Re: RV: Old English

Se cyning (Basileus) haþ writen

> On Tiwesdæg, 28 Mar 2000 22:35:27 +0100, yl-ruil <yl-ruil@...>
> gewrat:
>
> <...>
> >The diphthong ea was generally smoothed to a short /a/: eall > all, healf
> >
> >half, heall > hall, whereas éa /æ:a/ becomes (short) e:
> >héafod > head, réad > red.
>
> For some reason, OE had _heofod_ rather than _heafod_ (which would better
> correspond to the forms of other Germanic langs). I am not sure if
> the vowel length in _heofod_ is evidenced by the OE spellings; modern
> spelling reflects Middle English open vowel which points rather to short
> /eo/.
No, Boswerth-Toller, Sweet and Hall all agree on the form "héafod", although
heofod may have occured in some texts. This also agrees with the later
spelling of head and the present vocalism.

> More normal was the development without shortening: _hear_, _ear_,
> _beam_, _stream_, _east_, _beat_, etc.; the shortening in words that
> end in <-ead> happened later, as evidenced by the spelling.
>
> >> It seems to me that /a/ > /a/ (rather than /æ/) before any back vowel,
> >> and therefore was not subject to fracturing by 'back umlaut' (which
> >> happened later, didn't it?).
> >
> >Yes, but the _majority_ of texts have sceadu, which implies a fracture
> >diphthong rather than a simple vowel.
>
> Yes, and this is exactly what I tried to use as the evidence of an early
> palatalization of <sc>. Fracturing of /a/ through back umlaut was chiefly
> possible in dialects with 'second fronting'.
Since sc /sk/ became /sc/ and then /S/ in all cases (don't start on ascian,
that was by metathesis of acsian, as I was told by my tutor), and /s/ is a
front sound, I always found it quite logical that sc became sh because the
/k/ assimilated to /c/ and then /S/ under influence from the /s/. How else
would palatalisation occur in words with a following back vowel, like scofl
(shovel)?

> >Incedentally, fracturing can be pretty
> >reasonably dated: it occured at the same time as the development of the
> >Anglo-Frisian rune-row, since there is a seperate character (ear) for
this
> >diphthong.
>
> Can you explain in more detail? I know too little about runes, and I
> don't know what the term 'Anglo-Frisian rune-row' is usually applied to.
This is the form of the Common Gmc fuþark used in Anglo-Saxon England and
Frisia, the futhorc. Our fullest examples are on the Frank's Casket and the
Thames Scramasax. Try looking here:
www.kami.demon.co.uk/gesithas/runes/index.html , I happen to be a member of
the society.

> And there were several different processes that yielded short and
> long <ea>.
Oh, yes, undeniably. U-mutation was one of the most common though AFAIK.

> >*jungaz is the one which survived, *juwungaz is the earlier form, from
PIE
> >*juwnk´ós, whence *jungaz by haplology.
>
> Therefore, <eo> in _geong_ < /u/ rather than some diphthong. That is,
> /ju/ > /jio/ > /jeo/ <geo> in WS.
>
> >> There are other examples of vowel fracturing after /j/, e. g. _geoc_
> >> 'yoke' ( = Joch, jugum, zygon, etc.).
> >Granted, cf geolu, yellow.
>
> No, <eo> in _geolu_ ( = German _gelb_) appeared due to back umlaut
> (absent in this position in the dialect of London: modern _yellow_,
> not *yollow). And the initial PGerm sound was not /j/.
Me ineptum! ;) Checking this, you are quite right, geolu from PGmc *gelwaz.

> >Dan
>
>
> Basilius
>