Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T06:10:31.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gothic iu

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]

Extract

Jacob Grimm believed that Gothic ei designated a diphthong. He based his opinion on the presence of two characters in the orthographic symbol, the alternations between ei and ij, and parallelisms in the use of ei, ai, au, and iu. Many modern scholars have resorted to reasoning of this sort in their efforts to justify diphthongal references for ai, au, iu, though it is now generally agreed that ei designated a monophthong. The supporting evidence is almost entirely orthographic. It may be assumed that Gothic ei is a direct transliteration of Greek ei (a monophthong in the 4th century A.D.), since (1) ei is used to transcribe ei in foreign names, e.g. Peilatus (Peilâtos), Samareites (Samareítēs), and (2) the need for an orthographic distinction between ei and i would be suggested by the Greek use of ei and i. No present-day student of Gothic phonology would think of claiming that ei was a phonetic spelling or of citing the alternation ei : ij as proof that ei was a diphthong.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 34 , Issue 3-Part1: July-September , September 1958 , pp. 353 - 358
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 Deutsche Grammatik 1.3.61–8 (Göttingen, 1840).

2 Neither the ei : ij alternation nor the comparative evidence can be used for this purpose (see §1). For instances of confusion between ei and e, ei and i see Streitberg, Gotisches Elementarbuch 5–6 48–9 (Heidelberg, 1920), and James W. Marchand, Dialect characteristics in our Gothic Mss., Orbis 5.141–51 (1956). Marchand shows very clearly that this evidence cannot be used to discuss the pronunciation of Wulfila's Gothic, although it may perhaps supply information regarding the pronunciation of the scribal dialect (s).

3 Edgar H. Sturtevant, The pronunciation of Greek and Latin 2 34–5 (Philadelphia, 1940).

4 See Wilhelm Luft, KZ 35.302 (1899), and Kurt Gäbeler, ZfdPh. 43.1–118 (1911).

5 Friedrich Kiuge, Elemente des Gotischen 21 (Strassburg, 1911); Streitberg, Elb. 59; A. G. van Hamel, Gotisch Handboek 29 (Haarlem, 1923); M. H. Jellinek, Geschichte der gotischen Sprache 44 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1926); Ernst Kieckers, Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik 8 (Munich, 1928); Hans Krahe, Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Gotischen 26 (Heidelberg, 1948); Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen 62 (Munich, 1953); Joseph Wright, Grammar of the Gothic language 2 7 (Oxford, 1954); Wilhelm Braune, Gotische Grammatik 15 14 (Tübingen, 1956); Fernand Mossé, Manuel de la langue gotique 2 44 (Paris, 1956).

6 This point is stressed by Herbert Penzl in connection with the morphophonemic variation au : aw, JEGP 49.230 (1950).

7 Ferdinand Wrede in Stamm-Heyne's Ulfilas 13–14 297 (Paderborn, 1920); Streitberg, Got. Elb. 59; R. C. Boer, Oergermaansch Handboek 2 51–2 (Haarlem, 1924); van Hamel, Got. Hdb. 29; Jellinek, Gesch. d. got. Spr. 44; Kieckers, Hdb. d. vergl. got. Gr. 8; Braune, Got. Gr. 14. See also Wrede, Über die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien 167 (Strassburg, 1891), and Friedrich Kauffmann's objections to Wrede's interpretation, ZfdPh. 31.95 (1899).

8 Georg Werle, Die ältesten germanischen Personennamen, ZfdW (Beiheft zum 12. Band) 87 (1910). See also M. Schönfeld, Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen (Heidelberg, 1911).

9 Sturtevant, Pron. of Gk. and Latin 54–5.

10 Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke, Romanische Namenstudien 1 = Sitzungsberichte d. Kais. Akademie d. Wiss. in Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl. 149.2.100 (Vienna, 1904).

11 Wtb. d. altg. P. u. V. 229.

12 Lg. 25.15–21 (1949).

13 William Moulton, Lg. 24.76–86 (1948); Mossé, Manuel de la langue got. 58; and James W. Marchand, rev. of Mossé in Lg. 33.236 (1957). For a discussion of the principles underlying Marchand's very interesting suggestions see his article Vowel length in Gothic, General linguistics 1.79–88 (1955). The first of the tentative solutions presented below (§5) is based on Mossé, the second (§6) on Marchand.

14 There is considerable tendency to confuse u and i in contemporary Greek. Sturtevant, Pron. of Gk. and Latin 43, makes a very cautious statement: ‘In the fourth century Ulfilas found it necessary to take over the Greek letter u in writing Greek names; evidently the Gothic i was unsatisfactory.‘ As Bennett points out, Lg. 25.19–21, it is likely that we have to do with a sound substitution here.

15 In JEGP 49.217–30 (1950), Herbert Penzl demonstrates very convincingly the phonemic consistency of Wulfila's orthography.

16 Sturtevant, Pron. of Gk. and Latin 34–6, 48–50. No true diphthongs seem to have been retained in 4th-century Greek. It is interesting to note that Jacob Grimm saw the need for an explanation which would take care of ei and iu on the same basis (Deutsche Gr. 1.61): ‘wer dem goth. ei die aussprache î beimisst, müste auch iu wie û ausgesprochen wissen wollen. die analogie begehrt eins wie das andre.‘

17 Only a few days after this paper was written, Eric Hamp had the kindness to let me see a copy of an article which he had already submitted for publication: Gothic ai and au again; see below in this number of Language. This contains important contributions to the new theory and suggests tentative solutions which in several instances are virtually parallel to mine. It was extremely gratifying to me to discover that Hamp is headed in the same direction.