Re: Y not? (was: Of Haa/hhet & other matters)

Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

 > On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:37:29PM +0100, Andreas Johansson wrote:
 > > How am I being inconsistent? By the original use of |y|, I mean the
 > > use |y| had when it was introduced in the Latin alphabet. By the
 > > original use of |v|, I mean the use |v| had when it was introduced as
 > > a separate letter in the Latin alphabet (16th C, IIRC).
 >
 > But |v|, with value [w], was the original letter of the Latin alphabet.
 > The letter |U| was was the later variant.

 Unless I'm misinformed, it was |u| that kept the name of the original letter,
 suggesting that |v| was felt to be the new one. I gather that both V-like and
 U-like allographs are found in ancient texts, with the former more common in
 inscriptions, the later in papyri.

 (Incidentally, the Germans refer to |v| as /fau/. Does this have anything to do
 with Semitic waw?)

 Incidentally, I seem to recall that the oldest Latin used |FH| or /f/. Did they
 use F/digamma on it's own for anything? Using it for /w/ would have seemed the
 obvious solution, but if that were done there would have been no reason to have
 |V| do double duty for /u/ (and /u:/) and /w/.

                                     Andreas

Reply