Umlaut in Crimean Gothic

[Steve Gustafson]

David L. White wrote:

>         I suppose it should be noted, though it does not matter a great
> deal, that finding /i/-umlaut in Gothic (I have not been paying rapt
> attention, but I believe that was what was meant) is not terribly
> surprising.  At the time that Gothic is attested, none of the Germanic
> languages had /i/-umlaut (save possibly of /e/ to /i/?).  Its absence in
> Gothic is thus to be taken largely as an archaism, a matter of time, not
> space.

As Ed Selleslagh and Oliver Neukum pointed out, the spellings that looked
like they showed evidence of i-umlaut may have in fact been artifacts of a
Dutch spelling system that adds an 'e' to indicate a long vowel, so that the
'oe' of Busbecq's writing may have in fact represented /o:/ rather than /0/
or /oe/.

Another of Busbecq's spellings that took me aback was "schuuester."  What
would have been the value of 'sch' here?  Palatisation of the /s/ in
'swistar' to /sh/ seems unlikely in this environment, as does its conversion
to /sk/.   Might this be a German contamination?

--
What the world needs is another great war to kill off a generation of
overachievers.

Ceterum censeo sedem Romanam esse delendam.