Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:11:41.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gothic ai in Inflectional Syllables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Oscar F. Jones
Oscar F. Jones*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

[In support of the theory that the Gothic digraph ai denoted relatively low front monophthongal values when it occurred in inflectional endings, the orthographic and morphological evidence is re-examined in detail. The paper shows that this evidence does not justify narrower quantitative and qualitative interpretations, and considers the possibility of reconciling the conclusions reached here with a plausible system of phonemic segmentation.]

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 32 , Issue 4-Part1: July-September , December 1956 , pp. 633 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © 1956 by the 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 In reduplicating syllables; in accented syllables as the reflex of PGmc. e and i where these are followed by r, h, or h; in a few words such as waila ‘well’ and aiþþau ‘or’ where i would be expected; in loans from Latin and Greek. See W. F. Twaddell, Lg. 24.139–151 (1948).

2 Wilhelm Braune, Gotische Grammatik 10 16–8 (Halle, 1928); W. Wilmanns, Deutsche Grammatik 3 1.243–5, 345, 347 (Strassburg, 1911); Wilhelm Streitberg, Gotisches Elementarbuch 5–6 76 (Heidelberg, 1920) ; A. G. van Hamel, Gotisch Handboek 27–8, 50 (Haarlem, 1923) ; R. C. Boer, Oergermaansch Handboek 2 75–6 (Haarlem, 1924); M. H. Jellinek, Geschichte der gotischen Sprache 42–3 (Berlin, 1926) ; Ernst Kieckers, Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik 7, 25 (Munich, 1928) ; Vittore Pisani, Paideia 4.118–20 (1949); Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen 62, 76 (Munich, 1953).

3 H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe, Ulfilas 2.30–2 (Leipzig, 1846) ; Joseph Wright, Grammar of the Gothic language 362 (Oxford, 1910) ; C. J. S. Marstrander, Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 1.232 (1928); Hermann Hirt, Handbuch des Urgermanischen 1.39–40 (Heidelberg, 1931); Fernand Mossé, Manuel de la langue gotique 41–4 (Paris, 1942); O. L. Sayce in Wright, Gr. Go. lang. 2 367–9 (1954).

4 A monophthong in 4th-century Greek : Edgar H. Sturtevant, The pronunciation of Greek and Latin 2 39 (Philadelphia, 1940).

5 Braune, Got. Gram. 56.

6 Adolf Holtzmann, Germania 2.448 (1857).

7 H. F. Massmann, Die gothischen Urkunden von Neapel und Arezzo 22 (Munich, 1837). The 2d (spelled Uuillient), 3d, and 4th names occur in the Naples document (Latin charters only), the 5th in Marini, Papiri Diplomatici (Rome, 1805).

8 Mansi, Sacrorum concilorum nova et amplissima collectio 11.1076 (Florence, 1765), 12.84–5 Florence, 1766); Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke, Romanische Namenstudien 1.48, 49, 53 (Vienna, 904), lists Sunjemiris, Suniefredus, Viliefredus. M. Schönfeld, Wörterbuch der altgermanichen Personen- und Völkernamen 153, 218 (Heidelberg, 1911) gives Leodejridus, Suniericus, and Sunhivadus (for Sunievadus?).

9 Theodor von Grienberger, PBB 21.196 (1896).

10 For examples of forms discussed in this and the following paragraphs, see Table 1.

11 Hans Krahe, Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Gotischen 133 (Heidelberg, 1948).

12 Eduard Prokosch, A comparative Germanic grammar 138 (Philadelphia, 1939).

13 See §2.4 above.

14 Kieckers, Hdb. d. vergl, got. Gr. 245. Richard Loewe, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft 4 2.97–8 (Leipzig, 1933).

15 Krahe, Laut- u. Forml. d. Got. 136.

16 Collitz, Betträge zur Kunde d. idg. Spr. 17.7 (1891), suggests that the 2d singular imperative was also influenced by the 2d plural forms.

17 Oldest are the 7th-century Runic 3d sg. forms with -e and -i: Jóhannesson, Grammatik der urnordischen Runeninschriften 69, 82, 110 (Heidelberg, 1923). J. Brøndum-Nielsen, Gammeldansk Grammatik i sproghistorisk Fremstilling l.§120 (Copenhagen, 1928) : ‘Urnordisk ai er allerede i de ældeste urnordiske Inskrifter blevet sammentrukket til ē, hvoraf senere i...’ There is, of course, no possibility of using this intermediate step or the OHG ē's mentioned above (§3.2, §3.6, §3.7, and Table 1) as quantitative controls for the Gothic values.

18 Festschrift für Eugen Mogk 451 (Halle, 1924).

19 Lat. ae was a monophthong in the 4th century. Niedermann, Précis de phonétique historique du latin 2 83 (Paris, 1945) ; Sturtevant, Pron. of Gk. and Lat. 2 129.

20 Kieckers, Hdb. d. vergl. got. Gr. 140.

21 H. Collitz, Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 17.3 (1891).

22 Kieckers, Hdb. d. vergl. got. Gr. 95.

23 Material collected for a study of ai in accented syllables leads to the conviction that here again the [ai] hypothesis is based on a mistaken interpretation of Gothic orthographic practices. That Wulfila intended the digraph to designate a uniform set of values is the only plausible assumption. The writer owes his first insight into this possibility, as well as his interest in the entire problem, to Herbert Penzl's stimulating article, JEGP 49.217–230 (1950).

24 N. S. Trubetzkoy attempted to explain [ε] and [ai] as two ‘Intensitätsstufen derselben Vokalphoneme’, Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 1.57 (1929).

25 W. G. Moulton assumed that ai designated three totally unrelated structural units, Lg. 24.76–86(1948).