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

Gotlandic phonological nightmare - 6 more brothers

Expand Messages
  • konrad_oddsson
    One mysterious day, the brothers Ok and Auk went to visit their relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome. After a traditional dinner,
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 10, 2003
      One mysterious day, the brothers 'Ok' and 'Auk' went to visit their
      relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome. After a
      traditional dinner, Goti brought out an old book and said "this may
      come as a surprise to the two of you, but you have six more brothers
      and their names are written in this old book: Auc, Ac, Uc, Aug, Au,
      and Oc. They were all fine boys, but died a little before your time.
      We old-timers still remember them well." Then 'Ok' stood up on the
      table and shouted "auuuuug! will the real conjuction please stand up
      and introduce himself!" The old man looked puzzled.

      Kind reader, let us try to help the brothers make sense of this mess.
      To begin with, the word "auk" is listed in Old Icelandic and both an
      adverb and a conjuction - as an adverb it means "besides" and is the
      same as in Modern Icelandic, as a conjuction it means "also/and" and
      is translated as "ok". In Old English, "êac" is listed only as an
      adverb in the meaning "besides" and the word "and" is listed in the
      meaning "ok". So also in Gothic, where "auk" is listed as an adverb
      in the meaning "besides" and the word "jah" is said to mean "ok".
      Notice that all three languages, covering the extremes of Germania,
      list the word "auk" an an adverb meaning "besides". Notice also that
      all three languages list a different word in the meaning "ok". Now,
      if there is any place in Scandinavia where you would expect not to
      find A-umlaut (that is, the mutation of U to O by A in a following
      syllable) it would be Gotland. In Gutiska, the language of the Goths
      in south-eastern Europe, A-umlaut only occurs before R. In Gutniska,
      the language of Viking Age Gotlanders, we also see a marked absence
      of A-umlaut. Brother "Uk" can even been seen in late 12th or early
      13th century manuscripts. "Ok" can also be seen there. What does all
      of this mean for the brothers "Ok" and "Auk"? Here are some thoughts
      on this subject:

      1) "auk" is a Proto-Germanic adverb meaning "besides", as testified
      to by Germanic languages of all three branches.

      2) Germanic languages chose different conjuctions meaning "and",
      none of which are likely to have been identical to the adverb "auk".

      3) One of the distinguishing features of Proto-Norse is retention of
      unaccented A in positions where it disappeared in other languages,
      such as "Gothic". Here are some examples: N.M.Sg. Dagaz and A.M.Sg.
      Daga where "Gothic" shows N.M.Sg. Dags and A.M.Sg. Dag and "English"
      shows N.M.Sg. Dæg and A.M.Sg. Dæg; Proto-Norse "ana" (=á) and "tila"
      (=til) are further examples.

      4) Norse suffered loss of initial J around 600 and underwent rather
      extensive A-mutation over a period of many centuries.

      5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
      versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
      Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.

      6) If we restore J to "ok" and remove the effects of A-umlaut we get
      the rather novel looking form "juka". While novel looking at first,
      "juka" is really no stranger than "jah" in reality. In fact, "juka"
      would explain why the various inscribers from places as divergent as
      Gotland and "at eggjum" in Norway inscribed as they did; it would
      account for the various spelling trends that occur after A-umlauted
      "uk" had become dominant in Scandinavia; it would account for why
      the form "ok" is nearly universal in West Norse; it would account
      for why "og" remains almost unchallenged in modern Scandinavia; in
      short, it looks like a likely candidate for being the true ancestor
      of the common Old Norse conjuction "ok".

      Regards,
      Konrad.
    • Wartooth
      Thank you, Konrad !!! Your explanations and theories are concise and easy to understand. I find myself agreeing with much of what you have just said, even if
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 10, 2003
        Thank you, Konrad !!!  Your explanations and theories are concise and easy to understand. I find myself agreeing with much of what you have just said, even if it never occurred to me to make those phonological connections previously.
         
        Richard "Wartooth" Smith
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:55 AM
        Subject: [norse_course] Gotlandic phonological nightmare - 6 more brothers

        One mysterious day, the brothers 'Ok' and 'Auk' went to visit their
        relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome. After a
        traditional dinner, Goti brought out an old book and said "this may
        come as a surprise to the two of you, but you have six more brothers
        and their names are written in this old book: Auc, Ac, Uc, Aug, Au,
        and Oc. They were all fine boys, but died a little before your time.
        We old-timers still remember them well." Then 'Ok' stood up on the
        table and shouted "auuuuug! will the real conjuction please stand up
        and introduce himself!" The old man looked puzzled.

        Kind reader, let us try to help the brothers make sense of this mess.
        To begin with, the word "auk" is listed in Old Icelandic and both an
        adverb and a conjuction - as an adverb it means "besides" and is the
        same as in Modern Icelandic, as a conjuction it means "also/and" and
        is translated as "ok". In Old English, "êac" is listed only as an
        adverb in the meaning "besides" and the word "and" is listed in the
        meaning "ok". So also in Gothic, where "auk" is listed as an adverb
        in the meaning "besides" and the word "jah" is said to mean "ok".
        Notice that all three languages, covering the extremes of Germania,
        list the word "auk" an an adverb meaning "besides". Notice also that
        all three languages list a different word in the meaning "ok". Now,
        if there is any place in Scandinavia where you would expect not to
        find A-umlaut (that is, the mutation of U to O by A in a following
        syllable) it would be Gotland. In Gutiska, the language of the Goths
        in south-eastern Europe, A-umlaut only occurs before R. In Gutniska,
        the language of Viking Age Gotlanders, we also see a marked absence
        of A-umlaut. Brother "Uk" can even been seen in late 12th or early
        13th century manuscripts. "Ok" can also be seen there. What does all
        of this mean for the brothers "Ok" and "Auk"? Here are some thoughts
        on this subject:

        1) "auk" is a Proto-Germanic adverb meaning "besides", as testified
        to by Germanic languages of all three branches.

        2) Germanic languages chose different conjuctions meaning "and",
        none of which are likely to have been identical to the adverb "auk".

        3) One of the distinguishing features of Proto-Norse is retention of
        unaccented A in positions where it disappeared in other languages,
        such as "Gothic". Here are some examples: N.M.Sg. Dagaz and A.M.Sg.
        Daga where "Gothic" shows N.M.Sg. Dags and A.M.Sg. Dag and "English"
        shows N.M.Sg. Dæg and A.M.Sg. Dæg; Proto-Norse "ana" (=á) and "tila"
        (=til) are further examples.

        4) Norse suffered loss of initial J around 600 and underwent rather
        extensive A-mutation over a period of many centuries.

        5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
        versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
        Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.

        6) If we restore J to "ok" and remove the effects of A-umlaut we get
        the rather novel looking form "juka". While novel looking at first,
        "juka" is really no stranger than "jah" in reality. In fact, "juka"
        would explain why the various inscribers from places as divergent as
        Gotland and "at eggjum" in Norway inscribed as they did; it would
        account for the various spelling trends that occur after A-umlauted
        "uk" had become dominant in Scandinavia; it would account for why
        the form "ok" is nearly universal in West Norse; it would account
        for why "og" remains almost unchallenged in modern Scandinavia; in
        short, it looks like a likely candidate for being the true ancestor
        of the common Old Norse conjuction "ok".

        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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Lazarus Freyjasgodhi
        Wow. Good job Konrad. Thank you for this. -Laz ... From: konrad_oddsson To: Sent: Monday, March 10,
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 10, 2003
          Wow. Good job Konrad. Thank you for this.

          -Laz

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "konrad_oddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
          To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:55 AM
          Subject: [norse_course] Gotlandic phonological nightmare - 6 more brothers


          > One mysterious day, the brothers 'Ok' and 'Auk' went to visit their
          > relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome. After a
          > traditional dinner, Goti brought out an old book and said "this may
          > come as a surprise to the two of you, but you have six more brothers
          > and their names are written in this old book: Auc, Ac, Uc, Aug, Au,
          > and Oc. They were all fine boys, but died a little before your time.
          > We old-timers still remember them well." Then 'Ok' stood up on the
          > table and shouted "auuuuug! will the real conjuction please stand up
          > and introduce himself!" The old man looked puzzled.
          >
          > Kind reader, let us try to help the brothers make sense of this mess.
          > To begin with, the word "auk" is listed in Old Icelandic and both an
          > adverb and a conjuction - as an adverb it means "besides" and is the
          > same as in Modern Icelandic, as a conjuction it means "also/and" and
          > is translated as "ok". In Old English, "êac" is listed only as an
          > adverb in the meaning "besides" and the word "and" is listed in the
          > meaning "ok". So also in Gothic, where "auk" is listed as an adverb
          > in the meaning "besides" and the word "jah" is said to mean "ok".
          > Notice that all three languages, covering the extremes of Germania,
          > list the word "auk" an an adverb meaning "besides". Notice also that
          > all three languages list a different word in the meaning "ok". Now,
          > if there is any place in Scandinavia where you would expect not to
          > find A-umlaut (that is, the mutation of U to O by A in a following
          > syllable) it would be Gotland. In Gutiska, the language of the Goths
          > in south-eastern Europe, A-umlaut only occurs before R. In Gutniska,
          > the language of Viking Age Gotlanders, we also see a marked absence
          > of A-umlaut. Brother "Uk" can even been seen in late 12th or early
          > 13th century manuscripts. "Ok" can also be seen there. What does all
          > of this mean for the brothers "Ok" and "Auk"? Here are some thoughts
          > on this subject:
          >
          > 1) "auk" is a Proto-Germanic adverb meaning "besides", as testified
          > to by Germanic languages of all three branches.
          >
          > 2) Germanic languages chose different conjuctions meaning "and",
          > none of which are likely to have been identical to the adverb "auk".
          >
          > 3) One of the distinguishing features of Proto-Norse is retention of
          > unaccented A in positions where it disappeared in other languages,
          > such as "Gothic". Here are some examples: N.M.Sg. Dagaz and A.M.Sg.
          > Daga where "Gothic" shows N.M.Sg. Dags and A.M.Sg. Dag and "English"
          > shows N.M.Sg. Dæg and A.M.Sg. Dæg; Proto-Norse "ana" (=á) and "tila"
          > (=til) are further examples.
          >
          > 4) Norse suffered loss of initial J around 600 and underwent rather
          > extensive A-mutation over a period of many centuries.
          >
          > 5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
          > versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
          > Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.
          >
          > 6) If we restore J to "ok" and remove the effects of A-umlaut we get
          > the rather novel looking form "juka". While novel looking at first,
          > "juka" is really no stranger than "jah" in reality. In fact, "juka"
          > would explain why the various inscribers from places as divergent as
          > Gotland and "at eggjum" in Norway inscribed as they did; it would
          > account for the various spelling trends that occur after A-umlauted
          > "uk" had become dominant in Scandinavia; it would account for why
          > the form "ok" is nearly universal in West Norse; it would account
          > for why "og" remains almost unchallenged in modern Scandinavia; in
          > short, it looks like a likely candidate for being the true ancestor
          > of the common Old Norse conjuction "ok".
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Haukur Thorgeirsson
          Thank you for an entertaining story, Konrad. ... I would guess that in this case Gothic and Old Norse preserve different ablaut grades of the root. Gothic
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 10, 2003
            Thank you for an entertaining story, Konrad.


            > 5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
            > versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
            > Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.

            I would guess that in this case Gothic and Old Norse preserve different
            ablaut grades of the root. Gothic seems to have the zero-grade (a syllabic
            n that developed into /un/ in Proto-Germanic) whereas Old Norse seems to
            have the o-base-grade (an /o/ that developed into /a/ in Proto-Germanic).
            Compare this with the better known tönn vs. tunþu example. Why Gothic seems
            to prefer the zero-grade I have no idea.

            To those of you to whom this sounded like so much mumbo-jumbo - don't worry.
            You don't have to know about the origins of the Germanic ablaut to learn
            Old Norse or the other Germanic languages.

            Kveðja,
            Haukur
          • jonaegilsen
            I think this is just great. Looking all day in my norron grammatik books I see no O from AU. It is not existing in any dialect. Good work and very interesting.
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 10, 2003
              I think this is just great. Looking all day in my norron grammatik
              books I see no O from AU. It is not existing in any dialect. Good
              work and very interesting. OG the brothers OK OG AUK are funny. I am
              thinking we must have OK OG AUK in place of Sadam OG Bush in news. OG
              its 8 hours grammatikal mean time OG now for the weeks phonological
              headline: 'AUK calls OK a terrorist', 'OK denies AUK is legitimate',
              'AUK backs resolution 476 against OK', 'OK threatens to invade OG to
              destroy AUK', 'Denmark calls phonological police', 'AUK arrested OG
              put in jail', 'OK accused of having weapons of phonological terror',
              'brothers AUK OG OK to stand trial'. OG those are the phonological
              headlines OG now for buisness news. Markets reacted negatively to
              news of AUK being arrested OG shares of OK Inc. fell 17% after the
              accusations about OK having weapons of phonological terror. OG now
              for sports news....

              Jon


              --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
              <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
              > One mysterious day, the brothers 'Ok' and 'Auk' went to visit their
              > relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome. After
              a
              > traditional dinner, Goti brought out an old book and said "this may
              > come as a surprise to the two of you, but you have six more
              brothers
              > and their names are written in this old book: Auc, Ac, Uc, Aug, Au,
              > and Oc. They were all fine boys, but died a little before your
              time.
              > We old-timers still remember them well." Then 'Ok' stood up on the
              > table and shouted "auuuuug! will the real conjuction please stand
              up
              > and introduce himself!" The old man looked puzzled.
              >
              > Kind reader, let us try to help the brothers make sense of this
              mess.
              > To begin with, the word "auk" is listed in Old Icelandic and both
              an
              > adverb and a conjuction - as an adverb it means "besides" and is
              the
              > same as in Modern Icelandic, as a conjuction it means "also/and"
              and
              > is translated as "ok". In Old English, "êac" is listed only as an
              > adverb in the meaning "besides" and the word "and" is listed in the
              > meaning "ok". So also in Gothic, where "auk" is listed as an adverb
              > in the meaning "besides" and the word "jah" is said to mean "ok".
              > Notice that all three languages, covering the extremes of Germania,
              > list the word "auk" an an adverb meaning "besides". Notice also
              that
              > all three languages list a different word in the meaning "ok". Now,
              > if there is any place in Scandinavia where you would expect not to
              > find A-umlaut (that is, the mutation of U to O by A in a following
              > syllable) it would be Gotland. In Gutiska, the language of the
              Goths
              > in south-eastern Europe, A-umlaut only occurs before R. In
              Gutniska,
              > the language of Viking Age Gotlanders, we also see a marked absence
              > of A-umlaut. Brother "Uk" can even been seen in late 12th or early
              > 13th century manuscripts. "Ok" can also be seen there. What does
              all
              > of this mean for the brothers "Ok" and "Auk"? Here are some
              thoughts
              > on this subject:
              >
              > 1) "auk" is a Proto-Germanic adverb meaning "besides", as testified
              > to by Germanic languages of all three branches.
              >
              > 2) Germanic languages chose different conjuctions meaning "and",
              > none of which are likely to have been identical to the adverb "auk".
              >
              > 3) One of the distinguishing features of Proto-Norse is retention
              of
              > unaccented A in positions where it disappeared in other languages,
              > such as "Gothic". Here are some examples: N.M.Sg. Dagaz and A.M.Sg.
              > Daga where "Gothic" shows N.M.Sg. Dags and A.M.Sg. Dag
              and "English"
              > shows N.M.Sg. Dæg and A.M.Sg. Dæg; Proto-Norse "ana" (=á)
              and "tila"
              > (=til) are further examples.
              >
              > 4) Norse suffered loss of initial J around 600 and underwent rather
              > extensive A-mutation over a period of many centuries.
              >
              > 5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
              > versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
              > Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.
              >
              > 6) If we restore J to "ok" and remove the effects of A-umlaut we
              get
              > the rather novel looking form "juka". While novel looking at first,
              > "juka" is really no stranger than "jah" in reality. In fact, "juka"
              > would explain why the various inscribers from places as divergent
              as
              > Gotland and "at eggjum" in Norway inscribed as they did; it would
              > account for the various spelling trends that occur after A-umlauted
              > "uk" had become dominant in Scandinavia; it would account for why
              > the form "ok" is nearly universal in West Norse; it would account
              > for why "og" remains almost unchallenged in modern Scandinavia; in
              > short, it looks like a likely candidate for being the true ancestor
              > of the common Old Norse conjuction "ok".
              >
              > Regards,
              > Konrad.
            • Haukur Thorgeirsson
              ... This happens before Proto-Norse h . fljúga - fló - flugum - flogið Notice the preterite singular - we have /ó/ where /aug/ would be expected. This is
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 10, 2003
                Hinn 10. mars 2003 lét jonaegilsen þetta frá sér fara:
                > I think this is just great. Looking all day in my norron grammatik
                > books I see no O from AU.

                This happens before Proto-Norse 'h'.

                fljúga - fló - flugum - flogið

                Notice the preterite singular - we have /ó/ where /aug/ would be expected.
                This is due to the devoicing of consonants at end of words in Proto-Norse;
                in this case /g/ > /h/.

                flaug > *flauh

                and then the change you're talking about happens:

                *flauh > fló

                The form 'flaug' arises again from analogy.

                I don't remember other cases of of /au/ becoming /ó/ or /o/ in Old Norse.
                But notice that /au/ and /o/ collapsed into one phoneme in Gothic.

                Kveðja,
                Haukur
              • konrad_oddsson
                Saell Haukur! ... You are welcome. I have lost my internet connection and have thus been off line for almost two days. While the problem is being investigated
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 11, 2003
                  Saell Haukur!

                  --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Haukur Thorgeirsson
                  <haukurth@h...> wrote:
                  > Thank you for an entertaining story, Konrad.

                  You are welcome. I have lost my internet connection and have thus
                  been off line for almost two days. While the problem is being
                  investigated (and hopefully repaired), I am reduced to responding
                  from foreign computors as time permits.

                  > > 5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
                  versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
                  Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.

                  > I would guess that in this case Gothic and Old Norse preserve
                  different ablaut grades of the root. Gothic seems to have the zero-
                  grade (a syllabic n that developed into /un/ in Proto-Germanic)
                  whereas Old Norse seems to have the o-base-grade (an /o/ that
                  developed into /a/ in Proto-Germanic). Compare this with the better
                  known tönn vs. tunþu example. Why Gothic seems to prefer the zero-
                  grade I have no idea.

                  Yes. This would seem to be the case.

                  > To those of you to whom this sounded like so much mumbo-jumbo -
                  don't worry. You don't have to know about the origins of the Germanic
                  ablaut to learn Old Norse or the other Germanic languages.

                  Yes. Just keep pressing forward. Try not to focus to much on origins
                  and history. Focus on basic communication and understanding. If you
                  wish to study the linguistic origins and history of a language, then
                  this is best regarded as a separate study. "Make it fun or forget it"
                  would be a good motto for this kind of study. Most of us have heard
                  stories about university-educated "linguists" who were not able to
                  speak any language except their native one. They knew all of the
                  technical things one would ever want to know about human language,
                  but could neither hold a conversation nor read a book in any of the
                  languages they had "mastered". Origins and history are most useful
                  and interesting when learned in conjuction with an actual language.
                  Best wishes to all of you learning Norroena or any other language.

                  Regards,
                  Konrad.

                  > Kveðja,
                  > Haukur
                • konrad_oddsson
                  Saell Jon! Please overlook the lack of Norse letters as my internet-connection is down at present. OG now for sports news.... ... Yes. Make it fun or forget
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 11, 2003
                    Saell Jon!

                    Please overlook the lack of Norse letters as my internet-connection
                    is down at present.

                    "OG now for sports news....
                    >
                    > Jon

                    Yes. "Make it fun or forget it" = make the origins and history fun.
                    See my remarks about O-from-AU in my next post. This matter is not
                    nearly as simple as it looks on the surface.

                    Regards,
                    Konrad.


                    > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
                    > <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
                    > > One mysterious day, the brothers 'Ok' and 'Auk' went to visit
                    their
                    > > relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome.
                    After
                    > a
                    > > traditional dinner, Goti brought out an old book and said "this
                    may
                    > > come as a surprise to the two of you, but you have six more
                    > brothers
                    > > and their names are written in this old book: Auc, Ac, Uc, Aug,
                    Au,
                    > > and Oc. They were all fine boys, but died a little before your
                    > time.
                    > > We old-timers still remember them well." Then 'Ok' stood up on
                    the
                    > > table and shouted "auuuuug! will the real conjuction please stand
                    > up
                    > > and introduce himself!" The old man looked puzzled.
                    > >
                    > > Kind reader, let us try to help the brothers make sense of this
                    > mess.
                    > > To begin with, the word "auk" is listed in Old Icelandic and both
                    > an
                    > > adverb and a conjuction - as an adverb it means "besides" and is
                    > the
                    > > same as in Modern Icelandic, as a conjuction it means "also/and"
                    > and
                    > > is translated as "ok". In Old English, "êac" is listed only as an
                    > > adverb in the meaning "besides" and the word "and" is listed in
                    the
                    > > meaning "ok". So also in Gothic, where "auk" is listed as an
                    adverb
                    > > in the meaning "besides" and the word "jah" is said to mean "ok".
                    > > Notice that all three languages, covering the extremes of
                    Germania,
                    > > list the word "auk" an an adverb meaning "besides". Notice also
                    > that
                    > > all three languages list a different word in the meaning "ok".
                    Now,
                    > > if there is any place in Scandinavia where you would expect not
                    to
                    > > find A-umlaut (that is, the mutation of U to O by A in a
                    following
                    > > syllable) it would be Gotland. In Gutiska, the language of the
                    > Goths
                    > > in south-eastern Europe, A-umlaut only occurs before R. In
                    > Gutniska,
                    > > the language of Viking Age Gotlanders, we also see a marked
                    absence
                    > > of A-umlaut. Brother "Uk" can even been seen in late 12th or
                    early
                    > > 13th century manuscripts. "Ok" can also be seen there. What does
                    > all
                    > > of this mean for the brothers "Ok" and "Auk"? Here are some
                    > thoughts
                    > > on this subject:
                    > >
                    > > 1) "auk" is a Proto-Germanic adverb meaning "besides", as
                    testified
                    > > to by Germanic languages of all three branches.
                    > >
                    > > 2) Germanic languages chose different conjuctions meaning "and",
                    > > none of which are likely to have been identical to the
                    adverb "auk".
                    > >
                    > > 3) One of the distinguishing features of Proto-Norse is retention
                    > of
                    > > unaccented A in positions where it disappeared in other
                    languages,
                    > > such as "Gothic". Here are some examples: N.M.Sg. Dagaz and
                    A.M.Sg.
                    > > Daga where "Gothic" shows N.M.Sg. Dags and A.M.Sg. Dag
                    > and "English"
                    > > shows N.M.Sg. Dæg and A.M.Sg. Dæg; Proto-Norse "ana" (=á)
                    > and "tila"
                    > > (=til) are further examples.
                    > >
                    > > 4) Norse suffered loss of initial J around 600 and underwent
                    rather
                    > > extensive A-mutation over a period of many centuries.
                    > >
                    > > 5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
                    > > versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic,
                    whereas
                    > > Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.
                    > >
                    > > 6) If we restore J to "ok" and remove the effects of A-umlaut we
                    > get
                    > > the rather novel looking form "juka". While novel looking at
                    first,
                    > > "juka" is really no stranger than "jah" in reality. In
                    fact, "juka"
                    > > would explain why the various inscribers from places as divergent
                    > as
                    > > Gotland and "at eggjum" in Norway inscribed as they did; it would
                    > > account for the various spelling trends that occur after A-
                    umlauted
                    > > "uk" had become dominant in Scandinavia; it would account for why
                    > > the form "ok" is nearly universal in West Norse; it would account
                    > > for why "og" remains almost unchallenged in modern Scandinavia;
                    in
                    > > short, it looks like a likely candidate for being the true
                    ancestor
                    > > of the common Old Norse conjuction "ok".
                    > >
                    > > Regards,
                    > > Konrad.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.