Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Monday, January 24, 2005, 19:12
Quoting Tristan McLeay <conlang@...>:

> On 24 Jan 2005, at 9.07 pm, Andreas Johansson wrote: > > > 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. > > IIUC, <u> was the original lowercase form, but <V> was its uppercase...
[snip]
> So in talking of caps, I'd say <V> was the oldest (out of any form, > obviously), but with lowercase letters I'd say <u> is the older (out of > it and <v>), unless someone explains why I'm wrong.
Unfortunately, I simply do not know what letter-shapes were first used when the upper-lower case distinction was introduced. It would not surprise me if _both_ u-like and v-like graphs were used interchangeably.
> > 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/. > > Using <h> to mark digraphs goes back that far? I thought it was just a > generalisation of <ch> and <th> and <ph> to represent what to the > Latins was I think /kh/, /th/ and /ph/ (though to the Ancient Greeks > /k_h/ etc.).
It appears so. The earliest known Latin inscription* says; Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi "Manios made me for Numasios" where _fhefhaked_ apparently is an augmented preterite of _facere_, that did not survive into Classical Latin. I would not think this means you're wrong regarding *our* use of 'h' in digraphs decending from Classical renditions of Greek aspirates. Probably, the inscriber thought [f] was a sound between [w] and [h] (those being the values of F and H in Western Greek). * cf http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/arclat.html Andreas