Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:16:16.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gothic ai and au Again

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Eric P. Hamp
Eric P. Hamp*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of the present brief note is twofold: to correct in certain respects the analysis outlined in my recent note in MLN 71.265–9 (1956), while taking account of the relative spate, of late, of published views on this subject; and to carry the analysis a bit farther.

1. Sehrt, in Festgabe für Theodor Frings 1-11 (1956), has recently argued the old interpretation, which may be summarized as follows (3): 'Dass also die Zeichen ai, au zwei Lautwerte haben, wird wohl kaum zu bestreiten sein.' I see nothing especially fresh in his arguments for a dual interpretation. His reasoning is based entirely on etymological or morphophonemic considerations or on explicit inattention to dialect provenience. Penzl long ago disposed of such arguments, in JEGP 49.228-30 (1950). The main problem outstanding for Sehrt seems to be the decision between a diphthongal or monophthongal, long or short interpretation of supposed older long diphthongs. Again, Sehrt's arguments are all etymological and morphophonemic. Moreover, his solution is a variation on an old theme; for a handy reference to earlier notions on a 'Hiatusgesetz', see Penzl 227 fn. 41.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 34 , Issue 3-Part1: July-September , September 1958 , pp. 359 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © 1958 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 It is convenient at this time to deplore my confusing use, in Part II of that note, of ‘East’ and ‘West’. I should of course have used something like ‘East Visigothic’ and ‘West Visigothic’ to contrast Wulfila (and his scribes) with Iberia.

2 So, too, apparently, W. H. Bennett, Lg. 25.17 (1949). J. Ružička, Recueil linguistique de Bratislava 1.151 ff. (1948), in arguing that a neutralization of the quantity correlation took place before a syllable with vowel initial, seems to subscribe to a similar view; but I have not been able to see Ružička's article at first hand.

3 Starting from inflectional morphology, O. F. Jones, Lg. 32.633–40 (1956) and 34.33–9 (1958), has reached similar conclusions for ai and au on the basis of very thorough and thoughtful screening of the evidence. Additional to the points made in my recent note are the two arguments contained in §2.3 and §2.4 of Jones's first article. See now also Jones's equally careful examination of Gothic iu (above in this number of Language).

4 I follow Gleason, An introduction to descriptive linguistics 302, in using pointed brackets to enclose graphic notation; but where there can be no question, I use the customary italics.

5 As a phonemic symbol for the vowel, ü is provisionally used as having no more merit than being distinctive.

6 Reinterpreted in these terms, Moulton's solution (Lg. 24.82–5) of /i/ (unlike /u/) as having two major allophones, [i] and [i̯], is enhanced and gains in phonetic plausibility. Penzl's ‘identical environments’ (JEGP 49.225) for i and j are of course not so in Moulton's terms, since iu for Moulton is /iw/.