Re: Gothic Vowels

> What basis is there *really* for supposing the
> ai ái aí and au áu aú distinction apart from
> etymology?  AFAIK there is no internal evidence
> for any actually diphthongal ái or áu in 4th-6th
> century Gothic, like occasional misspellings
> with <aj> or <aw>.  As for length it is of course
> not at all expressed in Gothic orthography, but
> must be inferred from etymology.
Honestly, I don't know! What I posted is what is presented in
Wright's grammar. I do remember reading somewhere, though I no
longer remember where, that at least some (if not most or all)
scholars today believe that the diphthongs /aj/ and /au/ had
become monophthongised to [e] and [o] (I don't know whether open
or closed) by Wulfila's time, whence the spelling of /E/ as
_ai_, copied from Greek, like _ei_ for /i:/. As far as I know --
and I'm just an amateur "gothophile", not a Gothic scholar --
the justification for supposing three different values for _ai_
and _au_ is solely etymological.

Reply