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

more about the brothers 'ok' and 'auk' - phonological funnies

Expand Messages
  • konrad_oddsson
    In Old English, we see the word êac listed as an adverb with the meaning also . Old English êa is almost always equivalent to Old Norse au . Given that
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In Old English, we see the word 'êac' listed as an adverb with the
      meaning 'also'. Old English 'êa' is almost always equivalent to Old
      Norse 'au'. Given that Old English and Old Norse both derive from
      what many are calling North West Germanic, we would have to conclude
      that 'auk' is the elder brother. However, their are several problems
      with this position: 1) 'o' from 'au' makes phonological nonsense and
      is without precedent in Old Norse phonology 2) Old English 'auk' is
      listed as an adverb rather than as a conjunction 3) both the brothers
      'ok' and 'auk' can be found somewhere in every dialect of Old Norse
      from about 800-1250. If we look to Gotlandic, which otherwise shows
      many archaic features not found in other dialects, we see both 'auk'
      and 'ok' on everything from Viking Age runestones to manuscripts of
      the 13th century. Both brothers also make regular appearances on Old
      Danish and Swedish runestones. In the West Norse domains of western
      Norway, Iceland and the Faroes, we see that brother 'ok' is clearly
      in charge by the end of the Viking Age. Nevertheless, 'auk' appears
      as late as the 13th century in West Norse domains. As Moltke pointed
      out, the early Viking Age spelling 'åuk' clearly points to the pro-
      nounciation 'ok', which would also seem clear from manuscripts of
      West Norse where 'ok' is almost universal. Nevertheless, 'auk' does
      occur in West Norse. The late 12th or early 13th century Gotlandic
      writer of the Guta Lagh (laws of the Goths) shows no preference for
      either brother, writing both 'auk' and 'ok' regularly. Nowhere else
      in Old Norse do we see this strange parallelism of 'au' and 'o'. In
      fact, the more we examine the brothers 'auk' and 'ok', the stranger
      they seem. Did they really have the same parent? Is one of them an
      adopted brother? We know that early Indo-European languages used an
      enclitic form of 'and', usually appearing at the end of a compound.
      It is, therefore, possible that the brothers 'auk' and 'ok' each had
      a separate parent: 1) as an enclitic 2) as a free conjuction proper.
      Unfortunately, the brothers' East Gothic cousin 'jah' has little or
      nothing to say about his cousins' parentage, and Old English cousin
      'and' seems positively unrelated. ok/auk/êak/and/jah more from the
      phonological funnies later. Your contributions to the phonological
      funny pages are welcome.

      Regards,
      Konrad.
    • Lazarus Freyjasgodhi
      I disagree with the comment about Phonological Nonsense . There are literally hundreds of precedents of vowels sliding over each other to create spelling
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I disagree with the comment about "Phonological Nonsense".

        There are literally hundreds of precedents of vowels sliding over each other
        to create spelling differences - and I'm only talking about New Yorkers!

        Let's not forget these brothers:
        "No", "Nay", "Nah", "Naw", and "Nuh-uh"
        (though one could argue the latter uses a glottal stop and derives from the
        spanish "Nada" - but that's a reach)

        -Laz

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "konrad_oddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
        To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 11:55 PM
        Subject: [norse_course] more about the brothers 'ok' and 'auk' -
        phonological funnies


        > In Old English, we see the word 'êac' listed as an adverb with the
        > meaning 'also'. Old English 'êa' is almost always equivalent to Old
        > Norse 'au'. Given that Old English and Old Norse both derive from
        > what many are calling North West Germanic, we would have to conclude
        > that 'auk' is the elder brother. However, their are several problems
        > with this position: 1) 'o' from 'au' makes phonological nonsense and
        > is without precedent in Old Norse phonology 2) Old English 'auk' is
        > listed as an adverb rather than as a conjunction 3) both the brothers
        > 'ok' and 'auk' can be found somewhere in every dialect of Old Norse
        > from about 800-1250. If we look to Gotlandic, which otherwise shows
        > many archaic features not found in other dialects, we see both 'auk'
        > and 'ok' on everything from Viking Age runestones to manuscripts of
        > the 13th century. Both brothers also make regular appearances on Old
        > Danish and Swedish runestones. In the West Norse domains of western
        > Norway, Iceland and the Faroes, we see that brother 'ok' is clearly
        > in charge by the end of the Viking Age. Nevertheless, 'auk' appears
        > as late as the 13th century in West Norse domains. As Moltke pointed
        > out, the early Viking Age spelling 'åuk' clearly points to the pro-
        > nounciation 'ok', which would also seem clear from manuscripts of
        > West Norse where 'ok' is almost universal. Nevertheless, 'auk' does
        > occur in West Norse. The late 12th or early 13th century Gotlandic
        > writer of the Guta Lagh (laws of the Goths) shows no preference for
        > either brother, writing both 'auk' and 'ok' regularly. Nowhere else
        > in Old Norse do we see this strange parallelism of 'au' and 'o'. In
        > fact, the more we examine the brothers 'auk' and 'ok', the stranger
        > they seem. Did they really have the same parent? Is one of them an
        > adopted brother? We know that early Indo-European languages used an
        > enclitic form of 'and', usually appearing at the end of a compound.
        > It is, therefore, possible that the brothers 'auk' and 'ok' each had
        > a separate parent: 1) as an enclitic 2) as a free conjuction proper.
        > Unfortunately, the brothers' East Gothic cousin 'jah' has little or
        > nothing to say about his cousins' parentage, and Old English cousin
        > 'and' seems positively unrelated. ok/auk/êak/and/jah more from the
        > phonological funnies later. Your contributions to the phonological
        > funny pages are welcome.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Konrad.
        >
        >
        > Sumir hafa kvæði...
        > ...aðrir spakmæli.
        >
        > - Keth
        >
        > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.