[gothic-l] addendum to and

[Dicentis a roellingua@gmail.com [gothic-l]]

This is extremely cool, because it means that we can have a standard
pronunciation for a modern Gothic or possible modern Gothic church
attendances. And instead of more difficult, the pronunciation is more
simple than that ai and au system.

Roel

Op woensdag 18 maart 2015 heeft edmundfairfax at yahoo.ca [gothic-l] <
gothic-l at yahoogroups.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> Dear Basti,
>
> 1) I know of no "OHG-looking language." The writer here has simply
attempted to provide phonetic transcriptions meant to show Gothic
pronunciation. Thus Gothic "waurthun" is explained in terms of OHG
orthography as "uuorthun." 'Ther' is not an OHG word but an attempt to show
how Gothic "thairh" was to be pronounced: the OHG equivalent has a
zero-grade here ('durh, durah, duruh'), while Gothic has an e-grade
('thairh'). Similarly, the OHG equivalent of Gothic "libaida" is 'lebeta.'
"Gah libeda" is likewise an attempt at phonetic transcription: Alcuin was
an Anglo-Saxon monk, and the use of 'g' with the value of [j] is an
Anglo-Saxonism here, cf. OE 'ge' = [je(:)].
> 2) The last two lines mean "they put [i.e. use] a dipthong [i.e. digraph]
for long 'e' and for 'ch' [=kw] a 'q.' Even in Modern English, 'diphthong'
can be used in the sense of 'digraph.' The strict distinction between
letter and sound-value is often passed over outside the modern science of
linguistics.
> 3) "long 'e'" here does not necessarily mean [e:] rather than [ɛ:]. It is
in fact the latter that is usually posited as the value of the vowel
represented by Wulfilian <ai> AND descending from Proto-Germanic /ai/. That
is, the diphthong was reduced to a monothong accompanied by compensatory
lengthening. This Proto-Germanic diphthong was particularly "unstable" and
shifted in all of the Germanic languages: to /a:/ in OE, to /e:/ in OS, to
/ei/ in OHG, and to /ei/ in ON. In the case of OE and OS, monothongization
was similarly accompanied by compensatory lengthening and thus are
similarly long but with a different vocalic quality. Compensatory
lengthening is a "linguistically natural" accompaniment to
monothongization, and examples of it can be found in the histories of other
languages as well.
> 4) The entries from folio 71v of the Paris Manuscript also provide
phonetic transcriptions, this time transcriptions into Gothic orthography
in order to show the pronunciation of Latin names. And here as well, the
digraph <ai> corresponds to a Latin <e> in each case (with <au> for Latin
<o> as well):
> "Laiueis pro Leuis, Mailkeis pro Melcis, Zauraubabelis pro Zorobabelis,
Airmodamis pro Ermodamis, Simaion pro Simeon, Aileiaizeris pro Eliezer,
Paitrus Petrus."
> If <ai> and <au> did in fact represent [ai] and [au], then why would a
scribe have transcribed these Latin names in this way?
> Ultimately there is no real proof to support the notion that Wulfilian
<ai> and <au> meant anything other than [ɛ(:)] and [ɔ(:)].
> Edmund
>
> ---In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, <setiez at ...> wrote :
>
> uuorthun. otan. auar
> waurþun-uþ þan. afar
> euangeliu ther lucan
> aiwaggeljo þairh Lokan
> uuorthun auar thuo
> waurþun afar þo
> ia chuedant ia chuatun.
> jah qeþun
> ubi dicit/. genuit .j. ponitur
> ubi gabriel .g. ponunt & alia his sim.
> ubi aspiratione 〈dicunt h〉. ut dicitur
> gah libeda. jah libaida
> diptongon .ai. p(ro) e. longa
> p(ro) ch .q. ponunt.
> Source: http://www.gotica.de/vindobonensis.html
> Out of this longer quote, isn't "gah libeda" some OHG-looking language
that Alcuin compares the Gothic to? Doesn't this mean Gothic uses
"diptongon .ai." where that other language uses long e? And why would
"diptongon" mean digraph rather than diphthong? Couldn't a pronunciation
/aɪ/ > /ɛ/ directly in unstressed positions, without passing /eː/?
> /Basti
>
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20150319/30583d43/attachment.htm>