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

Re: [norse_course] Re: Pronunciation help Norse "C"

Expand Messages
  • LM
    Wow! THE Kiyo? With the incredible website? What a great resource! Thank you so much for your work! Larry Miller
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.