medial b

[llama_nom]

> > Would you say similar rules could go for d as well?
> > Like d in hunds doesnt become th (like hunths), becoz of it 
follows 
> a 
> > consonant. Initally is is [d] and intervocalic like [D].
> > If b is [p] in albs, (becoz of ending in s?) then d in hunds 
should 
> > be [t]?
> > And what about g? Is it [g] initially, [G] intervocalic and [k] 
in 
> > endings before s?

Exactly the same rule for b, d, g.  They become respectively f, þ, g 
at the end of a word or before final s, except when they follow 
another consonant, in which case they stay b, d, g.  Occasionally b, 
d, g also appear finally or before s after a vowel.  These irregular 
spellings are found especially in certain parts of the bible.  They 
are usually considered to be just spelling variants, although a few 
scholars have tried to find a pattern to it.  But there aren't any 
examples of the reverse confusion, e.g. *hunþs for hunds, etc.  
Which strongly suggests that there was a real difference in 
pronunciation between b, d, g after consonants and after vowels.

Here's what I do at the moment: dags [daxs], alhs [alhs], gadiliggs 
["gaDiliNks], gard [gard], gards [garts], gadofs/gadobs ["ga%
do:p\s], giba [giBa], lamb [lamb], agliþa ["aM\liTa], ubuhwopida [%
ubuh"wo:pida], etc.  Like I say, there are other ways to interpret 
the evidence...  I'm not sure whether to stress the prefix ga- in 
nouns and adjectives, but I am doing for the moment.  It was 
originally, as shown by OE geatwe, but later the stress shifted to 
the root in all the better known Germanic languages.

> Would you pronounce these words smth like this?:
> 
> dags [daxs]
> dag [dax]
> daga [daGa] or [daM\a]
> giba [gIBa]
> bairgs [bErks]

Yes, pretty much, including the uncertainly over 'daga'!  One thing 
in favour of a less forceful pronunciation, [M\] or at least tending 
that way, is the fact that "breaking" of /i/ to [E] didn't happen 
before /g/.  Another clue is are spellings in the Vienna-Salzburg 
codex such as 'haal' *hagl, 'laaz' *lagus, 'daaz' *dags.  I try to 
say [giBa], but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of [gIBa].  
If 'i' and 'ei' represent long and short variants of the same vowel, 
it's strange that this should be the only vowel for which length is 
marked in the writing system; why not 'ou' for [u:].  Still, it's 
quite possible that such quirks could exists.  One idea I've changed 
since we last discussed this, is to pronounce /h/ as [h] in all 
positions, rather than as [x] finally and before consonants.  That's 
because (1) it's never confused with final /g/.  (2) the 
forms 'magt' and 'maht' are never mixed up.  (3) /h/ is often 
assimilated to a following consonant, sometimes elided, suggesting a 
less forceful pronunciation.

> I have been thinking of a word for elk or moose.
> If the pgmc word was *algiz then gothic would be algs [alks] right?

I think so.  I don't know of any evidence about tones in Gothic.  
I'd be interested to hear of any books or papers or ideas about the 
origin of the tonal system in the Scandinavian languages, and 
whether other early Germanic languages might have has something 
similar, or if it was an innovation in North Germanic.  Is there a 
German dialect that has phonemic tones too?  Do they have any 
resemblence to the Scandinavian system, or did they evolve 
independently?





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/wWMplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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