Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:35:24.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Monophthongization of Gothic ái áu

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

William H. Bennett
William H. Bennett*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The long-established hypothesis that Gothic ái áu still represented the diphthongs [ai au] in the time of Wulfila is expressed in the writings of such scholars as Jellinek, Streitberg, Braune, and Kieckers. In recent years, however, an increasing number of linguists, including Hirt, Marstrander, Wright, and Mossé, have reached the conclusion that Wulfila's ái áu were no longer diphthongs but had become monophthongized to long open [ε: ɔ:] respectively. Still others, e.g. Wrede and Prokosch, agree only that such a monophthongization took place. Wrede assigns it to the post-Wulfilian period, and Prokosch qualifies his acceptance of the theory: ‘I believe that Hirt is right, but the question is largely one of chronology. Shortly before Wulfila's time, Gmc. ai au were still diphthongs in Gothic ... . Shortly after Wulfila, they were monophthongs’.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 25 , Issue 1: January-March , March 1949 , pp. 15 - 21
Copyright
© 1949 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 For comments on specific items in this article I am indebted to Professors George S. Lane, Hans Kurath, Franklin Edgerton, E. H. Sturtevant, Bernard Bloch, and Martin Joos. The interpretations placed upon the evidence, however, are solely my responsibility.

2 For the present purpose it is convenient to retain Grimm's diacritics: aí aú for short open [e o] and ái áu for the Gothic correspondents of PGmc. [ai au]. Long open ai au [ε: ɔ:], when distinguished from ái áu as reflexes of PGmc. stressed prevocalic ǣj ōw, are unmarked.

3 ZfdA 41.369 f.; Gesch. d. got. Spr. §§61 f., §§85 ff.

4 Got. Elementarbuch5, 6 §§68 ff. (1920).

5 Got. Gr.10 §§22 ff. (1928).

6 Hdb. d. vergl. got. Gr. 7 f., 19, 222 f.

7 Btr. 18.274 f.

8 Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 1.232.

9 Gr. Go. lang. 362.

10 Manuel de la langue gotique §§25 ff. (Paris, 1942).

11 Stamm-Heyne's Ulfilas13, 14 §§21 ff. (1920).

12 Comp. Gmc. Gr. §40a.

13 Op.cit. §26.

14 Cf. W. G. Moulton, The phonemes of Gothic, Lg. 24.85 (1948).

15 Op.cit. §71 Anm. 1.

16 Streitberg (§74 Anm.) invokes the same argument with regard to au: ‘Die Intonation widerlegt die Annahme mancher Forscher, dass ausserhalb der Haupttonsilbe schon zu Wulfilas Zeit Monophthongierung zu eingetreten sei.‘ Allowing for monophthongization in unstressed syllables would, of course, dispose of such forms as habáis and sunáu. Cf. also §75.

17 Op.cit. §22 Anm. 1. Cf. also §22a, §§25 ff.

18 And similarly for áu, §26 Anm. 1. Wrede does not subscribe to Streitberg's application of Sievers' intonation theory: ‘Im übrigen steht Streitbergs zweite Auflage [Die gotische Bibel] ganz unter dem Einfluss von Sievers’ Behauptungen über Intonation und Wortmelodie. Ich stehe diesem neuen “Hilfsmittel philologischer Kritik” vorläufig immer noch hilflos gegenüber' (xi). Moulton, op.cit. 78 fn. 10, remarks, 'Since his [Sievers'] whole theory of intonation is a body of information which he alone controlled, and which is not successfully communicable to others, it must be placed outside the realm of science.'

19 Cf. Jellinek, ZfdA 36.266 f., 41.369 ff.; van Helten, ibid. 37.121 ff., IF 14.69.

20 Etymolog. Wtb. d. got. Spr.2 228 and ref. (1923).

21 Prokosch, op.cit. §49d.

22 See note 19.

23 Paul, Btr. 1.158; Braune, ibid. 12.218.

24 Wright, op.cit. §29.

25 skadus ‘shade, shadow’ beside ufarskadwjan ‘overshadow’ constitutes only an apparent exception. skadus had been a wa-stem in PGmc. (*skaÐwaz) but was converted into an u-stem in Gothic (J. Schmidt, KZ 26.372).

26 The sole exception is lasiws ‘weak’ (2 Cor. 10.10), superl. lasiwosts. Like skadus (cf. note 25), lasiws may be a new formation, but its original stem-class remains obscure. See Th. v. Grienberger, Untersuchungen z. got. Wortkunde 145 (Vienna, 1900); C. C. Uhlenbeck, Btr. 30.298.