Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T09:06:17.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Velar Nasal in the Adaptation of the Runic Alphabet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Frederick W. Schwink
Frederick W. Schwink
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDepartment of Germanic Languages and Literatures3072 Foreign Languages Building707 S. Mathews AvenueUrbana, IL 61801–3675 [schwink@uiuc.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper evidence for the phonological status of the velar nasal in Older Germanic is reviewed with particular reference to the innovation in the runes of a character for the sound. It is demonstrated that none of this evidence presents an unambiguous solution to whether the velar nasal is phonemic or phonetic. However, by taking the mapping processes that occurred during the invention of the runes as one of “prototypically significant sound” to character, a sufficient reason for the innovation of this rune is proposed.*

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Fall 2000 , pp. 235 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2000

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

REFERENCES

Alexander, Gerhard. 1975. Die Herkunft der Ing-Rune. Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altertum und Deutsche Literatur 104.1–11.Google Scholar
Andersen, Harry. 1984. Three controversial runes in the older Futhark (1). NOWELE 4.97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Harry. 1985. Three controversial runes in the older Futhark (2). NOWELE 5.3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M., and Lass, Roger. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 1986. Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbalsystems. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. (ed.). 1991. Old English runes and their continental background. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Bennett, William H. 1980. An introduction to the Gothic language. New York: Modern Language Association. [Repr. 1999 with extensive corrections.]Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, and Ebbinghaus, Ernst. 1981. Gotische Grammatik. 19th edn.Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bugge, Sophus. 1905–1913. Norges indskrifter med de ældre runer. Indledning: Runeskriftens oprindelse og ældste historie. Christiania: A. W. Brøgger.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1989. The writing systems of the world. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Derolez, René. 1954. Runica manuscripta: The English tradition. Brugge: De Tempel.Google Scholar
Derolez, René. 1991. Runica manuscripta Revisited. In Bammesberger (ed.), 85–106.Google Scholar
Durante, Elio. 1974. Grammatica gotica. Firenze: G. C. Sansoni.Google Scholar
Düwel, Klaus. 1983. Runenkunde. 2nd edn.Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grønvik, Ottar. 1985. Über den Lautwert der Ing-Rune und die Auslassung von Vokal in den älteren Runeninschriften. Indogermanische Forschungen 90.168–195.Google Scholar
Herbert, Robert K. 1986. Language universals, markedness theory, and natural phonetic processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, Robert. 1991. Old English breaking and its Germanic analogues. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jellinek, Max Hermann. 1926. Geschichte der gotischen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kieckers, Ernst. 1928. Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik. Munich: M. Hueber.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 640–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, Heinz. 1973. Runenschrift, Schriftdenken, Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd edn.Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang, and Jankuhn, Herbert. 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhar.(Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. 3. Folge, 65.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic etymological dictionary. Leiden: E. J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1987. Chuck Young in memoriam. Theoretical Linguistics 32.175–183.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. The last phonological rule, ed. by Goldsmith, John, 61–116. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Morris, Richard L. 1988. Runic and Mediterranean epigraphy. NOWELE Supplement Vol. 4. Odense: Odense University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. 1956. Manuel de la langue gothique. 2nd edn. (Bibliotheque de philologie germanique, 2.) Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1972. The Proto-Germanic non-syllabics (consonants). Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic, ed. by van Coetsem, Frans and Kufner, Herbert L., 141–173. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Odenstedt, Bengt. 1990. On the origin and early history of the runic script: Typology and graphic variation in the older futhark. (Acta academiae Gustavi Adolphi, 59.) Uppsala: Gustav Adolfs akademien; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell (Distributor).Google Scholar
Polomé, Edgar C. 1991. The names of the runes. In Bammesberger (ed.), 421–438.Google Scholar
Schwink, Frederick W. 1991. The writing of Ancient Greek consonant clusters. Kadmos 30.113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwink, Frederick W. 1994. On the lexicalization of Classical Armenian vowel epenthesis. Linguistic studies in the non-Slavic languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic republics, ed. by Aronson, Howard, 287–298. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Schwink, Frederick W. 1999a. The efficacy of Linear B as a writing system. Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Volume II, ed. by Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid, Hiller, Stefan, and Panagl, Oswald, 549–554. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Schwink, Frederick W. 1999b. On reconstructing phonological rules. Language change and typological variation: In honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the occasion of his 83rd birthday. Volume I: Language change and phonology, ed. by Justus, Carol F. and Polomé, Edgar C., 260–274. (Journal of Indo-European Studies monograph, 30.) Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Schwink, Frederick W.forthcoming. On the learnability of Linear B. A-na-qo-ta.. Festschrift for John Killen, ed. by Bennet, John and Driessen, Jan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seebold, Elmar. 1991. Die Stellung der englischen Runen im Rahmen der Überlieferung des älteren Futhark. In Bammesberger (ed.), 439–569.Google Scholar
Steblin-Kamenskij, M. I. 1962. Noen fonologiske betraktninger over de eldre runer. Arkiv för nordisk filologi (series 5, vol. 21 =)77.1–6.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization. 2nd edn.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Kai-Erik. 1981. Skrifttegn og symboler. Noen studier over tegnformer i det eldre runealfabet. (Osloer Beiträge zur Germanistik, 6.) Oslo: Germanistisches Institut der Universität Oslo.Google Scholar
Williams, Henrik. 1994. The non-representation of nasals before obstruents: Spelling convention or phonetic analysis. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, ed. by Knirk, James, 217–222. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
Williams, Henrik. 1997. The Romans and the runes—uses of writing in Germania. Runor och ABC, ed. by Nyström, Staffan, 177–192. Stockholm: Sällskapet Runica et Mediævalia.Google Scholar