|
Germanic Lexicon Project
Message Board
|
|
|
Author: Peter Tunstall
Email: penteract at oe dot eclipse dot co dot uk
Date: 2005-03-05 09:18:02
Subject: Re: Please critique my pronunciation of Gothic
Appologies for the garbling of that last message. I've replaced all the pointy brackets--hopefully this will make more sense:
Hi Sean,
Well I’m not qualified to say what’s right or wrong (if anyone is...), but by way of reply, here’s how I’m pronouncing Gothic these days:
http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/markusb,a-q.mp3
Regarding _ai_, the evidence from Gothic names in Latin suggests that in stressed syllables the diphthong survived into the 6th century at least (Braune/Helm para. 21; examples from Koebler: Aurgais (3rd), Dagalaiphus (4th, 6th), Emila (610), Gaina, Gaisericus, Gisaleicus; De Conviviis Barbaris, Africa, c. 390: eils). There are two runic inscriptions of possible relevance, the Pietrioassa ring had HAILAG, implying a diphthong in the 4th c., and the late 6th c. Charnay fibula has UÞFNÞAI, interpreted as unþfinþai, 3rd person pres. subj -- so maybe the diphthong survived even in an unstressed position, then again Proto Norse runic inscriptions use _ai_ in unstressed positions interchangeably with _e_. The Vienna-Salzburg Codex states that _ai_ was a long 'e' in _libaida_ "lived" (9th or 10th century?), and in the letter name ‘Reda’ = *raida. The Vandal prayer often quoted as “froja armen” (=Gothic “frauja armais”) may also suggest a monophthong in Weak 3 verbs, but the manuscripts contain many garbled variants, so that last example isn’t very reliable.
For now I compromise by making the stem vowel of Weak 3 verbs a monophthong [E:], as per Vienna Salzburg and Vandal Prayer, but stressed _ai_ a diphthong -- [aI] or [æI] or [æe] or something like that I think, but I’m not altogether consistent -- except in saian/saijan [sE:jan], etc. For other instances of unstressed _ai_ I aim for a diphthong in "careful" speech, but tending to [E:] if said fast. At least that's the idea.
See also Braune/Helm 20.5, which suggests the possibility that even ‘jains’, ‘waila’ and ‘baitrs’ had diphthongs, if (1) ‘jains’ is related to ‘ains’; and (2) ‘waila’ to ‘wai’; and (3) ‘baitrs’ by ablaut to ‘beitan’. I can believe 1 & 3, but not so sure about 2, so I still say [wEla].
_au_ is trickier, since Latin _au_ I gather had the same pronunciation as long _o_, except in educated speech, so plenty of room for confusion and hypercorrection in the transmission of foreign names there. Is there any indication that the spelling of the name Austrogoti changed over time to Ostrogoti? I’ve read something to that effect, but how reliable is it? Braune/Helm: "Bei lateinischen Schriftstellern wird got. au durch au wiedergegeben, z.B. Ausila, Austrovaldus, Audericus." But against these we could set Odoacer, etc. As far as I know the Gothic combination _auj_ is always _oi_ in Latin, see for example Koebler's appendix on Gothic names under Froi-/Froj-. Greek Naoum _ Naum. But Lat. cautio _ kawtsjo. Is the _w_ an affectation, just spelling a foreign word in a foreign way? I don't know. Note also ‘usskawjaindau’ and ‘usskawjiþ’, instead of –skauj-, I think related to the adjective ‘unskawai’, though amendations have been proposed.
Some examples from Koebler:
(AU) Audebertus (683), Audeca (6th c.), Audemundus (683), Audoinus (641), Augis (6th), Aurbald, Aurgais (3rd), Aurocus, Ausegunde, Austrogoti
(O) Oswin (6th) = *Ausawins?, Vidigoia (5th), Froila (6th), and the Arian prayer "Froia armen!" from Africa.
(I) Idoagrus, Idoacrus, Idoacar (5), Irogildus?
Maybe when the Nomen et Gens project is complete we'll be better able to answer questions like these:
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB1/GESCHICHTE/neg.html
Among the letter names in the Vienna-Sazburg Codex are NOICZ for 'nauþs' and REDA for *raida. So maybe the monophthingisation didn't work in parallel with these two sounds, as is sometimes assumed. RI Page in An Introduction to English Runes cast doubt on whether these letter names even are Gothic, but I can't really see what else they'd be. For now I'm using a diphthong for _au_ in all positions as Wright advises in his chapter on pronunciation, and ignoring his monophthong suggestion at the back of the book. But I'd be interested in any evidence you know about this.
Back to the original question though, here are a few things I think we did differently:
Your _e_ and _ai_ both sounded to me like [eI], particularly if strongly emphasised. I couldn't tell if you made a distinction, but these letters never get muddled up by the scribes. I tried to make my _e_ a very high monophthong between [e:] and [i:], as these one-time phonemes apparently were similar enough to be confused, maybe indistinguishable in the pronunciation of some scribes.
_f_ & intervocalic _b_. It's hard to tell from listening, as labiodental and bilabial are quite similar, but the books recommend a bilabial pronunciation (I think on the basis that Latin writers very occasionally used _p_ besides _f_ and _ph_ to represent Gothic /f/; examples from Koebler: Frawitta (4), Froila (500s), Fugila (650), Fafila (700), Froiliuba (737), Pantardus (589), Parja (500s)), like Spanish intervocalic _b_ and _v_, on the one hand, and Japanese _f_ on the other. In the case of _f_ this plays havock with the microphone if I get too close! Were yours labiodental, or was that just my ears?
You were inconsistent in the stressing of some nouns: usLIÞan v. USliþin, fraWAURHTeins twice. I don´t know if there´s any strong evidence one way or the other, but I tried to follow Wright´s instruction on stressing all non-verbs on the first syllable, even in the case of GAlaubeins. Probably best to stick to one method, but I don’t think anyone’s all that dogmatic about whether ga- was stressed still in nouns, etc.
Peter