[gothic-l] Re: The Letter H

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

Hi Keth,

that is interesting material. I don't know if it is of any relevancy 
in this discussion, but I remember that there is also some dispute 
about the correct spelling of the tribal name Hermunduri/Ermunduri. 
The usual rending in German literature is Hermunduri, but some authors 
argued that they should be called Ermunduri.

cheers,
Dirk

PS another example of the loss of the initial H is got. Haribergo, 
lang. Heribergo (high germ. Herberge) and ital. Albergo.




--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
> Hi Troels!
> >Hi Matþaius, Francisc and Keth
> >
> >I am sorry to bring this thread up again so late, but I had to 
return 
> >to my books from my holiday before asking, as I have no knowledge 
> >about the linguistic part of this topic:
> >
> >I understand Matþaius' arguments in this way: The "H" used in Latin 
> >(a.e. "Heruls") might be a form symbolizing a classical name and 
not 
> >necessarily a sound because of the silent "H" in Latin. An earlier 
> >Roman author knowing the Heruls himself would probably know how to 
> >pronounce the name, but even he might use the silent "H" though 
> >the "H" was not pronounced by the Heruls themselves. As the Heruls 
> >disappeared from Southern Europe around 565, the following writers 
> >writing in Latin would probably always spell "Heruls" with "H" 
having 
> >no knowledge about the pronunciation.
> 
> Well, I am not sure I understood all the details of Matþaius' 
argument.
> My comment to what you write, would be that the Heruls did not 
disappear
> from Central and Southern Europe in the 6th century, because some
> of them married into high positions in for example Bavaria, as Dirk
> has shown. Also the Langobards continued to have much contacts with
> the Bavarians through the next centuries. And the Bavarians never
> gave up their native language, though they did settle in a former
> Roman province, Raetia. I assume the situation was the same for the
> Langobards, that they too continued speaking Langobard at least
> until the Franks besieged them and took away their crown in 774.
> It is in fact remarkable when you scrutinize the 10 or 12 
manuscripts
> we have of Paulus' "Historia", how remarkably consistent all the 
manuscripts
> are in writing Herul with H. My idea is that it was the knowledge
> of the Langobard language that was the "stabilizing factor" here. 
> In fact, I think the knowledge of oral Langobardic gave the key
> to the correct Germanic pronounciation of all these names. And
> so he knew which names were spelled with H and which names without 
H,
> as long as Langobardic continued its existence as a living language.
> None of the other Germanic languages ever lost the initial H.
> But Italian did!   Humberto --> Umberto.
> Clearly, within Italian or vulgar Latin, initial H did disappear,
> and thus, those who knew only vulgar Latin or early Italian, but
> were not speakers of Germanic, they must have been the ones who
> began dropping the initial H of Germanic names.
> And I therefore will attribute the systematic occurrence of Herul
> with H, in Paulus' "Historia Langobardorum" (in all Mss.) to
> the fact that it was written by a Langobard writer, Paulus, whose
> father's name was Warnefrid. So, since Paulus knew Langobard, he 
> also knew where to put the H-es!   :)   (that is my argument)
> 
> 
> >
> >Therefore the "H" would also be used since 565 by authors educated 
in 
> >Latin (a.e. by the church) writing names referring directly to the 
> >Heruls, and therefore Keth's example from Paulus Diaconus does not 
> >tell us if there should be a "H" in "Heruls" (Paulus is a later 
> >writer in Roman tradition).
> 
> Paulus was not a "Roman", but a man from a Langobard family.
> If the book had been written by Italians (=people not speaking
> Langobard), you should expect they would drop the initial H,
> just like it was dropped in Umberto.
> 
> 
> >
> >We also have to look at the authors before 565AD writing in Greek. 
> >Procopius wrote in Greek in the 550ies - possibly also using 
sources 
> >in Latin. He must have known how "Herul" was pronounced being the 
> >secretary of Bellisarius using many Heruls in his army. I have only 
> >the Dewing-version, where the apostrophe (down-left) is what 
Francisc 
> >calls the "soft spirit" meaning no "H" before the "E". If this is 
> >correct, the Latin "H" is most likely a misunderstanding because of 
> >traditional classical spelling. Is this Greek spelling in "Gothic 
> >Wars" correct according to more original sources? 
> 
> I do not have Procopius in Greek.
> But the Greek manuscript that were quoted elsewhere, had the 
> Greek "Herul" with the "hard espirit" in front of the epsilon.
> (these were quotes from the Greek historian Dexippos (sp)
> who met the Heruls several centuries earlier: in the 3rd century.
> Now if Dexippos writes it with the "hard esprit" (=H), then surely
> that must mean that that is the way it was prononced. What else 
could
> it mean?
> 
> 
> >The situation might be another in the Northgermanic and 
Westgermanic 
> >regions where some of the Heruls disappeared from the sight of the 
> >Roman authors in pagan times.
> >
> >Following Matþaius's theory the place-names in Austria/Germany from 
> >the 9th century referring to the Heruls might be spelled with "H", 
as 
> >the writers of such official documents at that time probably had a 
> >classical (clerical) education – but only if they knew, that the 
name 
> >referred to the Heruls, or if the name was pronounced with an "H".
> >
> Hm.. seems tenuous to me.
> I would assume they wrote the place names either reflecting
> local pronounciation, or Latin tradition.
> 
> But how can the H have "popped up" from Nowhere in Latin tradition?
> After all the tendency was Humberto --> Umberto.
> But never Umberto --> Humberto.
> (unless you can provide examples, but I don't think
> there are any. )
> 
> 
> >In most other cases local (not learned) spelling in these regions 
> >would be without "H" if the original pronunciation was "Erul" as 
> >indicated by the Procopius-argument above. 
> 
> Do you have the Procopius text?
> 
> When did initial H start to disappear in vulgar Latin?
> The emperor Hadrian still has it!
> When did Hadrian --> Adrian?
> 
> Maybe Procopius had no contact with the Bavarians
> or the Langobards who could have told him the right
> pronounciation. Maybe he based his spelling upon Latin
> verbal communication, that was already beginning to be corrupt.
> And then he took it to Greek from there.
> But how DID Procopius write it?
> Reference please! Publication date and page number.
> 
> Procopius was born in Caesarea and educated as rhetor in 
> a school that was probably in Gaza. So he was far away
> from the Ostro- and Visigoths and other people who
> might have informed him concerning Germanic pronounciation.
> 
> 
> 
> >If we assume the name to be the background for the OE word "eorl" 
and 
> >maybe ON "jarl" the way of spelling is dependent on the later 
writers 
> >knowledge of this background. However "eo" and the Nordic "j" might 
> >indicate a sound before the vowels "e" or open "a" - if it is not 
> >caused by the "r". Could this have been a faint Eastgermanic 
> >aspiration or consonant contributing to all the above confusion? If 
> >we assume the Herulian language to be similar to Gothic did such a 
> >faint H/J-sound exist in Gothic? 
> 
> Well, if the returning Heruls (as supported by the written sources)
> had forgotten their original language. But if they had kept
> their original Germanic language, they would have kept H.
> There is no loss of initial H in the Germanic languages.
> 
> Eril develops a breaking around that time.
> Just like "Erde" -> Scandinavian IARD/ Old English EARTh
> You see the breaking of the initial E-vowel occurring both
> in Old Norse as well as in Old English.
> But the breaking is not realized in the same way in the two
> languages. In Old Norse initial e --> ja  and in
> Old English the initial e --> ea.
> Another example is "heart": Using German and Dutch as reference
> (because the bereaking never occurred in those two languages)
> We have German "Hertz", Dutch "hart".
> But English "heart" and Norwegian "hjarta"
> So that is rather a constand sound change rule in those languages.
> Note also that the eample "heart" shows that initial h
> is not affected by this change.
> 
> So according to this sound change rule we easily obtain
> Old English    Eril  --> Earl    and
> Old Norse     Eril --> Iarl.   (the "i" disappears through syncope)
> 
> So that is the easy part.
> The difficult part is to explain the connection between
> runic "Eril" and   Langobard/Gotic  "Herul".
> Because the latter is rather well documented.
> 
> But maybe it is Procopius that is the source of the English 
> scholarly usage of writing it as "Erul" without H.
> The German scholarly tradition is to keep the H.
> But I'd still like to see the Procopius reference.
> (and why disregard Dexippos?)
> 
> 
> >If the name was written in runes we should according to Keth expect 
> >the name to be written as it was pronounced at that time and place. 
I 
> >agree, but do we know how "erilaR" was pronounced in the 5th and 
6th 
> >century as you indicated, Keth? 
> 
> I think so. Because runic inscriptions are from wide areas.
> And we know the approximate pronounciation of the vowels,
> because the languages were recorded later, also over a wide area.
> And some words found in runic inscriptions can also be compared
> wit the the same words as recorded in contemporary Latin sources.
> And since all words contain some vowels, and there aren't
> too many vowels either in early Gemanic, I think we know what
> sounds the runic vowels corresponded to.
> At least the literature that discusses runes has given phonology
> an especially important place, and the opinion seems to prevail
> that the pronounciation is known quite well (within reasonable 
limits).
> (example: the Kjølevik inscription: HadulaikaR ek Hagusta(l)dar
> hlaaiwido magu minimo, SW Norway ca. 400 AD - lots of initial H !
> Compare Hildebrandslied)
> 
> >
> >If not there is as far as I can se no "H"-argument against the 
theory 
> >about a connection between "Erilar" and "Herul" - if the Procopius-
> >argument above is correct. 
> 
> Well, I trust Jordanes and Paulus much more than Prokop
> because Jordanes must have known Gothic and Paulus Langobardic.
> But Prokop was Greek (from Caesarea) and did not know Germanic 
language.
> 
> Best regards
> Keth
> 
> 
> "Einsam unter den deutschen Stabreimdenkmälern steht das  H i l d e 
-
>  b r a n d s l i e d ; nicht angelsächsisch verflochten, sondern 
südlich, 
>  gotisch-langobardisch, nicht kirchlich, sondern weltlich, und damit
>  zunächst außerhalb des Generalnenners, unter dem alle deutsche 
Literatur
>  bisher gestanden hatte: karolingische Bildungsarbeit." (Helmut de 
Boor)
> 
> >Troels
> >
> >
> >--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
> >> Hails Matþaius,
> >> 
> >> You wrote:
> >> >I suppose this argument will lead back to the original spelling 
of 
> >(h)Eruls,
> >> >as well as lend support for *Ala- over against *Hala-
> >> >
> >> >Keth, the only problem I see here with your theory concerning 
the 
> >h in
> >> >manuscript tradition is that because Latin no longer pronounced 
> >the 'h' in
> >> >the period, following a trend that had been ongoing since the 
2nd 
> >c. AD, its
> >> >scribes could no longer recognize its proper place or proper 
> >usage. It is
> >> >thought that the h was kept in spelling out of tradition rather 
> >than as a
> >> >reflection of colloquial pronunciation, which was thus like 
> >Spanish or
> >> >Italian or French (or any other Romance language) in respect to 
> >the 'h'.
> >> >Since the h was not pronounced in spoken Latin, scribes often 
had 
> >to do
> >> >their best to remember when it should be written, and, in lieu 
of 
> >the many
> >> >errors, probably seldom resorted to ancient texts for 
correction. 
> >H had
> >> >become a vestige, a sort of symbol of antiquity, and therefore 
> >perhaps also
> >> >of learnedness. Whether the h was etymological, eventually, 
through
> >> >ignorance or apathy, came to have diminished importance. The 
> >evidence of
> >> >such treatment is apparent in much of the vulgar latin texts of 
> >the early
> >> >medieval period.
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a 
blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/