Thl- vs. Fl-

Sat Apr 8 23:19:11 UTC 2006

D'Alquen on the Gothic letter f: "One's suspicion is roused in this 
case.  A runic letter ousting a Greek runs counter to expectation.  
Latin F has been suggested as the model (e.g. Luft 1898, 61ff.) or 
runic under Latin influence (Mensel 1903, 463).  The reason for the 
change must have been confusion with Go. þ [i.e. the phi-like sign 
used in the Codex Argenteus] and could have been introduced by 
Wulfila himself." (D'Alquen 1974, p. 47, para. 2.4.31).

This view is criticised by Marchand on the grounds that the phi-like 
Codex Argenteus form of Go. þ may (or as he puts it "must") be 
itself an innovation on the original Gothic letter.  Other forms 
that occur include a letter rather like the phi-like one, but with 
the left handle joined to the stem at both ends and the right handle 
just a stump; a symbol like an ampersand; and Marchand's preferred 
original, a kind of backwards c which slopes slightly to the right 
with a little loop in the top.  This is the form used by Wiljariþ; 
it also appears in the Vienna-Salzburg Codex.  He would derive it 
from a Greek form of theta current in the 4th century.  The Go. f 
might still have been changed by post-Wulfilan scribes to avoid 
confusion with their þ. (Marchand 1973, p. 35, para. 2.32.f; p. 20, 
para. 1.14).

The difference of Go. f from Greek phi has, according to Marchand, 
been used to argue that Go. f was labio-dental, in contrast to the 
Greek bilabial phi; but more often the explanation given is the 
desire to differentiate graphic forms.  Marchand offers no 
preferrence on the bilabial / labio-dental question, but d'Alquen 
points to the name Dagalaiphus, as transcribed in Latin, as possibly 
indicating a bilabial pronunciation, since Lat. ph was used to 
transcribe bilabial Gk. phi.

Gmc. initial /fl/ appears in Biblical Gothic in some words as þl, in 
others as fl (see Nordmeyer 1935 for etymologies).  Four roots are 
attested for each spelling: flahtons (1Tim 2,9), flautjan (1Cor 
13,4), flauts (Gal 5,26), flodus (L 6,49), flokan (L 8,42).  As 
against: þlahsjan (2Cor 10,9), gaþlahsnan (L 1,29), gaþlaihan (Mk 
10,16; 2Cor 2,7; 2Cor 5,20; 2Cor 7,6; Thess 2,11; 1Tim 5,1; 1Tim 
5,8; 1Tim 6,2; 2Tim 3,2; Tit 1,9); þlaqus (Mk 13,28); þlauhs (Mk 
13,18; þliuhan (Mk 10,23; L 3,7; J 10,5; 1Tim 6,11; 2Tim 2,22); 
afþliuhan (J 10,13); gaþliuhan (Mt 8,33; Mk 5,14; Mk 14,50; Mk 
14,52; Mk 16,8; L 8,34); unþaþliuhan (2Cor 11,33; Thess 5,3).  No 
root is attested in the Bible with both versions, but this may be 
coincidence: compare the Rugian king's name Flaccitheus, as recorded 
in the Life of Saint Severinus (d. 482) by Eugippius (d. after 533), 
with Go. þlaqus `soft, ripe'.

It's been proposed that the assimilative change fl > þl was 
conditioned by certain following velar consonants (Krause & Slocum 
2006), h, and in one instance q, though not k.  Even if that's so, 
the rule isn't consistently applied: flahtom `plaits', dat.pl.  The 
inconsistency over velars, even in this small sample, makes such a 
rule look very arbitrary; nevertheless it could represent a sound 
change in progress, or an imperfectly completed sound change 
according to the theory of lexical diffusion (Salmonds & Iverson 
1993--which I haven't read unfortunately, just seen cited).  Another 
idea is that the fl spellings represent a different dialect to that 
of the translator(s), and that they were introduced into the text by 
later scribes (Nordmeyer 1935).  Nordmeyer notes that the fl forms 
are confined to Luke and the Epistles, precisely the areas where we 
find most evidence of non-original features, such as confusion of 
ei : e.  But then Nordmeyer's comment that POTAMOS is normally 
translated ahva and that flodus needed a gloss could also tie in the 
observation that certain types of sound change begin with familiar 
words and are slower to affect rarer words [ 
http://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/Lexical%20Diffusion.htm ], and thus 
needn't necessarily imply a dialectal difference.

Given d'Alquen's Ostrogothic recension theory (see my recent post 
summarising this), we can't be sure that the þl spellings are 
Wulfilan while the fl spellings are an Ostrogothic innovation.  It 
could be that þl was an innovation that began in Ostrogothic but 
didn't reach all vocabulary items; or began in Ostrogothic, was 
never completed, and was then eroded partly or entirely by analogy 
with the remaining fl-forms.  If the þl-forms are from the original 
translation, this would undermine the theory of an Ostrogothic 
rewrite.  Does anyone know of any other sources of evidence?  Any 
relevant East Germanic names recorded in Latin or Greek, besides 
Flaccitheus?

PS. The same confusion as in Gapt for *Gauts may be seen in the 
spelling Thraustila for Thrafstila.

Bibliography

d'Alquen, Richard JE (1974) Gothic AI and AU, Mouton, The Hague.
Marchand, James W (1973) The Sounds and Phonemes of Wulfila's 
Gothic, Mouton, The Hague.
Nordmeyer, George (1935) `Gothic initial þl-', Language, Vol. 11, 
No. 3. (Sep., 1935), pp. 216-219 [ http://links.jstor.org/sici?
sici=0097-8507%28193509%2911%3A3%3C216%3AGIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T ].
Salmonds & Iverson (1993) 'Gothic fl-, þl- variation as lexical 
diffusion', Diachronia 10, 87-96.

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans at ...> wrote:
>
> Koebler's Gothic Dictionary can be seen here
> 
> http://www.koeblergerhard.de/gotwbhin.html
> 
> 
> He supports the PIE *pel- etymology. I think it was Voyles who may
> have suggested PIE *tel- > Go. thliuhan. I believe he does not 
place
> much weight on PIE in determining PGmc. forms.
> 
> 
> - In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Guenther Ramm <ualarauans@> wrote:
> >
> > Hails!
> >   I donï¿½t insist on the scribal error hypothesis, but the 
graphical
> likeness of the Gothic letter for [th] and the Greek letter for [f]
> could speak in its favor. We know that some earlier manuscripts 
have
> the S-letter close to the Greek one while the later manuscripts use
> the Latin S. Could there be a similar situation with the F? I mean
> some early variants of Gothic alphabet could have a Greek-like F 
and
> later when these were being rewritten by Ostrogothic scribes in 
Italy
> all the confusions were made. That this hypothetical proto-F would
> look almost like TH is no objection ï¿½ compare the letters for U 
and P.
> Due to such a confusion of U and P by Jordanes we have Gapt 
instead of
> *Gaut in Getica 79.
> >   Then the question is why this confusion affected only initial 
fl- ?
> >    
> >   Ualarauans
> > 
> > 
> > John Stewart <john.stewart@> wrote:  Hails Thiudans!
> > 
> > I haven't read Koebler, but this *THl- cluster has always seemed
> awkward to 
> > me. Does he suggest that it could be a scribal error? Where maybe
> Wulfila 
> > wrote the Gothic and when it was copied, someone misread it as 
<ï¿½>
> (TH-)?
> > (John S.)
> > 
> > > on. Still I must not forget to remind us of the fact that, 
whatever
> > > its true etymology, Wulfila wrote the word for fly, flight, 
capable of
> > > flight, etc. with a thl- initial cluster, therefore in the 
poem, if we
> > > take the insect as related to the root, perhaps it should be
> > > *THl(i)ugo (< Gmc. *fl[e]ugon or *thl- "Fly or Moth"; or, Go. 
*THlugi
> > > < ? *flugjan "flying insect" [Orel])? It is unfortunate we 
cannot know
> > > precisely how this variation occured. Orel corrects to fl-, 
Koebler
> > > seems to suggest both possibilities (except for THlahsjan ?).

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/