|
Germanic Lexicon Project
Message Board
|
|
|
Author: Sean Crist (Swarthmore College)
Email: kurisuto at unagi dot cis dot upenn dot edu
Date: 2005-03-06 13:53:05
Subject: Re: Unsure
> Sean, on page 2 of bt_b0297.pdf there is the definition for
> word "folc-gemót" and then there is the last word of
> the previous definition "fôlk-orrusta". Both have an
> accented o where the accents look similar. The one in the last word of
> the previous o definitely looks like ô to me, but the other one looks
> so similar that I'm having doubts about whether this is an ó
> or ô. If it's an ô instead of &oaccent; I need to go back
> and make many corrections.
There's some variation within the typeface: the slant and shape of the acute accent isn't entirely consistent. Someone previously wondered if we should interpret most of the acutes as macrons (long signs), which is how some texts do denote the Old English long vowels; but the perfectly flat macron which occurs in Latin words in B/T is clearly not the same diacritic as the acutes.
In the two words that you mention, I see that the diacritic is a little thicker on the right side, but my own judgment would be to call it an acute in both cases. In the Old Icelandic word, fólk-orrusta, I agree that there's a bit more ambiguity in the shape. However, it looks like B/T consistently use an acute to write the long vowels in Old Icelandic, so given that context, I'd call it an acute.
--Sean
| Messages in this thread | Name | College/University | Date |
| Unsure |
Gene Brunner |
Penn State (retired) |
2005-03-05 03:42:56 |
| Re: Unsure |
Sean Crist |
Swarthmore College |
2005-03-06 13:53:05 |