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

Re: Pronunciation help Norse "C"

Expand Messages
  • kiyo9tails
    Wow, much thanks to Llama Nom for digging up so much information. I will make the due corrections on my webpages. Interesting to discover that in the names of
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 17, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Wow, much thanks to Llama Nom for digging up so much information.
      I will make the due corrections on my webpages.

      Interesting to discover that in the names of Turpin's
      sword, "Almacia" [ON] and "Almace" [OF],
      the "c" was pronounced similarly as [ts] in both Old Norse
      and Old French.

      This does put into question my hazarded guess that "Almace" might be
      cognate with the English word "alms" which has the following
      etymology:

      [..OE aelmysse ON almusa OFris ielmisse OHG alamuosan MHG
      almuosen .. from common OTeut *alemosna or *alemosina a. Vulg. Lat.
      *alimosina , LL eleemosyna, Gk ἐλεημοσύνη "compassionateness,
      mercy".]

      I was vaguely aware that "ce" in Old English was pronounced "che" or
      [tS-e] because I listened to a recording of the poem "Deor" in which
      there occurs the line "Eormanrices" = "Ermanaric's"; Ermanaric being
      of course Jörmunrekr of the Eddas and the Volsunga saga.

      Ole Worm is a figure who I came across as a collector of Faroese
      folktales. I think I read that he owned a natural history museum and
      also published an extensive catalog of runic inscriptions around
      Scandinavia, though I'm not much familiar with runestones and the
      like.

      Thanks again for your help,
      Kiyo
    • LM
      Wow! THE Kiyo? With the incredible website? What a great resource! Thank you so much for your work! Larry Miller
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 17, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Wow! THE Kiyo? With the incredible website?

        What a great resource!

        Thank you so much for your work!

        Larry Miller



        kiyo9tails wrote:

        > Wow, much thanks to Llama Nom for digging up so much information.
        > I will make the due corrections on my webpages.
        >
        > Interesting to discover that in the names of Turpin's
        > sword, "Almacia" [ON] and "Almace" [OF],
        > the "c" was pronounced similarly as [ts] in both Old Norse
        > and Old French.
        >
        > This does put into question my hazarded guess that "Almace" might be
        > cognate with the English word "alms" which has the following
        > etymology:
        >
        > [..OE aelmysse ON almusa OFris ielmisse OHG alamuosan MHG
        > almuosen .. from common OTeut *alemosna or *alemosina a. Vulg. Lat.
        > *alimosina , LL eleemosyna, Gk
        > ἐλεημοσύνη
        > "compassionateness,
        > mercy".]
        >
        > I was vaguely aware that "ce" in Old English was pronounced "che" or
        > [tS-e] because I listened to a recording of the poem "Deor" in which
        > there occurs the line "Eormanrices" = "Ermanaric's"; Ermanaric being
        > of course Jörmunrekr of the Eddas and the Volsunga saga.
        >
        > Ole Worm is a figure who I came across as a collector of Faroese
        > folktales. I think I read that he owned a natural history museum and
        > also published an extensive catalog of runic inscriptions around
        > Scandinavia, though I'm not much familiar with runestones and the
        > like.
        >
        > Thanks again for your help,
        > Kiyo
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
        >
        > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
        >
        > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
        >
        > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > * Visit your group "norse_course
        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course>" on the web.
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
      • llama_nom
        ... Absolutely. Just like to add my awe and thanks to Larry s. In case anyone hasn t come across Kiyo s Norse Links yet, I strongly recommend you look at
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 17, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, LM <lavrans@c...> wrote:

          > Wow! THE Kiyo? With the incredible website?
          >
          > What a great resource!
          >
          > Thank you so much for your work!
          >
          > Larry Miller



          Absolutely. Just like to add my awe and thanks to Larry's. In case
          anyone hasn't come across "Kiyo's Norse Links" yet, I strongly
          recommend you look at this:

          http://home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/lk-norse.htm




          > kiyo9tails wrote:
          >
          > > Wow, much thanks to Llama Nom for digging up so much information.
          > > I will make the due corrections on my webpages.


          That's alright. Glad to be of use.


          > > I was vaguely aware that "ce" in Old English was
          pronounced "che" or
          > > [tS-e] because I listened to a recording of the poem "Deor" in
          which
          > > there occurs the line "Eormanrices" = "Ermanaric's"; Ermanaric
          being
          > > of course Jörmunrekr of the Eddas and the Volsunga saga.


          Okay, these are the rules for when <ce> = [tSe] in OE (not counting
          the combination <sc>), according to Campbell's Old English Grammar.
          At least this is how I understand them... They work most of the
          time, but not always. Some exceptions are due to analogy with parts
          of the paradigm where different rules applied. Another exception is
          the middle consonant of <cieken> "chicken", as indicated by the
          spelling in the Mercian Rushworth Gospells, a unique scibal attempt
          at distinguishing the front and back pronunciations of <c>. This
          can't be due to analogy with other parts of the paradigm, but might
          be accounted for by dissimilation. Anyway, here are the rules.
          (For <ce>, read <ce> or <cce>.)

          1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a back vowel.
          2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a back vowel.
          3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a continuant that was
          originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE *ækr).

          4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS]. Before a
          stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West Saxon. In late WS
          the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and
          <ci>).

          Some OE textbooks print a dot above <c> in words like 'bæc'
          and 'æcer'. This indicates that they are thought to have been
          palatal stops in early OE, something like [c], as in
          Icelandic 'kenna'. According to Campbell, in such positions, <c>
          never evolved into [tS], but instead reverted to [k]. Regarding
          Rule One, don't forget that /æ/ counts as a front vowel, so if <e>
          is due to i-umlaut of /æ/, this would result in affrication.

          I THINK that's more or less everything...

          Llama Nom
        • Patricia
          Brilliant - so much to refer to Bless Patricia ... From: llama_nom To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:39 PM Subject:
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 17, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Brilliant - so much to refer to
            Bless
            Patricia
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: llama_nom
            Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:39 PM
            Subject: [norse_course] Re: Pronunciation help Norse "C"


            --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, LM <lavrans@c...> wrote:

            > Wow!  THE Kiyo? With the incredible website?
            >
            > What a great resource!
            >
            > Thank you so much for your work!
            >
            > Larry Miller



            Absolutely.  Just like to add my awe and thanks to Larry's.  In case
            anyone hasn't come across "Kiyo's Norse Links" yet, I strongly
            recommend you look at this:

            http://home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/lk-norse.htm




            > kiyo9tails wrote:
            >
            > > Wow, much thanks to Llama Nom for digging up so much information.
            > > I will make the due corrections on my webpages.


            That's alright.  Glad to be of use.


            > > I was vaguely aware that "ce" in Old English was
            pronounced "che" or
            > > [tS-e] because I listened to a recording of the poem "Deor" in
            which
            > > there occurs the line "Eormanrices" = "Ermanaric's"; Ermanaric
            being
            > > of course Jörmunrekr of the Eddas and the Volsunga saga.


            Okay, these are the rules for when <ce> = [tSe] in OE (not counting
            the combination <sc>), according to Campbell's Old English Grammar. 
            At least this is how I understand them...  They work most of the
            time, but not always.  Some exceptions are due to analogy with parts
            of the paradigm where different rules applied.  Another exception is
            the middle consonant of  <cieken> "chicken", as indicated by the
            spelling in the Mercian Rushworth Gospells, a unique scibal attempt
            at distinguishing the front and back pronunciations of <c>.  This
            can't be due to analogy with other parts of the paradigm, but might
            be accounted for by dissimilation.  Anyway, here are the rules. 
            (For <ce>, read <ce> or <cce>.)

            1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a back vowel.
            2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a back vowel.
            3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a continuant that was
            originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE *ækr).

            4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS].  Before a
            stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West Saxon.  In late WS
            the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and
            <ci>).

            Some OE textbooks print a dot above <c> in words like 'bæc'
            and 'æcer'.  This indicates that they are thought to have been
            palatal stops in early OE, something like [c], as in
            Icelandic 'kenna'.  According to Campbell, in such positions, <c>
            never evolved into [tS], but instead reverted to [k].  Regarding
            Rule One, don't forget that /æ/ counts as a front vowel, so if <e>
            is due to i-umlaut of /æ/, this would result in affrication.

            I THINK that's more or less everything...

            Llama Nom



          • llama_nom
            ... WS ... Still bearing in mind all those provisos, I d just like to modify 4, thus: 4. Otherwise did result in the affricate [tS]. Where the is
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 18, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a back vowel.
              > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a back vowel.
              > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a continuant that was
              > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE *ækr).
              >
              > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS]. Before a
              > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West Saxon. In late
              WS
              > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and
              > <ci>).


              Still bearing in mind all those provisos, I'd just like to modify 4,
              thus:

              4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS]. Where the <e>
              is from Proto OE, before a stressed syllable this became <cie> in
              Early West Saxon. (In late WS the same combination is often spelt
              <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and <ci>).) This still leaves the
              combinations <cea> from PrOE *kæ, and <céa> (=Anglian <cé>) from
              PrOE *kæu < Gmc. *kau, each of which developed the pronunciation
              [tS].

              Llama Nom



              >
              > Okay, these are the rules for when <ce> = [tSe] in OE (not
              counting
              > the combination <sc>), according to Campbell's Old English
              Grammar.
              > At least this is how I understand them... They work most of the
              > time, but not always. Some exceptions are due to analogy with
              parts
              > of the paradigm where different rules applied. Another exception
              is
              > the middle consonant of <cieken> "chicken", as indicated by the
              > spelling in the Mercian Rushworth Gospells, a unique scibal
              attempt
              > at distinguishing the front and back pronunciations of <c>. This
              > can't be due to analogy with other parts of the paradigm, but
              might
              > be accounted for by dissimilation. Anyway, here are the rules.
              > (For <ce>, read <ce> or <cce>.)
              >
              > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a back vowel.
              > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a back vowel.
              > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a continuant that was
              > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE *ækr).
              >
              > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS]. Before a
              > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West Saxon. In late
              WS
              > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and
              > <ci>).
              >
              > Some OE textbooks print a dot above <c> in words like 'bæc'
              > and 'æcer'. This indicates that they are thought to have been
              > palatal stops in early OE, something like [c], as in
              > Icelandic 'kenna'. According to Campbell, in such positions, <c>
              > never evolved into [tS], but instead reverted to [k]. Regarding
              > Rule One, don't forget that /æ/ counts as a front vowel, so if <e>
              > is due to i-umlaut of /æ/, this would result in affrication.
            • Jarrod Clark
              ... In most of the texts I have come accross a dotted represents the affricate example from Sweet s Anglo-Saxon Primer would be for the anglo saxon
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 18, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:

                >
                > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, LM
                > <lavrans@c...> wrote:
                >
                > > Wow! THE Kiyo? With the incredible website?
                > >
                > > What a great resource!
                > >
                > > Thank you so much for your work!
                > >
                > > Larry Miller
                >
                >
                >
                > Absolutely. Just like to add my awe and thanks to
                > Larry's. In case
                > anyone hasn't come across "Kiyo's Norse Links" yet,
                > I strongly
                > recommend you look at this:
                >
                > http://home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/lk-norse.htm
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > > kiyo9tails wrote:
                > >
                > > > Wow, much thanks to Llama Nom for digging up so
                > much information.
                > > > I will make the due corrections on my webpages.
                >
                >
                > That's alright. Glad to be of use.
                >
                >
                > > > I was vaguely aware that "ce" in Old English was
                >
                > pronounced "che" or
                > > > [tS-e] because I listened to a recording of the
                > poem "Deor" in
                > which
                > > > there occurs the line "Eormanrices" =
                > "Ermanaric's"; Ermanaric
                > being
                > > > of course Jörmunrekr of the Eddas and the
                > Volsunga saga.
                >
                >
                > Okay, these are the rules for when <ce> = [tSe] in
                > OE (not counting
                > the combination <sc>), according to Campbell's Old
                > English Grammar.
                > At least this is how I understand them... They work
                > most of the
                > time, but not always. Some exceptions are due to
                > analogy with parts
                > of the paradigm where different rules applied.
                > Another exception is
                > the middle consonant of <cieken> "chicken", as
                > indicated by the
                > spelling in the Mercian Rushworth Gospells, a unique
                > scibal attempt
                > at distinguishing the front and back pronunciations
                > of <c>. This
                > can't be due to analogy with other parts of the
                > paradigm, but might
                > be accounted for by dissimilation. Anyway, here are
                > the rules.
                > (For <ce>, read <ce> or <cce>.)
                >
                > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a
                > back vowel.
                > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a back
                > vowel.
                > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a continuant
                > that was
                > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE
                > *ækr).
                >
                > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS].
                > Before a
                > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West
                > Saxon. In late WS
                > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also
                > <ce>, <cie> and
                > <ci>).
                >
                > Some OE textbooks print a dot above <c> in words
                > like 'bæc'
                > and 'æcer'. This indicates that they are thought to
                > have been
                > palatal stops in early OE, something like [c], as in
                >
                > Icelandic 'kenna'. According to Campbell, in such
                > positions, <c>
                > never evolved into [tS], but instead reverted to
                > [k]. Regarding
                > Rule One, don't forget that /æ/ counts as a front
                > vowel, so if <e>
                > is due to i-umlaut of /æ/, this would result in
                > affrication.
                >
                > I THINK that's more or less everything...
                >
                > Llama Nom
                >
                In most of the texts I have come accross a dotted <c>
                represents the affricate <tS>

                example from Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer would be for
                the anglo saxon chronicle: "Hēr Martiānus
                and Valentinīnus on•fēngon riċe..."
                where the word for kingdom, riċe, would be
                pronounced <ritSe> in ipa.
                My old english teacher

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Jarrod Clark
                The description Henry Sweet gives to the consonant C is as follows: C had a back(gutteral) and a front (palatal) pronunciation. The latter is printed ċ in
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 18, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The description Henry Sweet gives to the consonant C
                  is as follows:

                  "C had a back(gutteral) and a front (palatal)
                  pronunciation. The latter is printed ċ in this
                  book.
                  C had the sound k before, and when final after, back
                  vowels and ǚ (pretend that's a Y with the same
                  symbols above it); sometimes also before Ĕ, in
                  words which may generally be recognized by their
                  modern pronunciation with k : cann 'know', cōl
                  'cool', cuman 'come', cyning 'king', cēne 'bold',
                  bōc 'book'; also finally after æ: bæc 'back'; and
                  initially before consonants: cnāwan 'know'.

                  C had a sound like mdrn. E ch in child when it came
                  before or between the front vowels ī ĭ
                  ē and ě , except for special cases mentioned
                  above; Ċild 'child', ċēosan 'chosen',
                  miċel 'great'; also finally after ī ĭ
                  ē and ǽ ; līċ 'body',
                  bēċ 'books', sprǽċ 'speech'; and
                  in some words after n and l; þenċan
                  'think',ǽlċ 'each'

                  My old english teacher, Dr. Helen Damico, swears by
                  this book. While she recognizes Dr. Campbell she
                  believes, with some fervor, his writings possess many
                  flaws and are much too complicated for beginners.

                  --- llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a
                  > back vowel.
                  > > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a
                  > back vowel.
                  > > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a
                  > continuant that was
                  > > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE
                  > *ækr).
                  > >
                  > > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate
                  > [tS]. Before a
                  > > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West
                  > Saxon. In late
                  > WS
                  > > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also
                  > <ce>, <cie> and
                  > > <ci>).
                  >
                  >
                  > Still bearing in mind all those provisos, I'd just
                  > like to modify 4,
                  > thus:
                  >
                  > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS].
                  > Where the <e>
                  > is from Proto OE, before a stressed syllable this
                  > became <cie> in
                  > Early West Saxon. (In late WS the same combination
                  > is often spelt
                  > <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and <ci>).) This still
                  > leaves the
                  > combinations <cea> from PrOE *kæ, and <céa>
                  > (=Anglian <cé>) from
                  > PrOE *kæu < Gmc. *kau, each of which developed the
                  > pronunciation
                  > [tS].
                  >
                  > Llama Nom
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > > Okay, these are the rules for when <ce> = [tSe] in
                  > OE (not
                  > counting
                  > > the combination <sc>), according to Campbell's Old
                  > English
                  > Grammar.
                  > > At least this is how I understand them... They
                  > work most of the
                  > > time, but not always. Some exceptions are due to
                  > analogy with
                  > parts
                  > > of the paradigm where different rules applied.
                  > Another exception
                  > is
                  > > the middle consonant of <cieken> "chicken", as
                  > indicated by the
                  > > spelling in the Mercian Rushworth Gospells, a
                  > unique scibal
                  > attempt
                  > > at distinguishing the front and back
                  > pronunciations of <c>. This
                  > > can't be due to analogy with other parts of the
                  > paradigm, but
                  > might
                  > > be accounted for by dissimilation. Anyway, here
                  > are the rules.
                  > > (For <ce>, read <ce> or <cce>.)
                  > >
                  > > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a
                  > back vowel.
                  > > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a
                  > back vowel.
                  > > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a
                  > continuant that was
                  > > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE
                  > *ækr).
                  > >
                  > > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate
                  > [tS]. Before a
                  > > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West
                  > Saxon. In late
                  > WS
                  > > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also
                  > <ce>, <cie> and
                  > > <ci>).
                  > >
                  > > Some OE textbooks print a dot above <c> in words
                  > like 'bæc'
                  > > and 'æcer'. This indicates that they are thought
                  > to have been
                  > > palatal stops in early OE, something like [c], as
                  > in
                  > > Icelandic 'kenna'. According to Campbell, in such
                  > positions, <c>
                  > > never evolved into [tS], but instead reverted to
                  > [k]. Regarding
                  > > Rule One, don't forget that /æ/ counts as a front
                  > vowel, so if <e>
                  > > is due to i-umlaut of /æ/, this would result in
                  > affrication.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >





                  ____________________________________________________
                  Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
                  http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                • llama_nom
                  Hi Jarrod, I ve probably wandered a bit off topic with this, but I d agree Sweet s Anglo-Saxon Primer is a better place to begin learning Old English than
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 19, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Jarrod,

                    I've probably wandered a bit off topic with this, but I'd agree
                    Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer is a better place to begin learning Old
                    English than Campbell's complex historical grammar. The section you
                    quoted didn't display the special characters on the Yahoo groups
                    website, but as far as I can tell it's the same as my copy (the 9th
                    edition, revised by Norman Davis). This book prints the dots
                    consistently, I think, but the rules for when they will appear are
                    incomplete and thus sometimes inaccurate, e.g. 'þancian' correctly
                    appears with no dot in the glossary, but the rules given imply that
                    it ought to. Also, it's not made clear to the reader that the rule
                    which mentions the letter <y> only works for normalised spelling.

                    There must be a happy mean, a definitive way of introducing this
                    subject! For me that would probably have a bit more detail than
                    Revised Sweet, and certainly more than Mitchell and
                    Robinson's "Guide to Old English". It would have some explanation
                    of prehistoric sound changes with examples of common classes of
                    words where these create apparent exceptions to the rules, e.g.
                    class 1 and 2 weak verbs. It would take into account Campbell's
                    information (and that of other detailed treatments), but present
                    this in a digestible format, relegating justifications, evidence and
                    alternative views to footnotes. It would make clear where it was
                    refering to the palatal stop [c] that arose early in the history of
                    Old English, and where to the affricate [tS] this developed into,
                    and smugly point out that this is the source of apparent
                    contradictions between other text books (Sweet, on the one hand, and
                    Baker, plus Mitchell & Robinson on the other). It would probably
                    have less wanton digressions than I'm wont to make...

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