question I have had for a while how do you pronounce hl

        Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


        From: Eyja Bassadottir
        Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:03:34 -0500
        To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: No V or W in Futhark



        On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, bmscotttg <BMScott@stratos. net> wrote:


        --- In norse_course@ yahoogroups. com, asvardhrafn@ ... wrote:

        > Germanic W's tend to be pronounced V or VW does that help its
        > like v and w pronounced at the same time without tightening
        > enough to say f

        The Proto-Germanic consonant that became Old Norse /v/ was
        probably pronounced like English /w/, and this pronunciation
        probably persisted into Proto-Scandinavian and even into the
        language of the early Viking period.

        .


        One thing that makes me agree with this is the 13th c. use of 'hv' in writing (well, at least in the standardized ON -- haven't seen the manuscripts to see how this is actually spelt).  'h' before a consonant denotes voicelessness ('hl' = voiceless 'l', 'hr' = voiceless 'r').  'hv' in this pattern doesn't make sense -- the voiceless equivalent of 'v' is an 'f', and they had and used that letter.  It does make sense to me when you interpret the 'v' as a 'w' sound (like in German), and thus this is a labalized 'h'.  This interpretation fits in nicely with historical linguistics: 'what' in English originally being /hwat/ < AS [hwæt] (or that same labalized 'h' -- still preserved in some dialects of English, though continuously shrinking in population) which is the cognate to Old Norse hvat "what".  So, I think there is evidence that 'v' can be interpreted (or at minimum the 'v' in the combination 'hv', though I might argue that) as a /w/ sound as late as 13th c. in Iceland.


        ~Eyja
      • Eyja Bassadottir
        In Modern Icelandic, it is produced by putting your tongue in the l position and then breathing out. (I haven t yet found a sound clip of just that sound,
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 8 6:53 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In Modern Icelandic, it is produced by putting your tongue in the 'l' position and then breathing out.  (I haven't yet found a sound clip of just that sound, grrr)

          ~Eyja


          On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:28 PM, <asvardhrafn@...> wrote:


          That brings a question I have had for a while how do you pronounce hl

          Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


          From: Eyja Bassadottir
          Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:03:34 -0500Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: No V or W in Futhark



          On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, bmscotttg <BMScott@...> wrote:


          --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, asvardhrafn@... wrote:

          > Germanic W's tend to be pronounced V or VW does that help its
          > like v and w pronounced at the same time without tightening
          > enough to say f

          The Proto-Germanic consonant that became Old Norse /v/ was
          probably pronounced like English /w/, and this pronunciation
          probably persisted into Proto-Scandinavian and even into the
          language of the early Viking period.

          .


          One thing that makes me agree with this is the 13th c. use of 'hv' in writing (well, at least in the standardized ON -- haven't seen the manuscripts to see how this is actually spelt).  'h' before a consonant denotes voicelessness ('hl' = voiceless 'l', 'hr' = voiceless 'r').  'hv' in this pattern doesn't make sense -- the voiceless equivalent of 'v' is an 'f', and they had and used that letter.  It does make sense to me when you interpret the 'v' as a 'w' sound (like in German), and thus this is a labalized 'h'.  This interpretation fits in nicely with historical linguistics: 'what' in English originally being /hwat/ < AS [hwæt] (or that same labalized 'h' -- still preserved in some dialects of English, though continuously shrinking in population) which is the cognate to Old Norse hvat "what".  So, I think there is evidence that 'v' can be interpreted (or at minimum the 'v' in the combination 'hv', though I might argue that) as a /w/ sound as late as 13th c. in Iceland.


          ~Eyja

        • asvardhrafn@yahoo.ca
          From what you are saying then it seems as if I have been sounding it correctly thanks Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network ... From:
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 8 7:14 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            From what you are saying then it seems as if I have been sounding it correctly thanks

            Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


            From: Eyja Bassadottir
            Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:53:33 -0500
            To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: No V or W in Futhark

            In Modern Icelandic, it is produced by putting your tongue in the 'l' position and then breathing out.  (I haven't yet found a sound clip of just that sound, grrr)

            ~Eyja


            On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:28 PM, <asvardhrafn@ yahoo.ca> wrote:


            That brings a question I have had for a while how do you pronounce hl

            Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


            From: Eyja Bassadottir
            Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:03:34 -0500Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: No V or W in Futhark



            On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, bmscotttg <BMScott@stratos. net> wrote:


            --- In norse_course@ yahoogroups. com, asvardhrafn@ ... wrote:

            > Germanic W's tend to be pronounced V or VW does that help its
            > like v and w pronounced at the same time without tightening
            > enough to say f

            The Proto-Germanic consonant that became Old Norse /v/ was
            probably pronounced like English /w/, and this pronunciation
            probably persisted into Proto-Scandinavian and even into the
            language of the early Viking period.

            .


            One thing that makes me agree with this is the 13th c. use of 'hv' in writing (well, at least in the standardized ON -- haven't seen the manuscripts to see how this is actually spelt).  'h' before a consonant denotes voicelessness ('hl' = voiceless 'l', 'hr' = voiceless 'r').  'hv' in this pattern doesn't make sense -- the voiceless equivalent of 'v' is an 'f', and they had and used that letter.  It does make sense to me when you interpret the 'v' as a 'w' sound (like in German), and thus this is a labalized 'h'.  This interpretation fits in nicely with historical linguistics: 'what' in English originally being /hwat/ < AS [hwæt] (or that same labalized 'h' -- still preserved in some dialects of English, though continuously shrinking in population) which is the cognate to Old Norse hvat "what".  So, I think there is evidence that 'v' can be interpreted (or at minimum the 'v' in the combination 'hv', though I might argue that) as a /w/ sound as late as 13th c. in Iceland.


            ~Eyja

          • Schuyler Himberg
            i have always thought that a double Uruz was used for a v and a single Uruz would be used for a U. but im new to the subject and might be wrong. SH ...
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 13 5:13 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              i have always thought that a double "Uruz" was used for a "v" and a
              single "Uruz" would be used for a U.
              but im new to the subject and might be wrong.
              SH

              >>> Sabin Densmore <sabin@...> 4/8/2009 8:15 AM >>>
              Depending on your source material (I'm reading this from Rune-net and
              Edred Thorsson), the character "Wunjo" is used for "W" depending on
              context. "Uruz" would be used for "U" or "V". Those are how I've used
              them, anyhow. Not sure if that helps or harms the discussion.

              - sabin

              Fred and Grace Hatton wrote:
              >
              > Sometimes the U character was used. The double U is our word for the

              > letter
              > W in English.
              > Grace
              > Fred and Grace Hatton
              > Hawley Pa
              >
              >
            • llama_nom
              The Elder Futhark has a distinct character *wunjô which represents /w/, and another *ûruz which represents /u/ (short) and /u:/ (long). But, as I mentioned [
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 13 8:26 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                The Elder Futhark has a distinct character *wunjô which represents /w/, and another *ûruz which represents /u/ (short) and /u:/ (long). But, as I mentioned [ http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/message/10141 ], the old symbol for /w/ became superfluous due to changes in the language at the beginning of the Viking Age. At around the same time, there was a change in the writing system, and most inscriptions came to be written in a form of the runic alphabet that we call the Younger Futhark. The w-rune fell out of use. One reason, besides the general tendency to reduce the number of letters, may have been that the sound /w/ disappeared wherever it had originally occured before /u/, thus, for example, Ancient Nordic 'wulfaz' became Old Norse 'ulfr' (later, c. 1200, in Icelandic 'úlfr'). This meant that the sequence /w/ + /u/ no longer existed in the language, so there was less ambiguity in using the u-rune both for the vowels /u/ and /u:/, and for the semivowel /w/. If vowel length and nasality had been marked, as the First Grammarian advised, and words consistently separated, it would have been possible to use one symbol for [u] and [w] with little or no ambiguity.

                When Old Norse came to be written in the Roman alphabet, which also didn't originally distinguish between [u] and [w], the scribes varied their practice, mostly using 'u' and 'v' interchangeably, and rarely marking long vowels in a consistent way. In Modern Icelandic, and the modern standardized Old Norse authography, they've been given distinct functions, 'u' for the vowel, Modern Icelandic [y], Old Norse [u], 'v' for the consonant, Modern Icelandic [v], early Old Norse [w]. At no time was there a phonemic distinction between [w] and [v], so there was never a need for separate letters for these as in English. The other source of Modern Icelandic [v] was the phoneme /f/ which was realised as [v] (or originally probably a voiced bilabial fricative) in non-initial positions, except when it occured next to a voiceless consonant. It's still written 'f', e.g. 'hafa' "to have".

                Stefán Karlsson wrote: "Some of the earliest scribes used 'u' and 'v' in more or less the same way as Modern Icelandic, which prescribes the use of 'u' and a vowel, 'v' as a consonant. Others followed the modern rule only when thee sounds occurred initially. Most scribes used the two characters indescriminately, whether vocalic or semivocalic, but some adopted one or the other throughout their writing. Where 'f' was most commonly written in medial and inetrvocalic positions (as in Modern Icelandic), this too may be represented in some early scripts by 'u' or 'v', e.g. 'haua', 'hava' for usual 'hafa' "to have". Many 14th century scribes adopted the practice of writing 'v' (sometimes 'w') at the beginning of a word and 'u' in the body or at the end of a word, whether the sound denoted was 'u', 'ú' or 'v'" (The Icelandic Language 2004, p. 42).

                As for double letters, runic writers in the Viking Age had a tendency in the opposite direction: towards haplography [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplography ], sometimes even writing a single letter where the same rune would have occured at the end of one word and the beginning of the next.
              • Brian M. Scott
                At 11:26:37 AM on Monday, April 13, 2009, llama_nom wrote: [...] ... That last convention was in fact common throughout western Europe. Brian
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 14 11:46 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:26:37 AM on Monday, April 13, 2009, llama_nom wrote:

                  [...]

                  > Stefán Karlsson wrote: "Some of the earliest scribes used
                  > 'u' and 'v' in more or less the same way as Modern
                  > Icelandic, which prescribes the use of 'u' and a vowel,
                  > 'v' as a consonant. Others followed the modern rule only
                  > when thee sounds occurred initially. Most scribes used the
                  > two characters indescriminately, whether vocalic or
                  > semivocalic, but some adopted one or the other throughout
                  > their writing. Where 'f' was most commonly written in
                  > medial and inetrvocalic positions (as in Modern
                  > Icelandic), this too may be represented in some early
                  > scripts by 'u' or 'v', e.g. 'haua', 'hava' for usual
                  > 'hafa' "to have". Many 14th century scribes adopted the
                  > practice of writing 'v' (sometimes 'w') at the beginning
                  > of a word and 'u' in the body or at the end of a word,
                  > whether the sound denoted was 'u', 'ú' or 'v'" (The
                  > Icelandic Language 2004, p. 42).

                  That last convention was in fact common throughout western
                  Europe.

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