Phonological Evidence from the Continental Runic Inscriptions 3110259346, 9783110259346, 9783110289251
The linguistic analysis of runic inscriptions on the Continent tends to focus on individual texts or on groups of texts
823 90 5MB
English Pages XXIV+534 [562] Year 2012
Polecaj historie
![Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History From Inscriptions (Approaching the Ancient World) [1 ed.]
0415116236, 0415116244, 9780415116237](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/epigraphic-evidence-ancient-history-from-inscriptions-approaching-the-ancient-world-1nbsped-0415116236-0415116244-9780415116237.jpg)
![Phonological Acquisition and Phonological Theory [1 ed.]
0805813527, 9780805813524](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/phonological-acquisition-and-phonological-theory-1nbsped-0805813527-9780805813524.jpg)
Table of contents :
Acknowledgements v
Prefatory note vi
Abbreviations xxiii
Abbreviations for languages and linguistic terms xxiii
Abbreviations for sources xxiv
Part I: Text 1
1. The Continental runic inscriptions 3
2. Phonology and runic orthography 11
3. The diphthongs 57
4. The back vocalics 105
5. The front vocalics 167
6. The low vowels 221
7. The consonants 243
8. The phonological system(s) of "Continental Runic" 347
Part II: Catalogue 359
Appendix 1: Handlist of Continental runic inscriptions excluded from the corpus 490
Appendix 2: Suspect inscriptions. Possible forgeries and the assessment of authenticity 493
Appendix 3: The "Berlin" scabbard mouthpiece 498
Maps 503
Bibliography 509
Index of inscriptions 531
Citation preview
Martin Findell Phonological Evidence from the Continental Runic Inscriptions
Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde Herausgegeben von Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Heiko Steuer
Band 79
De Gruyter
Martin Findell
Phonological Evidence from the Continental Runic Inscriptions
De Gruyter
IV
ISSN 1866-7678 ISBN 978-3-11-025934-6 e-ISBN 978-3-11-028925-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet unter http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar © 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin/Boston Satz: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ÜGedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degryuter.com
Acknowledgements This work is revised and expanded from my doctoral thesis, Vocalism in the Continental Runic Inscriptions (University of Nottingham, 2009), which was supervised with patience and enthusiasm by Dr. David Parsons. The thesis was examined by Prof. Edith Marold and Prof. Richard Marsden, to whom I am grateful for their detailed feedback and support. Michelle Waldispühl at the Universität Zürich is also owed a debt of gratitude for kindly sharing with me the excellent photographs of many of the inscribed objects which have been taken as part of her own research. Many academics lent their support, time, resources and advice. Thanks are especially due to Dr. Patrick Stiles, who helped me obtain some of the reading material and who lent encouragement; to Prof. Dr. Theo Vennemann, who offered his insight and discussion of topics both closely and distantly related to the project; to Dr. Christina Lee, who was unfailingly generous with her time, enthusiasm and patience; and to Dr. Sara Pons-Sanz, who was a constant source of information, advice and moral support. The project was funded through the AHRC Doctoral Scheme. I am grateful for the support and assistance which I have received from the AHRC. Finally, I must thank the countless friends and family members who have kept me tolerably sane (if not always entirely tolerable) – most especially my parents, Peter and Mary Findell; but also Adrian Czajkowski; Kate Haworth; Kelly Hughes; Shane McLean; Jack Nicholls; Kristen Sipper; Lydia Staniaszek; Wayne Stevens; and Marjolein Warbroek-Stern.
Prefatory note The material discussed in this book is set out in the catalogue (Part II). Inscriptions are referred to throughout the text by their numbers in this catalogue (e.g., 1. Aalen ). Where multiple transliterations are available in the literature, these are reproduced in the catalogue; in the main text, I use my own diplomatic transliteration, unless referring directly to that of a particular author.
VII
Contents
Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prefatory note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations for languages and linguistic terms Abbreviations for sources . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. V . VI . XXIII . XXIII . XXIV
Part I: Text 1. 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 2. 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.1.1 2.3.1.2 2.3.1.3
The Continental runic inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . General introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The dialect(s) of the inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology and dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconstructing and representing PGmc . . . . . . . . . . Orthography and phonology: the relationship of grapheme to phoneme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The corpus of runic inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographical and chronological context . . . . . . . . . . Content and graphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonology and runic orthography . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The vocalic system of lPGmc . . . . . . . . . . Short vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the distinction “front” vs. “back” . . . . . . The vocalic systems of OHG and OS . . . . . . Diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */eu/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The NWGmc monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ and */au/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */ai/ in OHG and OS . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
3 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10
. . . . . . . . . .
11 11 11 11 13 13 14 15 15 15
. . . . . . . . . . . .
18 19
VIII 2.3.1.3.1 2.3.1.3.2 2.3.1.3.3 2.3.1.4 2.3.1.4.1 2.3.1.4.2 2.3.1.4.3 2.3.2 2.3.2.1 2.3.2.2 2.3.2.3 2.3.2.4 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.2 2.3.3.3 2.3.3.4 2.3.3.5 2.3.3.6 2.3.4 2.3.4.1 2.3.4.2 2.3.4.3 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.4 2.4.1 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.1.1 2.5.1.1.1 2.5.1.1.2 2.5.1.1.3 2.5.1.2 2.5.1.2.1 2.5.1.2.2 2.5.1.2.3 2.5.1.2.4 2.5.1.3 2.5.1.4 2.5.1.4.1
Contents
Conditions for monophthongisation . . . . . . . . . Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonetic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */au/ in OHG and OS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conditions for monophthongisation . . . . . . . . . Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonetic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back vocalics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */u/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */¯u/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */¯o/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */w/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Front vocalics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */i/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */e/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */¯ı/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */¯e1/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */¯e2/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */j/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */a/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Primary” i-umlaut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lPGmc */¯ax/ < PGmc */anx/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaptyxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The consonantal system of lPGmc . . . . . . . . . . Subcategorising the obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . The consonantal systems of OHG and OS . . . . . . The obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early development of the PGmc obstruents . . . . . Reflexes of PGmc */b/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflexes of PGmc */g/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss of PGmc */z/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Consonant Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonetic development: Tenuisverschiebung . . . . . Phonetic development: Medienverschiebung . . . . . Geographical distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spirantenschwächung and the despirantisation of /θ/ Other processes affecting the obstruents . . . . . . . Notkers Anlautgesetz and final devoicing . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 20 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 29 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 40 40 42 43 43 45 46 46
IX
Contents
2.5.1.4.2 2.5.1.4.3 2.5.2 2.5.2.1 2.5.2.1.1 2.5.2.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6 2.6.1
47 48 49 49 50 51 52 53 54
2.6.2
Deletion of /h/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irregular( ? ) changes in consonant clusters . . . . . . . . . The sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “liquids” (PGmc */l r/) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The phonetic quality of OHG OS /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . The nasals (PGmc */m n/) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epenthetic (and prothetic) consonants . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Runic orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graphemic representation of the high vowels and the corresponding semivowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orthographic rules proposed in the runological literature .
3. 3.1 3.1.1
The diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */eu/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57 57 58
54 54
6. Bad Ems fibula 58 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 58 9. Beuchte fibula 59 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 59 20. Engers fibula 59 22. Ferwerd comb case 60 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription 60 50. Mertingen fibula 61 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 61 55. Niederstotzingen strap end 62 56. Nordendorf I fibula 62 57. Nordendorf II fibula 62 60. Osthofen 67. Schretzheim I capfibula 63 65. †Rügen stone piece 63 sule 63 68. Schretzheim II fibula 64 70. Schwangau fibula 64 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 64 79. Weimar I fibula 65 81. Weimar III buckle 65 82. Weimar IV bead 66 88. Wijnaldum B pendant 67
3.1.2 3.1.2.1 3.1.2.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.2.1
Summary and discussion . . . . . . . . . Umlaut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UG consonant-conditioned variation . . . Conclusion: reflexes of */eu/ in the corpus PGmc */ai/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data: digraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
67 68 70 73 74 74
2. Aquincum fibula 74 15. Charnay fibula 75 23. Freilaubers44. Kirchheim/Teck I heim fibula 77 42. †Kärlich fibula 77 fibula 77 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 78 61. Pforzen I buckle 78 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 78 70. Schwangau fibula 78 78. †Trier serpentine object 79 83. Weingarten I fibula 79
3.2.1.1 3.2.2
Summary: digraphs representing PGmc */ai/ . . . . . . . . Data: monographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 81 12. Bopfingen fibula 81 19. Eich46. †Kleines stetten sheath fitting 83 42. †Kärlich fibula 83 Schulerloch cave wall inscription 83 47. Lauchheim I fibula 83 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula 84 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden
80 81
X
Contents stave 84 56. Nordendorf I fibula 84 64. †Rubring stone piece 86 83. Weingarten I fibula 86 85. †Weser I bone 88 87. †Weser III bone 89 88. Wijnaldum B pendant 89
3.2.2.1 3.2.2.1.1 3.2.2.1.2 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 3.2.3.2 3.3 3.3.1
Summary: monographs representing PGmc */ai/ . . . . . Unstressed syllables: the NWGmc monophthongisation . . Stressed syllables: the OHG/OS monophthongisation . . . Conclusion: reflexes of */ai/ in the corpus . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables: the NWGmc monophthongisation . . Stressed syllables: the OHG and OS monophthongisations PGmc */au/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data: digraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89 89 91 92 92 93 95 95
12. Bopfingen fibula 95 31. Hailfingen II fibula 95 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting 95 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula 96 47. Lauchheim I fibula 96 50. Mertingen fibula 96 56. Nordendorf I fibula 97 59. Oettingen fibula 97 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 98 69. Schretzheim III spatha 98 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 98 81. Weimar III buckle 99
3.3.1.1 3.3.2
Summary: digraphs representing PGmc */au/ . . . . . . . Data: monographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99 101
23. Freilaubersheim fibula 101 39. Hüfingen II Kleinbrakteat 101 48. Lauchheim II comb 102 49. Liebenau bronze disc 102 81. Weimar III buckle 102 82. Weimar IV bead 103
3.3.2.1 3.3.3
Summary: monographs representing PGmc */au/ . . . . . Conclusion: reflexes of */au/ in the corpus . . . . . . . .
103 103
4. 4.1
The back vocalics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
105 106
1. Aalen neckring 106 2. Aquincum fibula 107 3. Arlon capsule 107 6. Bad Ems fibula 108 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 109 8. Balingen fibula 110 9. Beuchte fibula 110 10. Bezenye I fibula 111 11. Bezenye II fibula 111 12. Bopfingen fibula 112 13. Borgharen buckle 113 14. Bülach fibula 113 15. Charnay fibula 113 16. Chéhéry fibula 114 17. Dischingen I fibula 114 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 114 21. Erpfting fibula 116 22. Ferwerd comb case 117 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 117 25. Friedberg fibula 118 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate 119 28. Gomadingen fibula 119 29. Griesheim fibula 119 30. Hailfingen I sax 120 33. Heide-B bracteate 120 34. HeilbronnBöckingen I belt fitting 121 35. Hitsum-A bracteate 122 36. Hohenstadt fibula 123 37. Hoogebeintum comb 123 38. Hüfingen I Kleinbrakteat 123 39. Hüfingen II Klein43. “Kent” fibula 124 brakteat 123 42. †Kärlich fibula 124 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula 125 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula 125 47. Lauchheim I fibula 126 48. Lauchheim II comb 126 49. Liebenau bronze disc 126 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula 127 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 127 55. Niederstotzingen
XI
Contents strap end 128 56. Nordendorf I fibula 128 57. Nordendorf II fibula 130 58. Oberflacht spoon 131 60. Osthofen fibula 131 61. Pforzen I buckle 131 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 134 65. †Rügen stone piece 134 64. †Rubring stone piece 134 66. Saint-Dizier sword pommel 135 67. Schretzheim I capsule 135 68. Schretzheim II fibula 135 69. Schretzheim III spatha 136 71. Sievern-A bracteate 136 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 137 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 138 75. Steindorf sax 138 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) 139 78. †Trier serpentine object 140 79. Weimar I fibula 141 80. Weimar II fibula 141 81. Weimar III buckle 141 82. Weimar IV bead 142 83. Weingarten I fibula 143 85. †Weser I bone 144 86. †Weser II bone 144 88. Wijnaldum B pendant 146 87. †Weser III bone 145 89. Wremen footstool 146 90. Wurmlingen spearhead 147
4.2 4.2.1 4.2.1.1 4.2.1.2 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.2 4.2.4 4.2.4.1 4.2.4.2 4.2.5 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.3.1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflexes of */u/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stressed/stem syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaptyctic vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflexes of */¯o/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflexes of */¯u/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflexes of */w/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology . . Sequences in -u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sequences in -Ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sequences in -a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co-textual evidence for the assignment of oblique case
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
148 148 148 149 150 151 151 152 153 153 153 153 156 157 158 159 160 160
6. Bad Ems fibula 160 22. Ferwerd comb case 161 30. Hailfingen I sax 161 50. Mertingen fibula 161 67. Schretzheim I capsule 161 83. Weingarten I fibula 162
4.4.3.2 4.4.3.3 4.4.4 4.4.5
Summary of co-textual evidence . . . . . . . Putative nom.sg. o¯ -stems in -a . . . . . . . . Sequences in -o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions on the nom.sg. o¯ -stem suffix(es)
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
162 162 163 164
XII 5. 5.1
Contents
The front vocalics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
167 167
2. Aquincum fibula 168 3. Arlon capsule 168 4. Aschheim II fibula 169 5. Aschheim III fibula 169 6. Bad Ems fibula 170 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 170 8. Balingen fibula 171 9. Beuchte fibula 172 10. Bezenye I fibula 172 11. Bezenye II fibula 173 14. Bülach fibula 173 15. Charnay fibula 175 16. Chéhéry fibula 176 17. Dischingen I fibula 176 18. Donzdorf fibula 177 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 177 21. Erpfting fibula 178 22. Ferwerd comb case 178 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 178 24. Fréthun I sword pommel 179 25. Friedberg fibula 179 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate 180 28. Gomadingen fibula 180 29. Griesheim fibula 180 30. Hailfingen I sax 181 31. Hailfingen II fibula 181 32. †Hainspach pendant 181 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting 182 36. Hohenstadt fibula 182 37. Hoogebeintum comb 182 40. Hüfingen III fibula 183 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula 183 43. “Kent” fibula 183 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula 184 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula 184 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription 185 47. Lauchheim I fibula 185 49. Liebenau bronze disc 186 50. Mertingen fibula 186 51. München-Aubing I fibula 186 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula 188 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 188 55. Niederstotzingen strap end 190 56. Nordendorf I fibula 190 57. Nordendorf II fibula 191 58. Oberflacht spoon 191 59. Oettingen fibula 192 60. Osthofen fibula 192 61. Pforzen I buckle 193 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 195 63. Pleidelsheim fibula 195 64. †Rubring stone piece 196 67. Schretzheim I capsule 196 65. †Rügen stone piece 196 68. Schretzheim II fibula 197 70. Schwangau fibula 198 71. Sievern-A bracteate 198 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 198 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 199 74. Soest fibula 199 75. Steindorf sax 200 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) 200 77. Szabadbattyán 79. Weimar I buckle 200 78. †Trier serpentine object 200 fibula 201 80. Weimar II fibula 202 81. Weimar III buckle 202 82. Weimar IV bead 204 83. Weingarten I fibula 204 84. Wein86. †Weser II garten II fibula 205 85. †Weser I bone 205 88. Wijnaldum B penbone 207 87. †Weser III bone 207 dant 207 89. Wremen footstool 208 90. Wurmlingen spearhead 209
5.2 5.2.1 5.2.1.1 5.2.1.2 5.2.2 5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.2.2.3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflexes of the short front vowels Stressed syllables . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . Reflexes of the long front vowels */¯ı/ in stressed syllables . . . . . */¯e1/ in stressed syllables . . . . . */¯e2/ in stressed syllables . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
210 210 210 212 214 214 214 215
XIII
Contents
5.2.2.4 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.3
Long front vowels in unstressed syllables Reflexes of */j/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “yew-rune” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
215 216 217 219
6. 6.1
The low vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 4. Aschheim II fibula 221 5. Aschheim III fibula 222 6. Bad Ems fibula 222 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 222 8. Balingen fibula 222 10. Bezenye I fibula 223 11. Bezenye II fibula 223 12. Bopfingen fibula 224 14. Bülach fibula 224 15. Charnay fibula 224 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 224 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 225 24. Fréthun I sword pommel 225 26. Gammertingen capsule 225 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate 226 29. Griesheim fibula 226 30. Hailfingen I sax 226 31. Hailfingen II fibula 227 32. †Hainspach pendant 227 33. Heide-B bracteate 227 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting 227 35. Hitsum-A bracteate 228 36. Hohenstadt fibula 228 38. Hüfingen I Kleinbrakteat 228 42. †Kärlich fibula 228 43. “Kent” fibula 229 44. Kirchheim/ Teck I fibula 229 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula 229 47. Lauchheim I fibula 229 48. Lauchheim II comb 229 52. MünchenAubing II fibula 230 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 230 56. Nordendorf I fibula 231 58. Oberflacht spoon 231 59. Oettingen fibula 232 60. Osthofen fibula 232 61. Pforzen I buckle 233 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 234 66. Saint-Dizier sword pommel 234 67. Schretzheim I capsule 234 68. Schretzheim II fibula 234 69. Schretzheim III spatha 235 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 236 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 236 74. Soest fibula 236 75. Steindorf sax 237 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) 237 77. Szabadbattyán buckle 237 79. Weimar I fibula 238 81. Weimar III buckle 238 82. Weimar IV bead 238 83. Weingarten I fibula 238 84. Weingarten II fibula 239 85. †Weser I bone 239 87. †Weser III bone 239 89. Wremen footstool 240
6.2 6.3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
7. 7.1 7.1.1 7.1.1.1
The consonants . . . . . . . . The obstruents . . . . . . . . The “labials” (PGmc */p b f/) . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
6. Bad Ems fibula 244 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 244 9. Beuchte fibula 245 11. Bezenye II fibula 245 13. Borgharen buckle 245 14. Bülach fibula 245 15. Charnay fibula 246 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 246 20. Engers fibula 246 21. Erpfting fibula 246 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 246 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate 247 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting 247
243 243 244 244
XIV
Contents 35. Hitsum-A bracteate 248 40. Hüfingen III fibula 248 43. “Kent” fibula 248 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula 248 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription 248 47. Lauchheim I fibula 249 52. München-Aubing II fibula 249 53. NeudingenBaar I fibula 249 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 250 55. Niederstotzingen strap end 250 56. Nordendorf I fibula 250 57. Nordendorf II fibula 250 58. Oberflacht spoon 251 59. Oettingen fibula 252 60. Osthofen fibula 252 61. Pforzen I buckle 253 65. †Rügen stone piece 253 67. Schretzheim I capsule 253 68. Schretzheim II fibula 253 69. Schretzheim III spatha 253 70. Schwangau fibula 254 75. Steindorf sax 254 79. Weimar I fibula 255 80. Weimar II fibula 255 81. Weimar III buckle 255 82. Weimar IV bead 255 83. Weingarten I fibula 256
7.1.1.2 7.1.1.2.1 7.1.1.2.2 7.1.1.2.3 7.1.2 7.1.2.1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */p/ . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */b/ . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */f/ . . . . . . . . . . . . The “dentals” (PGmc */t d θ s z/) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
3. Arlon capsule 258 5. Aschheim III fibula 259 6. Bad Ems fibula 259 8. Balingen fibula 259 9. Beuchte fibula 260 10. Bezenye I fibula 260 11. Bezenye II fibula 260 14. Bülach fibula 260 15. Charnay fibula 261 16. Chéhéry fibula 262 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 263 21. Erpfting fibula 263 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 263 25. Friedberg fibula 264 26. Gammertingen capsule 264 29. Griesheim fibula 265 30. Hailfingen I sax 265 31. Hailfingen II fibula 265 32. †Hainspach pendant 265 35. Hitsum-A bracteate 266 37. Hoogebeintum comb 266 39. Hüfingen II Kleinbrakteat 266 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula 266 42. †Kärlich fibula 267 43. “Kent” fibula 267 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula 267 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula 267 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription 267 47. Lauchheim I fibula 268 48. Lauchheim II comb 268 49. Liebenau bronze disc 268 51. MünchenAubing I fibula 268 52. München-Aubing II fibula 269 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula 269 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 269 55. Niederstotzingen strap end 270 56. Nordendorf I fibula 270 58. Oberflacht spoon 271 60. Osthofen fibula 271 61. Pforzen I buckle 272 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 273 64. †Rubring stone piece 273 67. Schretzheim I capsule 273 68. Schretzheim II fibula 274 71. Sievern-A bracteate 274 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 275 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 275 74. Soest fibula 275 75. Steindorf sax 276 76. Stetten pinhead( ? ) 277 77. Szabadbattyán buckle 277 78. †Trier serpentine object 277 80. Weimar II fibula 278 81. Weimar III buckle 278 82. Weimar IV bead 278 83. Weingarten I fibula 279 84. Weingarten II fibula 279 85. †Weser I bone 279
256 256 256 257 258 258
XV
Contents 87. †Weser III bone 280 gen spearhead 280
7.1.2.2 7.1.2.2.1 7.1.2.2.2 7.1.2.2.3 7.1.2.2.4 7.1.2.2.5 7.1.3 7.1.3.1
89. Wremen footstool 280
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */t/ . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */d/ . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */θ/ . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */s/ . . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */z/ . . . . . . . . . . . . The “gutturals” (PGmc */k g x/) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
90. Wurmlin-
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
281 281 282 283 287 288 289 289
2. Aquincum fibula 289 3. Arlon capsule 289 4. Aschheim II fibula 290 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 290 8. Balingen fibula 290 10. Bezenye I fibula 290 11. Bezenye II fibula 291 12. Bopfingen fibula 291 14. Bülach fibula 291 15. Charnay fibula 291 16. Chéhéry fibula 292 17. Dischingen I fibula 292 18. Donzdorf fibula 292 21. Erpfting fibula 292 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 293 24. Fréthun I sword pommel 293 25. Friedberg fibula 293 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate 293 28. Gomadingen fibula 293 29. Griesheim fibula 294 30. Hailfingen I sax 294 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting 294 35. Hitsum-A bracteate 295 36. Hohenstadt fibula 295 39. Hüfingen II Klein43. “Kent” fibula 296 brakteat 295 42. †Kärlich fibula 295 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula 296 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula 296 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription 296 48. Lauchheim II comb 297 49. Liebenau bronze disc 297 50. Mertingen fibula 297 51. München-Aubing I fibula 297 53. NeudingenBaar I fibula 297 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 298 55. Niederstotzingen strap end 298 56. Nordendorf I fibula 298 57. Nordendorf II fibula 298 58. Oberflacht spoon 299 59. Oettingen fibula 299 60. Osthofen fibula 299 61. Pforzen I buckle 300 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 301 63. Pleidelsheim 65. †Rügen stone fibula 301 64. †Rubring stone piece 301 piece 301 67. Schretzheim I capsule 301 68. Schretzheim II fibula 302 69. Schretzheim III spatha 302 74. Soest fibula 302 75. Steindorf sax 302 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) 303 77. Szabadbattyán buckle 303 79. Weimar I fibula 303 80. Weimar II fibula 304 81. Weimar III buckle 304 82. Weimar IV bead 304 83. Weingarten I fibula 305 85. †Weser I bone 305 86. †Weser II bone 305 87. †Weser III bone 306 88. Wijnaldum B pendant 306 89. Wremen footstool 306 90. Wurmlingen spearhead 307
7.1.3.2 7.1.3.2.1 7.1.3.2.2 7.1.3.2.3 7.1.4 7.1.4.1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */k/ . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */g/ . . . . . . . . . . . PGmc */x/ . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions on the obstruents The Second Consonant Shift .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
307 307 308 309 310 310
XVI 7.1.4.2 7.1.4.3 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.1.1
Contents
Spirantenschwächung . . . Initial and final devoicing . The sonorants . . . . . . . . The “liquids” (PGmc */l r/) Data . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
312 313 313 313 313
1. Aalen neckring 313 2. Aquincum fibula 313 3. Arlon capsule 314 6. Bad Ems fibula 314 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula 314 8. Balingen fibula 314 9. Beuchte fibula 315 10. Bezenye I fibula 315 11. Bezenye II fibula 315 14. Bülach fibula 315 15. Charnay fibula 316 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 316 20. Engers fibula 316 21. Erpfting fibula 316 22. Ferwerd comb case 316 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 317 24. Fréthun I sword pommel 317 25. Friedberg fibula 317 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate 318 28. Gomadingen fibula 318 29. Griesheim fibula 318 30. Hailfingen I sax 318 32. †Hainspach pendant 319 33. Heide-B bracteate 319 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting 319 35. Hitsum-A bracteate 319 36. Hohenstadt fibula 319 37. Hoogebeintum comb 320 38. Hüfingen I Kleinbrakteat 320 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula 320 42. †Kärlich fibula 320 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula 320 45. Kirchheim/ Teck II fibula 320 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription 321 49. Liebenau bronze disc 321 51. München-Aubing I fibula 321 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula 321 54. NeudingenBaar II wooden stave 322 55. Niederstotzingen strap end 322 56. Nordendorf I fibula 322 57. Nordendorf II fibula 323 58. Oberflacht spoon 323 59. Oettingen fibula 323 60. Osthofen fibula 323 61. Pforzen I buckle 324 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 324 64. †Rubring stone piece 325 66. Saint-Dizier sword pommel 325 67. Schretzheim I capsule 325 68. Schretzheim II fibula 325 69. Schretzheim III spatha 325 70. Schwangau fibula 326 71. Sievern-A bracteate 326 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 326 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 326 74. Soest fibula 326 75. Steindorf sax 327 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) 327 77. Szabadbattyán buckle 327 78. †Trier serpentine object 327 79. Weimar I fibula 327 81. Weimar III buckle 328 82. Weimar IV bead 328 83. Weingarten I fibula 328 85. †Weser I 87. †Weser III bone 329 bone 328 86. †Weser II bone 329 89. Wremen footstool 329 90. Wurmlingen spearhead 330
7.2.1.2 7.2.2 7.2.2.1
Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nasals (PGmc */m n/) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Aalen neckring 331 2. Aquincum fibula 331 3. Arlon capsule 331 5. Aschheim III fibula 332 6. Bad Ems fibula 332 8. Balingen fibula 332 10. Bezenye I fibula 333 11. Bezenye II fibula 333 12. Bopfingen fibula 333 14. Bülach fibula 333 15. Charnay fibula 333 16. Chéhéry fibula 334 17. Dischingen I fibula 334 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting 334 22. Ferwerd
330 331 331
XVII
Contents comb case 335 23. Freilaubersheim fibula 335 26. Gammertingen capsule 335 28. Gomadingen fibula 335 31. Hailfingen II fibula 336 36. Hohenstadt fibula 336 37. Hoogebeintum comb 336 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula 336 42. †Kärlich fibula 336 43. “Kent” fibula 337 47. Lauchheim I fibula 337 50. Mertingen fibula 337 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula 337 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave 337 56. Nordendorf I fibula 338 57. Nordendorf II fibula 338 61. Pforzen I buckle 339 62. Pforzen II ivory ring 339 63. Pleidelsheim 67. Schretzheim I fibula 339 64. †Rubring stone piece 340 capsule 340 68. Schretzheim II fibula 340 69. Schretzheim III spatha 340 71. Sievern-A bracteate 341 72. Skodborg-B bracteate 341 73. Skonager III-C bracteate 341 74. Soest fibula 341 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) 342 77. Szabadbattyán buckle 342 80. Weimar II fibula 342 81. Weimar III buckle 342 82. Weimar IV bead 343 83. Weingarten I fibula 343 84. Wein86. †Weser II garten II fibula 343 85. †Weser I bone 343 bone 344 89. Wremen footstool 344
7.2.2.2
Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
8. 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.1.1 8.1.1.2 8.1.1.3 8.1.2 8.1.2.1 8.1.2.2 8.1.3 8.1.3.1 8.1.3.2 8.1.4 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic” Vocalics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaptyxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unstressed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Semivowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical and methodological considerations . . Grapheme and phoneme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonological theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
347 347 347 347 348 348 349 349 349 350 350 351 352 352 352 354 354 354 357
XVIII
Contents
Part II: Catalogue Notes on catalogue entries Designation of items . Concordance . . . . . Find-site . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . Provenance . . . . . . Datings . . . . . . . . Readings . . . . . . . Images . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
361 361 361 361 361 362 362 362 363
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
365 366 367 369 370 371 372 374 375 377 378 379 380 381 383 385 387 388 390 392 393 394 395 396 397 399 400 401 402
Aalen . . . . . . . Aquincum . . . . Arlon . . . . . . . Aschheim II . . . Aschheim III . . . Bad Ems . . . . . Bad Krozingen A . Balingen . . . . . Beuchte . . . . . . Bezenye I . . . . . Bezenye II . . . . Bopfingen . . . . Borgharen . . . . Bülach . . . . . . Charnay . . . . . Chéhéry . . . . . Dischingen I . . . Donzdorf . . . . . Eichstetten . . . . Engers . . . . . . Erpfting . . . . . Ferwerd . . . . . . Freilaubersheim . Fréthun I . . . . . Friedberg . . . . . Gammertingen . . Geltorf II . . . . . Gomadingen . . . Griesheim . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XIX
Contents
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.
Hailfingen I . . . . . . Hailfingen II . . . . . †Hainspach . . . . . . Heide . . . . . . . . . Heilbronn-Böckingen I Hitsum . . . . . . . . Hohenstadt . . . . . . Hoogebeintum . . . . Hüfingen I . . . . . . Hüfingen II . . . . . . Hüfingen III . . . . . Igling-Unterigling . . †Kärlich . . . . . . . . “Kent” . . . . . . . . Kirchheim/Teck I . . . Kirchheim/Teck II . . †Kleines Schulerloch . Lauchheim I . . . . . Lauchheim II . . . . . Liebenau . . . . . . . Mertingen . . . . . . . München-Aubing I . . München-Aubing II . . Neudingen-Baar I . . . Neudingen-Baar II . . Niederstotzingen . . . Nordendorf I . . . . . Nordendorf II . . . . . Oberflacht . . . . . . . Oettingen . . . . . . . Osthofen . . . . . . . Pforzen I . . . . . . . Pforzen II . . . . . . . Pleidelsheim . . . . . †Rubring . . . . . . . †Rügen . . . . . . . . Saint-Dizier . . . . . . Schretzheim I . . . . . Schretzheim II . . . . Schretzheim III . . . . Schwangau . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
404 405 407 408 409 410 412 413 414 416 417 418 419 420 422 424 425 426 427 428 429 431 432 433 434 436 437 440 441 443 444 445 448 450 451 452 454 455 457 458 460
XX 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.
Contents
Sievern . . . . Skodborg . . . Skonager III . Soest . . . . . Steindorf . . . Stetten . . . . Szabadbattyán †Trier . . . . . Weimar I . . . Weimar II . . . Weimar III . . Weimar IV . . Weingarten I . Weingarten II . †Weser I . . . †Weser II . . . †Weser III . . . Wijnaldum B . Wremen . . . Wurmlingen .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 1: Handlist of Continental runic inscriptions excluded from the corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inscriptions with find-sites in the study area, but dated before c.400 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inscriptions with find-sites in the study area, but positively identifiable as non-WGmc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inscriptions outside the study area, possibly classified as WGmc, but excluded due to early date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frisian inscriptions excluded due to use of additional runes . . . . Inscriptions (or rune-like carvings) with find-sites in the study area, but of doubtful runic character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inscriptions with find-sites in the area which are positively identified as runic, but have no linguistic interpretation . . . . . . . . . Inscriptions found in the area but consisting only of (partial) fuÂarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Items known to be modern forgeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional exclusion (see § 1.2.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
461 462 463 465 466 468 470 472 473 474 475 477 478 480 481 483 484 485 486 487
490 490 490 490 490 490 491 492 492 492
XXI
Contents
Appendix 2: Suspect inscriptions. Possible forgeries and the assessment of authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 32. †Hainspach pendant 493 42. †Kärlich fibula 493 46. †Kleines Schulerloch rock inscription 494 64. †Rubring stone piece 495 65. †Rügen stone piece 496 78. †Trier serpentine object 496 85–87. †Weser I–III bones 496
General comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 Appendix 3: The “Berlin” scabbard mouthpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations for journals and corporate authors References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fonts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
509 509 509 530
Index of inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
XXII
Contents
Abbreviations for languages and linguistic terms
Abbreviations Abbreviations for languages and linguistic terms abl. – ablative acc. – accusative act. – active adj. – adjective Alam. – Alamannic Av – Avestic Bav. – Bavarian C – consonant comp. – comparative CLat – Classical Latin CRun – Continental Runic (see § 1.1.1) dat. – dative dial. – dialect dim. – diminutive Du – (modern) Dutch du. – dual EFrk – East Frankish EGmc – East Germanic ePGmc – early Proto-Germanic fem. – feminine FN – female (personal) name Fris – (modern) Frisian Frk – Frankish gen. – genitive Gk – Greek Gmc – Germanic Go – Gothic Hitt. – Hittite imp. – imperative ind. – indicative inf. – infinitive inst. – instrumental It – (modern) Italian Langob – Langobardic Lat – Latin LFrk – Lower Frankish LG – Low German LLat – Late Latin
lPGmc – late Proto-Germanic masc. – masculine MDu – Middle Dutch ME – Middle English MFrk – Middle Frankish MHG – Middle High German MLG – Middle Low German MG – Middle German MN – male (personal) name modE – modern (standard) English modG – modern (standard) German N – nasal neut. – neuter NFris – North Frisian NGmc – North Germanic nom. – nominative Norw – Norwegian NWGmc – Northwest Germanic OCSl – Old Church Slavonic ODan – Old Danish OGo – Ostrogothic OE – Old English OEN – Old East Norse OHG – Old High German OLF – Old Low Franconian ON – Old Norse opt. – optative OS – Old Saxon Osc – Oscan OWN – Old West Norse part. – participle PCelt – Proto-Celtic pers.n. – personal name PGmc – Proto-Germanic PIE – Proto-Indo-European PItal. – Proto-Italic pl. – plural p.n. – place name
XXIII
XXIV PNorse – Proto-Norse pres. – present tense pret. – preterite R – resonant (i.e., liquid, nasal or semivowel) RFrk – Rhine Frankish RN – river name sg. – singular Skt – Sanskrit subst. – substantive
Abbreviations T – tenuis (voiceless) obstruent Toch – Tocharian UG – Upper German Umb – Umbrian V – vowel Vand – Vandalic voc. – vocative W – (modern) Welsh WFrk – West Frankish WGmc – West Germanic
Abbreviations for sources An – Antonsen 1975. AZ – Arntz and Zeiss 1939. BR – Braune and Reiffenstein 2004. BT – Bosworth and Toller 1898. CIL – Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. DOE – Dictionary of Old English (University of Toronto). DR – Danmarks runeindskrifter (Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–1942). Graf – Graf 2010. Grün – Grünzweig 2004. IK – Ikonographische Katalog (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989). IRF – Inscriptions runiques de France (Fischer 2007). KJ – Krause and Jankuhn (Krause 1966). L – Looijenga 2003a. Ma – Martin 2004. O – Opitz 1987. OED – Oxford English Dictionary. RMR – Runes, Magic and Religion (McKinnell et al. 2004). Sch – Schwerdt 2000. SUR – Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften (Krause 1971). Vulg. – Vulgate Bible
General introduction
3
1. The Continental runic inscriptions 1.1 General introduction The object of study for this project is a corpus of 90 runic inscriptions produced on the Continent between the 5th – 7th centuries A.D. These inscriptions, all of which (apart from the Kleines Schulerloch cave inscription) contain short texts on portable objects, provide us with some of our earliest data for the dialects from which the German language developed. The period of production occupies a significant position in the history of the Germanic language family, being (according to Klein 2001:579–580) the period in which the more-or-less unified NWGmc continuum broke up into the dialect groups which we classify as the distinct Gmc languages. The runic inscriptions, then, constitute a body of data representing a set of dialects at some stage of development between a relatively homogeneous NWGmc (itself a daughter of lPGmc), and the dialects attested in mss. which are classified as OHG (attested between the 8th – 11th centuries)1 and OS (attested between the 9th –12th centuries). Some reference will be made to OLF, OFris and other Gmc dialects, as appropriate. Given the distribution of the epigraphical material in what is now southwestern Germany (Map 1), OHG (and especially UG) is of greatest relevance. My goal is, so far as is possible, to reconstruct the phonological system(s) of the dialects attested in the inscriptions. If a dialect is understood to be, from a phonological point of view, a cluster of regular sound changes relative to the system of a pre- or proto-language, then the dialects of the inscriptions are likely to involve at least some of the sound changes which distinguish OHG and/or OS from NWGmc. Since we have more complete reconstructions of lPGmc than of NWGmc, the former will be our starting point. In § 2, I briefly describe the lPGmc phonological system and identify the major sound changes which produce the daughter systems in OHG and OS. The core part of the study (§§ 3–7) examines closely the epigraphical evidence for
1 The term OHG conventionally covers the set of dialects in which the Second Consonant Shift is active to some extent (§ 2.5.1.2). Within OHG are two major subgroups: UG (Alam., Bav.) and MG (the various Frk dialects) (BR §§ 4–7).
4
The Continental runic inscriptions
these sound changes. In the final chapter (§ 8), I bring the conclusions of the preceding analyses together in order to give an overview of the vocalic systems attested in the inscriptions.
1.1.1 The dialect(s) of the inscriptions The choice of a label for the dialects represented in the Continental inscriptions has been a topic of some controversy (see Nedoma 2004a:12; 2006a:110–112). Various authors have described them as “South Germanic”, “Continental West Germanic”, “Düdisch”, or “pre-OHG/pre-OS”. None of these labels is without problems, and it might be prudent to avoid the use of a single term altogether. It is probably safe to allow that we are dealing with a set of closely-related WGmc dialects, while recognising that a few of the inscriptions (notably 15. Charnay) appear to show EGmc features; some are classified with greater or less certainty as PNorse;2 and still others, while WGmc, may contain features associated with OFris and/or OE, rather than OHG or OS. Although the notion of an “Anglo-Frisian” dialect unity is now generally rejected, a distinction may be drawn between an “Ingvaeonic” (I would prefer to say “coastal”) as against an “inland” group of WGmc dialects (Parsons 1996; 1999:101–109; Stiles 1995). This is not to say that the two are entirely discrete, of course: OS shares features with OFris and OE, although it is more closely related to OHG. Given the concentration of find-sites in southwestern Germany, we are (probably) mainly concerned with the “inland” dialect group, from which OS and OHG developed. Where there are indications that we may be dealing with features associated with the “coastal” dialects, these are discussed in the text. Inscriptions which are identifiably Frisian from a runological point of view have been excluded from the corpus (§ 1.2.2). Where it is necessary to use a label to refer to the set of “inland” WGmc dialects represented in the inscriptions, I have opted for the term “Continental Runic” (CRun). This is an intentionally vague label created for the sake of convenience; it does not necessarily imply a discrete or complete linguistic entity.
2 I have followed convention in using the term “Proto-Norse” when referring to the language attested in the early Scandinavian runic inscriptions, in spite of the wellfounded objections expressed by, e.g., Antonsen (2003:12–13). The term “Northwest Germanic” I reserve for a reconstructed stage of language.
General introduction
5
1.1.2 Chronology and dating Dating the Continental runic inscriptions to a period between the 5th – 7th centuries is not controversial. However, the dating of finds is imprecise: different sources often give widely varying dates for a particular inscription, and in many cases fail to distinguish between the date of a grave and that of an inscribed item’s manufacture, or to state explicitly the type of evidence on which the dating is based. I am therefore inclined to treat the matter with caution and avoid using chronology as a criterion for subdividing the corpus. Except where we have a more secure basis for dating, such as a terminus post quem gleaned from coin evidence or dendrochronology, I regard all dates as tentative. I shall, however, make reference to the suggested chronologies used in the literature. For further discussion of the problems surrounding the dating of the material, see Hills (1991:31–46); Roth (1981a; 1998). Nedoma (2004a:183–184) lists the following inscriptions as relatively late: 3. Arlon; 7. Bad Krozingen A; 53. Neudingen-Baar I; 55. Niederstotzingen; 62. Pforzen II; 70. Schwangau; and 90. Wurmlingen. All of these have been assigned dates of c.600 or early 7th century. 76. Stetten stands out as being much later (c.680/690 – see catalogue), a date which in Nedoma’s view (ibid.) argues against the runic character of this item. Often in the literature, date-ranges are stated as a given, without further comment. Many datings rely on poorly-justified and questionable assumptions about sound changes. For example, Arntz (1937:8) assigns 65. †Rügen to the 5th century on the basis of a supposed link to the bracteate tradition, namely what he sees as a textual parallel between Rügen giu and 27. Geltorf II gwu (see entries in § 7.1.1.1). This parallel is at best speculative, and given the questionable authenticity of the Rügen item, the dating rests on very unsteady ground. Even where we can be more confident of a dating, it is rare for the sources to narrow the date-range down to a period shorter than 50 years. When the entire period of runic activity on the Continent is at most 250–300 years (the earliest finds being c.400; the latest, Stetten c.680–690), and given the disagreements about dating in many cases, it is not possible to establish a clear relative chronology. Nevertheless, beside the list of items normally dated to the 7th century, we can compile a list of those normally dated before c.500. These are 1. Aalen; 49. Liebenau; 78. †Trier; 85–87. †Weser I–III.3 The corpus also includes a number of bracteates, for which the conventional date3 Here again, we are dealing with datings based on a wide range of criteria. The Weser bones, for instance, have been subjected to amino acid and 14C analysis, but these methods produce divergent results which Pieper (1989) attempts to reconcile using art-historical comparisons.
6
The Continental runic inscriptions
range c.450-c.550 is given: 27. Geltorf II; 33. Heide; 35. Hitsum; 71. Sievern; 72. Skodborg; 73. Skonager III. The remaining inscriptions, comprising the bulk of the corpus, are mostly assigned dates in the 6th century.
1.1.3 Reconstructing and representing PGmc It is not my intention to become deeply involved in the problems surrounding the phonological reconstruction of PGmc. Individual authors use a variety of conventions in their representation of proto-forms, not least because the phoneme inventory is in dispute. Except where quoting from another source, I follow the reconstructions of Orel (2003). I represent the consonants as */p t k b d g f θ x s z m n l r/ (§ 2.4), the short vowels as */i e a u/, the long vowels as */¯ı e¯ 1 e¯ 2 o¯ u¯ / and the diphthongs as */ai au eu/ (§ 2.2). Antonsen (1972:118) argues that it is impossible to determine whether the two subsystems traditionally labelled “short” and “long” were actually distinguished in terms of quantity, tenseness or a combination of the two. Although I prefer to adhere to the conventions of IPA notation in phonemic representations, I follow Antonsen’s practice of marking the long/tense vowels with a macron, rather than commit to the use of the IPA length marker, which would imply that quantity alone is the distinguishing feature of this subsystem. In the text, however, I retain the traditional terms “short” and “long” for the sake of simplicity and in deference to philological convention. The resulting compromise is less than satisfactory, but in a study which is primarily concerned with developments in a phonological system, rather than with phonetic details, its consequences are not significant. When citing proto-forms for stems or whole words, I use italic script rather than a phonemic representation, in order to avoid making unwarranted assertions about the character of the consonants. Where it is necessary to discuss specific phonetic developments, I use IPA notation for individual segments. Inflected forms are based on the reconstructions of Lehmann (2005–2007) and Ringe (2006). When referring to a nom.sg. n-stem in discussions of etymology, I use Orel’s citation form in -¯on. The actual reconstruction of the n-stems is a point of disagreement among my sources; for further discussion, see Findell (2010); Ringe (2006:274–276).
General introduction
7
1.1.4 Orthography and phonology: the relationship of grapheme to phoneme Although this project focuses on forms attested in the epigraphical data, it is inevitably dependent on the tradition of philological work on the Gmc languages, and especially the work on the Continental dialects. In this tradition it is axiomatic that the phoneme is the fundamental unit of the linguistic system; that sound change is regular across a dialect area; and that orthographic variation is phonologically significant in most cases, allowing for such factors as scribal error, the interference of Latin and/or Gallo-Romance orthographic traditions, and analogy. While I have no intention of discarding these axioms, it is necessary to bear in mind the imperfections of the writing system both in principle and in practice. The notion of a “perfect fit” between the graphemic and phonemic systems might have some validity at the point of creation of the writing system (see, for example, Antonsen’s (1972) account of the runic vowel graphemes in relation to the lPGmc vowel system); but as spoken language changes over time and as the same set of graphemes is used to represent a variety of dialects, the writing system must either be adapted or become less intimately aligned with the sound system. Especially when dealing with vowels, we may well have a system in which two phonemes have allophones which are sufficiently similar to allow varying graphic representations. If, for example, /a/ has a raised front allophone [], and /e/ has a relatively open allophone [Ô], and the only available graphemes for representing these sounds are and , it is to be expected that the data will show some apparently confusing alternations between the two. The other issue is that of practice: when we are dealing with a tradition in which orthographic conventions are not rigidly enforced, there will inevitably be a certain amount of “noise” in transmission as individual language users make their own decisions about how best to represent a particular sound or group of sounds. Individuals are prone to idiosyncrasy and error, and may be operating in a culture where errors or incidental variations are not given much importance. I am not at this stage primarily concerned with making statements about general phonological theory, or with testing particular theoretical models. If linguistics is to consider itself in any way scientific, then its theories must stem from the analysis of real data. When we come to deal with runic inscriptions, often we are faced with difficulties in deciding what the data represent, and it is impossible to read a text without making certain assumptions about how the language works. Nonetheless, I do consider some of the models which have been proposed to explain particular sound changes; and I discuss the matter of what constitutes evidence for or against a hypothesis, and whether such evidence exists in the inscriptions.
8
The Continental runic inscriptions
1.2 The corpus of runic inscriptions Although it is well known that the set of runic inscriptions classified as “Continental” or “South Germanic” is concentrated in the region of the upper Rhine and upper Danube, individual authors differ in their view of the extent of that material. As was mentioned in the introduction, we are dealing almost exclusively with inscriptions on portable objects; it follows that the location of a find is not necessarily an indicator of where the object was manufactured, nor where the inscription was produced. Although geographical boundaries have been placed on the corpus (§ 1.2.1), it must be recognised that these boundaries are porous. I have therefore included some items not normally considered part of the “Continental” or “South Germanic” runic corpus. Conversely, some items included in other corpora of Continental material (compare An; AZ; KJ; L; O) are omitted, in most cases on the grounds of intelligibility. A particular inscription is included in the corpus if it meets all of the following criteria:
1.2.1 Geographical and chronological context The study incorporates material from a geographical area with no fixed western or southern boundaries. I have set as the northern limit of the area the line of the Danevirke. Although this fortification postdates the “runic” period (the earliest phase of construction is dated dendrochronologically to c.737 (Wilson 1978:3–7)), its placement exploits existing natural boundaries (Andersen et al. 1976; Andersen 1998; Wilson 1978). Klein (2001:579) identifies the Eider as the boundary between NGmc and WGmc dialect areas. The eastern boundary of the study area is the Oder, corresponding to the boundary between archaeologically distinct Germanic groups conventionally identified as Elb-Germanen (or Herminones, after Tacitus) and Oder-Weichsel-Germanen or Ost-Germanen (Robinson 1992:17; Waterman 1966:43). Whether this river necessarily marks a boundary between WGmc and EGmc dialect areas is open to question. All runic inscriptions found within the study area are included in the corpus, unless it can reliably be shown that they are written in non-WGmc dialects (e.g., if they attest the PNorse retention of lPGmc inflectional */-z/). Items conventionally identified as linguistically PNorse or EGmc are included if a WGmc interpretation of the inscription cannot be ruled out. For example, although the word alu is well-attested as part of the Scandinavian tradition, it is at least conceivable that a WGmc cognate (loanword?) is contained (or at least understood) in the Continental examples.
The corpus of runic inscriptions
9
Conversely, finds from outside the area will be included in the corpus if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an “inland” WGmc dialect may be represented. Where this is unclear, the item is included and discussed in the appropriate parts of the text. Several finds from the Low Countries and England have been included, even though they may belong to the “coastal” rather than to the “inland” group of WGmc dialects. Finds from this area are excluded only if they fall outside the time period of the study, or if they contain additional runes which would identify them as Frisian or English (§ 1.2.2). An item is included if it is datable within the period c.400-c.700 A.D. This period covers all of the material conventionally classed as “Continental” or “South Germanic” (see § 1.1.2).
1.2.2 Content and graphology An inscription is included only if it can reliably be identified as runic (objects with isolated rune-like carvings are excluded), and if it contains what might conceivably be an intelligible text (even if no interpretations are available). Uninterpretable inscriptions are excluded, as are the fuÂark inscriptions from Breza (AZ 8; KJ 5; L VII.10; O 8) and Trossingen (Theune-Großkopf and Nedoma 2006). The corpus contains only inscriptions written using the 24-letter Older FuÂark. Those using the innovative English and Frisian runes are excluded, as the addition of these runes reflects sound changes peculiar to the “coastal” dialects (Parsons 1996; Stiles 1995). I have excluded one item from the corpus on the grounds of interpretability: the Bergakker scabbard mount (L IX.7) has been the subject of lengthy debate (see especially Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999); however, its transliteration and linguistic interpretation remain so controversial that it cannot readily be evaluated for the purposes of this project. This is, admittedly, an ad hoc exception to the criteria stated above, but the inclusion of this item would necessitate lengthy discussion yielding very little of value to the aims of the project.
10
The Continental runic inscriptions
1.2.3 Authenticity Several runic inscriptions have at one time or another fallen under the suspicion of being modern forgeries, and some of these are almost entirely ignored in the runological literature. I feel it appropriate to include in the corpus those items which are suspect but which have not been rigorously shown to be fakes: for example, the serpentine object from Trier (almost universally dismissed, though on unclear grounds) is included, while the Maria Saaler Berg bone inscription (exposed by the admission of the forger and by subsequent chemical analysis) is not (Düwel 1994c:104–105; Nedoma 2004a:389). The items whose authenticity is in doubt are marked in the text with a superscript dagger †. I have chosen to include them for the sake of completeness, bearing in mind that attempts have been made in recent years to rehabilitate some of them. By including these items I do not mean to endorse them, but merely to allow that they may be worthy of discussion. They must be treated with caution, and it would be imprudent to allow any arguments about the language of the inscriptions to rely heavily on these witnesses. The arguments for and against authenticity are discussed briefly in Appendix 2.
The vocalic system of lPGmc
11
2. Phonology and runic orthography 2.1 Introduction The main part of the study takes as its point of departure the vocalic system of lPGmc, as far as it can be reconstructed. In the present chapter, this system will be outlined (§ 2.2), as will the developments which produced the vocalic systems of OHG and OS (§ 2.3). The subsequent chapters will then examine the runic data in detail to search for and evaluate the evidence for these sound changes.
2.2 The vocalic system of lPGmc As noted above (§ 1.1.3), there is no complete consensus on the proper reconstruction and representation of the PGmc vocalics. In this section I shall outline the phonological system from which the later analyses will proceed.
2.2.1 Short vowels */i/ */e/
*/u/ = *[u ~ o] */a/
The phonemic status of */i/ and */e/ has been disputed (e.g., by Moulton 1961:6–12); Lehmann (2005–2007 § 2.7.1) argues that they are distinct phonemes because, although their distribution is to a large extent complementary, we have near-minimal pairs such as PGmc *etanan “eat” vs. *witanan “know”; and both of them can occur before */a/ and */u/ in following syllables (*/i/ and */e/ are not simply umlaut variants). The 4-member system of short vowels is also accepted by Antonsen (1972:132–133), van Coetsem (1994:46), and Ringe (2006:214, 220–225). For the purposes of this study, I assume that */i/ and */e/ are separate phonemes, while recognising that they may not always be distinguishable. When
12
Phonology and runic orthography
citing proto-forms, I follow Orel’s (2003) reconstructions, unless stated otherwise. Orel acknowledges the difficulties in distinguishing between the two phonemes, and admits that some of his own reconstructions are “close to arbitrary” (2003:xii). Within PGmc, underlying */e/ is raised to */i/ in unstressed positions (except before */r/). This applies only to those cases where a particular syllable may be either stressed or unstressed following the Gmc accent shift, such as the pronouns: PGmc *’ek ~ *ik > ON ek, OE ic, OHG ih; PGmc *’mek ~ *mik > ON mik, OE mec, OHG mih (Ringe 2006:220). OHG seems to generalise the */i/-forms (ih, mih, dih), while OS shows some variation, possibly as a consequence of competing orthographic influences (ic ~ ec, mî ~ me ~ mik, thic). On the general development of these phonemes in OHG and OS, see §§ 2.3.3.1–2.3.3.2. ePGmc stressed */e/ is also raised to lPGmc *[i] before a syllable-final nasal; and before a syllable containing a high front vocalic (van Coetsem 1994:88–93; Ringe 2006:220, 224). Since this is a purely allophonic process, I have retained the representation *e when citing proto-forms from Orel (2003), e.g., *weniz “friend”, *fenÂanan “find” (compare Ringe’s (2006) *winiz, *finÂan˛a). PGmc */u/ has allophones conditioned by the vowel of the following syllable: */u/ = *[u] before a high vowel, *[o] before a non-high vowel (unless a nasal consonant intervenes). I have characterised PGmc */a/ as low and central.1 It is not my intention to endorse any particular theory about the PGmc value of this vowel; we could define it negatively as that vowel which belongs to the short/lax subsystem of the PGmc vowel system and which is distinguishable from the back/round vowel */u/ (M *[u o]) and the front/spread vowel(s) */i e/ (or */i/ M *[i e]). Antonsen (1972:110; 1975:122–123) posits three umlaut allophones for */a/: *[] in a high-front environment; *[ɑ] in a high-back environment; and *[ə] in a combined high-front and high-back environment.
1 According to van Coetsem (1994:82–83), lPGmc */a/ represents a centralised or neutralised reflex of ePGmc */ɔ/. Since the reconstruction of PGmc is not our object here, I do not intend to discuss this proposal further.
The vocalic system of lPGmc
13
2.2.2 Long vowels */¯ı/ */¯e2/ */¯e1/
*/¯u/ */¯o/ */¯a/ (< */anx/)
The evidence of Latin loanwords on the one hand, and of the umlaut effects triggered by non-root vowels on the other, indicates that the PGmc reflexes of PIE */¯e o¯ / were relatively low; consequently, Antonsen represents them as */æ/ ¯ and */ɔ¯ / (1972) or */ɒ¯ / (2002), respectively. In my own text, I use the more traditional notation */¯e1 o¯ / (compare Lehmann 2005–2007 § 2.2, § 2.7.3; Orel 2003:xii; Ringe 2006:214). */¯e1/ (< PIE */¯e/) is to be distinguished (at least in terms of its history) from another long/tense mid front vowel conventionally notated */¯e2/. The origin of */¯e2/ and its place in the history of PGmc is a subject of debate which need not concern us in this study (see Antonsen 1972:131; van Coetsem 1994:98–113, 114–118; Connolly 1979; Vennemann 1994b:208–212). A process of nasal assimilation with compensatory lengthening affects PGmc */i a u/ before */nx/ in the later stages of the proto-language (Antonsen 2002:28; Ringe 2006:149–150, 215–216; see also § 2.4): */inx/ > */¯ıx/; */unx/ > */¯ux/; */anx/ > */¯ax/. The last change produces a long low vowel */¯a/, which is not normally treated as part of the phoneme inventory of PGmc as it is a late development (though one which can plausibly be ascribed to lPGmc as it appears in all the dialects, e.g., PGmc *xanxanan > Go h¯ahan, OE h¯on, OFris hu¯a, OS OHG h¯ahan “hang”) and occurs only in this restricted context.2
2.2.3 Diphthongs Conventionally, the lPGmc vowel system contains 3 diphthongs which concern us: */eu/ */ai/ */au/
2 Ringe (2006:214, 258) identifies another */¯a/ as an alternant with */ai/ in the pres. stem-formant of class III weak verbs. Since no verbs of this class are attested in the inscriptions, I shall not comment further on this point.
14
Phonology and runic orthography
A fourth diphthong */ei/ can be reconstructed for earlier stages of PGmc, though since this merges with */¯ı/ in lPGmc, it is not relevant to the present project (van Coetsem 1994:94–95; Lehmann 2005–2007 § 2.7.4). Lehmann (2005–2007 § 2.2, § 2.7.3) and Ringe (2006:214) reconstruct a phoneme */eu/ with an umlaut allophone *[iu], while Antonsen (1972) and Moulton (1961) treat them as distinct phonemes, */eu iu/. Antonsen justifies his reconstruction by reference to Scandinavian runic data: Darum V bracteate (An 56; IK 43; KJ 104) niujil vs. Opedal (An 21; KJ 76) leubu (1972:129–130). Aside from the reading of Opedal eu vs. iu,3 these forms are not in contrastive distribution, and can perfectly well represent allophones of a single diphthong selected by the frontness or backness of the following vowel.4
2.2.4 On the distinction “front” vs. “back” In §§ 4–6 I group the non-diphthongal vocalics (i.e., the monophthongs and the semivowels) into 3 sets which I label “back” (*/u u¯ o¯ w/), “front” (*/i e ¯ı e¯ 1 e¯ 2 j/) and “low” (*/a a¯ /). In referring to a distinction between “front” and “back”, I am employing the terms of traditional philology. Antonsen (1972:132–133) argues that the contrasts of PGmc */i e/ vs. */u/ and */¯ı e¯ 1 e¯ 2/ vs. */¯u o¯ / are properly characterised by the opposition “spread” vs. “rounded”. The basis of his argument is that all of these phonemes have umlaut allophones which differ from the underlying form in terms of frontness/ backness, but which preserve the contrastive feature of roundedness: thus, for example, *[y] appears as a front allophone of */u/; although it is front, it retains the contrastive feature of rounding, and so speakers perceive it as underlying */u/, not */i/. The vowel which I have characterised as “low” (i.e., */a/) is in this view neither spread nor rounded, though it has both rounded and unrounded allophones *[ɒ ]. For the purposes of the current project, the point is moot, since we are concerned only with the practical contrasts between members of the system, whereas Antonsen is approaching the question with the aim of specifying features within a generative phonology framework. My groupings “back”, 3 Antonsen’s reading here diverges from the more widely-accepted liubu (compare, e.g., Krause 1966:175–176; Nielsen 2000:105). 4 A particular author’s decision to reconstruct one diphthong */eu/ or two */iu eu/ is not directly related to that author’s reconstruction of one or two short front monophthongs, */i/ or */i e/ (§ 2.2.1).
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
15
“front” and “low” correspond to the sets of phonemes which, if we were to use Antonsen’s features, would be specified as [-spread +rounded], [+spread -rounded], and [-spread -rounded].
2.3 The vocalic systems of OHG and OS This section outlines the developments of the lPGmc vocalics in the later Continental dialects. The vocalic system is here subdivided on the basis of the contrasts diphthong/back/front/low, the same set of categories used in the core chapters (§§ 3–6). I have avoided subdivision into long vs. short subsystems at this point because we are turning our attention from phonological properties to rune-orthographic evidence, and there is no graphemic distinction between long and short vowels. Furthermore, the sound changes described in this section involve changes in vowel height, but the distinction back/front/low in the non-diphthongal vocalics seems to be relatively stable. 2.3.1 Diphthongs 2.3.1.1 PGmc */eu/ PGmc */eu/ undergoes a number of allophonic (and ultimately phonemic) splits, which are not always clearly distinguished from one another in the literature. They can be outlined as follows: 1. Umlaut variations (subject to restrictions outlined in 2.): a. Development of an allophone *[iu] before a syllable containing a high front vocalic (*/i ¯ı j/), as part of the general raising of PGmc */e/ in this context (§ 2.3.3.2) (Ringe 2006:221). b. Development of *[iu] before a syllable containing a high back vowel (*/u u¯ /; consonantal */w/ does not trigger this change). It is not clear whether this process is directly connected with the preceding one, or is an independent development. It is certainly attested in OHG and OS, and possibly also in early PNorse,5 which suggests that it may be common NWGmc (Klein 2001:583; Krause 1971:74–76; Nielsen 2000:105, 229). c. Development of an allophone *[eo] before /a/, and (at least in OHG and OS) before /e/ and /o/ (BR § 47; Klein 2001:583; Krause 1971:74–76; Nielsen 2000:229). Within PGmc, the allophone *[eo] is parallel to the open allophone of PGmc simplex */u/ M *[o] (§ 2.3.2.1). 5 The sole witness to this is Opedal liubu, the reading of which is disputed (§ 2.2.3).
16
Phonology and runic orthography
Van Coetsem (1994:47, 94–98) has a different take on the chronology of these variations: in his reconstruction, lPGmc */eu/ first develops the a-umlaut allophone *[eo]; the remaining *[eu] is then generalised to *[iu], with *[eu] preserved before a high back vocalic. If *[eo] is the product of a-umlaut, then it must become phonemic after the loss of the conditioning environment (i.e., deletion of unstressed */a/ in final position or before final */z/, common to the background of all the WGmc dialects).6 2. Consonant-conditioned variations in OHG: a. In UG, the variant */eo/ appears only where the following consonant is a dental/alveolar, or /h/ < PGmc */x/. Before labial or velar consonants (including /h/ < PGmc */k/ via Second Consonant Shift; see § 2.3.1.3.1), the surface form is always /iu/. b. In Frk (and in OS), the umlaut-derived variations described above apply regardless of the consonantal environment. Braune and Reiffenstein follow Vennemann’s explanation (1972:879) that because the dental consonants and /h/ involve a relatively low position of the back of the tongue, they are more amenable to lowering of the back off-glide. Whether or not we accept this, the consonants before which /eo/ appears in UG are the same ones which condition the monophthongisation of PGmc */au/ in OHG (including Frk) (§ 2.3.1.4.1). The consonant-conditioned alternation is conventionally characterised as blocking of the regular a-umlaut (*/eu/ > *[eo]) by the labial and velar consonants (Armitage 1911:121 § 275; Braune 1877:557; BR § 47). We could alternatively explain it as a secondary raising of inherited */eo/ triggered by the labials and velars. This appears to be the model which Penzl (1971:139–140) and Wright (1906 § 56) have in mind. Whatever the theoretical underpinning of the UG consonant-conditioned variation may be, it produces the following surface patterns:
6 I leave aside the theoretical question of the motivation for phonologisation. For discussion and criticism of the dominant model, in which allophones become phonemes as a consequence of the loss of the conditioning environment, see Liberman (1991). That variants must be phonemic subsequent to the loss of the conditioning factors is not disputed; the argument is therefore not of direct relevance to our present object, namely the reconstruction of a phonemic system at a stage postdating this loss.
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
17
*/eu/ + (labial or velar) + (non-high vowel): Frk riochan; fliogan; klioban; liob; thiob. UG riuhhan; fliugan; chliuban; liup; diup. */eu/ + (dental or /h/) + (non-high vowel): Frk biotan; siodan; niozan; kiosan; lioht. UG biotan; siodan; niozan; kiosan; lioht. */eu/ + (labial or velar) + (high vowel): Frk liub¯ı. UG liup¯ı. */eu/ + (dental or /h/) + (high vowel): Frk 1.sg. kiusu. UG 1.sg. chiusu. Where the surface form has no following vowel, the presence of /eo/ in Frk is conditioned by underlying inflectional */a/ (liob, thiob, lioht < PGmc *leubaz, *Âeubaz, *leuxtan). In the adjectives, the disappearance of the nom.sg.fem. suffix (/-u/ < PGmc */-¯o/; see § 2.3.2.3; § 4.4) results in an analogical form based on the masc. form, rather than a preserved /-iu-/ form (i.e., PGmc *leub¯o > pre-Frk *liubu M Frk liob-Ø). The spelling does appear alongside in early (8th c.) OHG mss., and Frk pers.ns. in 6th – 7th c. Lat mss. show free variation between and (BR § 47 Anm. 1). Occasionally, Frk mss. have forms like liub alongside regular liob, liab. Because they only appear sporadically, these are probably variants influenced by UG orthography, rather than evidence for the spread of UG dialectal forms (BR § 47 Anm. 4). Both variants undergo further developments during the OHG period: early OHG /eo/ > /io/ > /ie/ = [iə] (BR § 48; Penzl 1971:137–138), merging with the diphthongal reflex of PGmc */¯e2/ (§ 2.3.3.5). /iu/ is monophthongised > /y/ (BR § 49). Since the first of these changes is conventionally dated to the 9th century and the second not until the 10th, they are unlikely to be relevant to this study, though they should not be ruled out absolutely. We have, for example, occasional spellings in early sources which may indicate monophthongal reflexes of /iu/, e.g., z¯uhit 3.sg.pres. to ziohan “to draw, pull” (St. Gallen Abrogans, late 8th c. (Gibbs and Johnson 2000:27)). The system in OS is essentially the same as that in Frk (Gallée 1910 §§ 102–108; Holthausen 1921 §§ 101–105). Inherited /eu/ is normally preserved word-finally, or before /w/ followed by a non-high vowel (e.g., treuwa “faith”); and the OS sources show some (analogical?) variation in the distribution of variants. Holthausen cites occasional forms with where we
18
Phonology and runic orthography
would expect ~ (e.g., sniumo ~ sliumo “quickly” from either the adj. *sliunig or the verb *sniumjan (: Go sniumjan “hurry”; OHG sniumen “to expedite”, < PGmc *sneumjanan)); and (more commonly) the converse (e.g., liohtean “to shine”, by analogy with lioht “light”). As in OHG, the form of nominal and adjectival stems is usually generalised from the nom.sg.(masc.) (e.g., liof “dear”, dat.pl. lioun; thiod “people”, dat.sg. thiodu) (Holthausen 1921 § 103 Anm. 2–3).
2.3.1.2 The NWGmc monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ and */au/ In OHG and OS, as in all of the NGmc and WGmc dialects, the reflexes of PGmc */ai/ and */au/ are monophthongal in unstressed position (e.g., OS dag-e, OHG tag-e “day” (dat.sg.) < PGmc *dag-ai). This monophthongisation may belong to the common NWGmc stage: lPGmc */-ai/ > */-æ/ ¯ > NWGmc */-¯e/; lPGmc */-au/ > */-ɔ¯ / > NWGmc */-¯o/ (Antonsen 1970:315–316; Syrett 1994:271–276). The problem, as regards the Scandinavian Older FuÂark material, is that for reflexes of unstressed */ai/, we have variation between digraphic -ai and monographic -e. The only witness to a reflex of unstressed */au/ is on the Vetteland stone (KJ 60) magoz M mag¯oz “kinsman” (gen.sg.) (< PGmc *magauz). Both Antonsen and Syrett take the view that monophthongisation has taken place in the period of the earliest inscriptions, and that the (relatively few) digraphic spellings are archaisms. Although the immediate output of the NWGmc monophthongisation is a long vowel, the quantity of the reflexes in OHG is not entirely clear. Braune indicates that inherited long vowels remain long in unstressed final position in OHG at least into the 9th century (BR §§ 56–58). The cognates in OS are short (Gallée 1910 § 112, § 114; Holthausen 1921 § 150, § 152). The shortening of unstressed vowels is a tendency attested throughout Gmc, and believed to result from the Gmc accent shift (Birkmann 1995:167; Prokosch 1939:133–140); as to the chronology, Prokosch states that “during the first two or three centuries A.D., … final syllables lost one mora. About five hundred years later a second mora was lost” (1939:133).7 Since our runic inscriptions were produced in the 5th – 7th centuries – that is, in the period during which (according to Prokosch) a general process of mora reduction was underway – the quantity of the monophthongal reflexes of unstressed */-ai/ 7 The validity of the hypothesis that PIE had trimoric vowels is disputed, and I do not intend to discuss it here: see Antonsen (2002:254–256); Lane (1963); Prokosch (1939:132–133). That PGmc */-ai/ in unstressed final position regularly produces a short monophthong in the later dialects is not controversial.
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
19
cannot be evaluated a priori. Given that the runic writing system does not have any means of marking vowel-quantity (except perhaps with a digraph, and there is little, if any, evidence that carvers ever employed such a device), it is unlikely that the inscriptions will shed any light on this problem.
2.3.1.3 PGmc */ai/ in OHG and OS A further monophthongisation process affects stressed */ai/ in both OHG and OS. The resultant monophthong is conventionally represented e¯ or ë in the handbooks. The “coastal” WGmc dialects also show monophthongisation of */ai/: in OE, /ai/ > /¯a/ unconditionally (Campbell 1959 §§ 132, 134). OFris monophthongisation is also unconditioned, but the reflexes show an alternation /¯a/ ~ /¯e/, which has not been adequately explained (Heuser 1903 § 19; Stiles 1995:200–201). PGmc */au/ in stressed position is also subject to monophthongisation in OHG and OS (§ 2.3.1.4). The developments of the two a-diphthongs are widely regarded as parallel, although any unified theoretical account of these processes must overcome considerable difficulties (§ 2.3.1.4.1).
2.3.1.3.1 Conditions for monophthongisation Monophthongisation is not phonologically conditioned in OS, though diphthongs (or digraphic spellings, at any rate: ) are retained before /j/ and in a few specific words (including many pers.ns., e.g., Atalheid) (Gallée 1910 §§ 89–94; Holthausen 1921 §§ 97–98). In OHG the monophthongisation is much more restricted, although it is difficult to identify the phonetic motivation for the conditioning (see Durrell 1977; Harbert 1997; Penzl 1971:124–131; Rauch 1999; Schweikle 1964; Vennemann 1972). Since our concern at present is to outline the surface facts in OHG, rather than to evaluate theoretical explanations of the process, I simply follow Braune (BR § 43) and state the conditions for the monophthongisation atomistically: 1. Monophthongisation occurs regularly before /r w h/. Inherited /h/ (< PGmc */x/) triggers monophthongisation, but the consonant-shifted reflex of */k/ does not (§ 2.5.1.2.1): compare, e.g., e¯ ht “property” (< PGmc *aixtiz), eih “oak” (< PGmc *aikz). This implies that the two are phonetically distinct. On the possible velar/uvular character of /r/ in this context, see § 2.5.2.1.1.
20
Phonology and runic orthography
2. Certain interjections with proto-forms in */-ai/ have a monophthong in OHG (s¯e, s¯e-nu “behold!” < PGmc *sai; w¯e “woe, alas!” < *wai). This is not a general rule in final position (compare zwei “two” (neut.); screi 1.sg.pret. to scr¯ıan “cry, moan”; ei “egg”);8 3. A number of anomalous forms appear in other environments, e.g., w¯enag “miserable, poor, low” (< PGmc *wainagaz/*wainaxaz). The motivation for monophthongisation in these cases is not clear, but it is evidently not phonological (since formally similar words retain a diphthong, e.g., wein¯on “to cry, wail”).
2.3.1.3.2 Chronology Braune dates the OHG monophthongisation of */ai/ to the 7th century (BR § 43). He suggests that the process begins in Frk and is part of a more general shift in the north (reflected in the OS data, albeit at a later date). The earliest (8th c.) OHG sources show some instances of preserved /ai/ before /r/ (e.g., pers.ns. Gairelaigo, Gairoaldo), but otherwise monophthongs predominate throughout the OHG period. Schneider (1980:196) cites a 7th-century Merovingian coin from Gondorf as the earliest witness to the change (it bears a Frk MN Geroaldo < *Gaira< PGmc *gaizaz “spear”; see Felder 1978:42), while Beck (2001:313–314) claims even earlier evidence in the Malberg glosses, citing forms like fecho (< PGmc *faix¯on > Go bi-faih(o) “exaction”, gafaih¯on “to take advantage of, defraud” (Lehmann 1986)); chreo (< PGmc *xraiwa- > Go hraiwa-dubo “turt¯ “corpse”; OFris hr¯e-raf “corpse-robbery”; ledove”; OIc hr, OE hr¯aw ~ hræw OHG r¯eo “death, grave”) (see van Helten 1900:243–244). However, Beck’s claim that these examples “belong to those redactions of the Pactus Legis Salicae which represent the Old Frankish linguistic situation of the 6 th century”9
8 Some commentators (Durrell 1977:52; Penzl 1971:125) count open juncture among the conditioning environments for monophthongisation, and Durrell proposes a feature specification for juncture in his attempt to provide a general account of the triggering conditions. I am not convinced that this account matches the data: most instances of word-final PGmc */-ai/ appear in unstressed syllables and so are subject to the NWGmc monophthongisation (§ 2.3.1.2), while (according to Braune) only some of the relatively uncommon monosyllables with final (stressed) */-ai/ undergo monophthongisation. Penzl (1971:127) ascribes the diphthong of, e.g., ei to derivation from a geminate (PGmc *ajjaz); but this is not the case in zuuei < *twai, or screi < *skrai (Ringe 2006:265–268, 286). 9 “ … gehören … denjenigen Redaktionen des Pactus Legis Salicae an, die altfränkischen Sprachstand des 6. Jahrhunderts repräsentieren”
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
21
(2001:314) is misleading: the mss. to which he refers date from the mid-late 8th or early 9th century (Drew 1991:52–53; van Helten 1900:237; Hessels 1880 [2004]:xiv), and there seems no justification for dating the language of the glosses as far back as the 6th (Nedoma 2004a:295; Schmidt-Wiegand 2001:185). Neither Gallée (1910) nor Holthausen (1921) discusses the chronology of the monophthongisation in OS; since there are only a few traces of the inherited diphthongs, it is probably safe to assume that the process is already advanced in the earliest (9th c.) OS sources.
2.3.1.3.3 Phonetic development In early OHG sources, the reflex of */ai/ in monophthongisation-triggering environments is frequently written ~ . From the 9th century, the usual spelling is . From a phonetic point of view, the process occurs in two stages (according to Durrell 1977:59–63): first, the off-glide is lowered to produce a “pre-monophthongal” variant [ae]. The first element is subsequently raised, [ae] > /¯e/ (= [Ł]?) as part of a general process affecting the first elements of complex vowel-segments in the late 8th or early 9th century (see also van Coetsem 1975:11–17). Penzl (1947:178–179; 1971:127–128) argues that the spelling is simply an orthographic device for distinguishing the relatively open product of monophthongisation (/Ł/ < */ai/) from the more close /¯e/ < PGmc */¯e2/ (which by the 9th century undergoes diphthongisation > /ia/; see § 2.3.3.5). In Penzl’s account, the monophthongisation process is a matter of increasing palatalisation of the first element, [a] > [] > [Ô], while the second is (concurrently?) lowered to [e], which assimilates to the preceding (and more strongly accented) element, [Ôe] > [Ł]. Sonderegger (1961:271) cautiously favours the interpretation of in the 8th-century St. Gallen witnesses as an intermediate diphthong [aə]. The later developments of /Ł/ < */ai/ and /¯e/ < */¯e2/ show that they are distinct phonemes in OHG; in OS, however, it is generally assumed that the two have merged (Gallée 1910 § 84; Holthausen 1921 § 92; Penzl 1971:128). In the following text, I notate the product of the OHG conditioned monophthongisation as /Ł/ and that of the unconditioned change in OS /¯e/. For the products of the NWGmc monophthongisation of the unstressed diphthong, the notation used is NWGmc */¯e/ > OHG OS /e/. We cannot be certain of the actual quality of this vowel, but I am not aware of any evidence for distinct open and close mid front phonemes in the unstressed vowel systems of OHG or OS.
22
Phonology and runic orthography
It is at least theoretically possible that an allophone with a lowered offglide *[ae] was already present in lPGmc; this allophone would be a product of a-umlaut and/or consonant-conditioned lowering of */i/ before */x/ and */r/ (but not */w/) (van Coetsem 1994:48–49, 118–119).
2.3.1.4 PGmc */au/ in OHG and OS Like */ai/, the reflexes of PGmc */au/ undergo monophthongisation in OHG and OS, producing a vowel conventionally represented as o¯ in the handbooks.
2.3.1.4.1 Conditions for monophthongisation In OS, */au/ is monophthongised in all contexts except before /w/; here, as in the case of */ai/, the diphthong is preserved only where supported by a semivowel homorganic with the off-glide. The OHG monophthongisation is conditioned by following consonants, but the conditions differ from those for the monophthongisation of */ai/. Monophthongisation occurs before /h/ < PGmc */x/ (§ 2.3.1.3.1), and before all dental/alveolar consonants. Attempts to unify the two monophthongisations in a single theoretical account have run into difficulties, not least in attempting to explain why the dentals affect only */au/. It may well be that we are dealing with two entirely distinct processes. For a detailed treatment of the problem, see Durrell (1977). The similarity of the conditioning environments for the monophthongisation of */au/ and the UG distribution of reflexes of */eu/ (§ 2.3.1.1) seems to have attracted no attention in the literature (see § 8.1.3.1).
2.3.1.4.2 Chronology According to Braune (BR § 45 Anm. 1), the monophthongisation of */au/ in OHG begins in the 8th century (i.e., somewhat later than the monophthongisation of */ai/). However, since it appears here and there in the earliest OHG sources, we should consider (and empirically evaluate) the possibility that it may appear in the runic inscriptions. It is possible that the monophthongisations of */ai/ and */au/ are the first stage of a push chain (the “OHG vowel shift”), triggering the diphthongisations of */¯o/ and */¯e2/ (§ 2.3.2.3; § 2.3.3.5). This hypothesis has the process
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
23
beginning in the north (i.e., in LG territory) and spreading southwards with diminishing effects (Szulc 1987:80–81).
2.3.1.4.3 Phonetic development As with the monophthongisation of */ai/, there is some evidence for an intermediate stage with lowering of the off-glide, i.e., */au/ > [ao] > [ɔ¯ ]. The spelling is widespread in Bav. texts of the 8th and early 9th centuries, but is not found in Frk or Alam. (BR § 45 Anm. 2). Penzl (1971:127–128) interprets the digraph as an orthographic device for representing the relatively open monophthong [ɔ¯ ] (in parallel with his treatment of ; see § 2.3.1.3.3). In contexts where monophthongisation does not occur, the spelling remains the norm until the 9th century, when it gives way to . In OS, the reflexes of */au/ are spelled (Gallée 1910 §§ 95–101; Holthausen 1921 §§ 99–100). It is possible – though the evidence is not clear – that the digraphs represent intermediate stages in the process.
2.3.2 Back vocalics 2.3.2.1 PGmc */u/ The PGmc umlaut allophones *[u o] (§ 2.2.1) are phonologised to /u o/ in all of the attested Gmc dialects (BR § 32). In OHG, the inherited allophonic distribution produces contrasts such as got “god” vs. gutin “goddess”; gibotan “offered” (past part.) vs. butun (pl.pret.). Many such contrasts are levelled out by analogy, however (e.g., gold, inst.sg. goldu ≠ *guldu; compare MFrk guld). Consistent exceptions to the normal pattern also appear (reflecting the status of /u/ and /o/ as full phonemes), e.g. sumar “summer” (< PGmc *sumeraz); and we find alternation in forms of the same word, e.g., ubar ~ obar “over, above” (BR § 32). The inherited distribution of /u/ and /o/ is preserved to a large extent in OS (Gallée 1910 §§ 69–78; Holthausen 1921 §§ 86–88). Here too the pattern is disturbed by analogical levelling (e.g., goldu inst.sg., following nom.sg. gold; drohtin ~ druhtin “lord”). OS /o/ is occasionally represented as (e.g., Thuomas) or (e.g., uuarihtio ~ uurhteo “worker”). The latter reflects a more open articulation [ɔ] (particularly preceding /rC/, but also before other consonants) in western dialects (Gallée 1910 § 71). In the context /_rC/, the reflex of PGmc */u/ can also appear as , producing doublets like hress/
24
Phonology and runic orthography
hers ~ hross/hors ~ hars “horse” (Gallée is noncommittal on the directionality of the relationships between these variants, but it is clear that they are all ultimately reflexes of */u/ in PGmc *xrussan (Orel 2003)). In unstressed syllables, OHG shows considerable spelling variation, which reflects the levelling of the unstressed vowels > [ə]. Braune posits a threemember system /i a u/, in which [e o] are allophones of /a/, but also of the high vowels (BR § 62). Penzl, on the other hand, assumes that early OHG had the full set of vowel phonemes in unstressed syllables (i.e., that there is no distinction to be drawn between stressed and unstressed subsystems in respect of the inherited monophthongs) (Penzl 1971:141). OS normally preserves the spellings of /u/ and /o/ as and in unstressed syllables, with some variations: inherited /o/ sometimes appears as or (Gallée 1910 § 114; Holthausen 1921 § 152). Gallée describes this as a dialectal feature without going into further detail, though it may simply reflect a levelling of the unstressed vowels. Similarly, we sometimes encounter where we would regularly expect . In both languages, final /-u/ (whether derived from inherited */u/, */¯o/, or */w/) is usually deleted after a long syllable (e.g., OS hand-Ø, OHG hant-Ø nom.sg. < pre-OS pre-OHG *hand-u < PGmc *xanduz), though in some instances it is “restored” analogically (e.g., uuordu inst.sg.) (Gallée 1910 § 115; Holthausen 1921 § 153). Short unstressed medial vowels (of all qualities, not only /u o/) are often syncopated after a long stem, e.g., OS h¯elgoda (< h¯elagoda “blessed, sanctified”) (Gallée 1910 § 138; Holthausen 1921 §§ 137–140). On syncope in the WGmc dialects in general, see also Birkmann (1995:172–175).
2.3.2.2 PGmc */¯u/ This vowel does not undergo any change in stressed syllables, although Notker (late 10th/early 11th c.) often writes before . This spelling also appears occasionally elsewhere (BR § 41). Braune regards it as an orthographic variant with no phonological significance. Penzl (1971:93–95) mentions this variation, but does not comment on it. Variant spellings in OS (also believed to be purely orthographic, as these spellings are neither frequent nor consistent) are . In unstressed medial position, the reflexes of */¯u/ may be shortened, though the evidence is unclear (see comments in § 2.3.1.2).
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
25
2.3.2.3 PGmc */¯o/ In “standard” OHG,10 inherited /¯o/ is diphthongised to /uo/ in stressed syllables. This change begins in Alam. in the mid-late 8th century and is complete (with a consistent spelling ) in all the OHG dialects by c.900 AD, whereas earlier texts show variation between (BR §§ 38–39; Szulc 1987:80). The OS reflex of stressed */¯o/ is usually written , with variants including (Gallée 1910 § 86; Holthausen 1921 § 94). Widespread variation between and , even within the same ms., suggests that a diphthongisation parallel to that in OHG might be underway, at least in some dialects; it could, alternatively, be an artefact of orthographic practices taken from OHG sources. According to Moulton (1961:19–20), the diphthongisation of /¯o/ is part of a push chain in the OHG phonological system, the “push” coming in this case from the monophthongal reflex of PGmc */au/ = /ɔ¯ / (§ 2.3.1.4.2; see also van Coetsem 1975:4, 31;11 Szulc 1987:81–82). The phonetic similarity between the two prompts the diphthongisation of /¯o/ and the subsequent raising of /ɔ¯ / to occupy the “vacant” position. Moulton proposes a development of [o:] > [oɔ] > [oɑ] > [uo] (1961:20). In effect, the diphthongisation consists of two processes: (i) the development of the second mora into a lowered off-glide ([ɔ] > [ɑ]); (ii) the raising of the entire diphthong, possibly as part of the general raising of the diphthongs in OHG (/ai/ > /ei/; /au/ > /ou/; /eo/ > /io/; /eu/ > /iu/) (Moulton 1961:20). In medial syllables not bearing primary stress, inherited */¯o/ is normally shortened to /o/ in both OHG and OS. Word-finally, PGmc */-¯o/ > NWGmc */-¯u/ > OHG OS /-u/ (Antonsen 1972:139; Ringe 2006:221).
10 Braune’s description of OHG uses the EFrk dialect of Tatian (9th c.) as an unmarked Normalalthochdeutsch variety for reference purposes, while making it clear that no genuine “standard” form of OHG existed (BR § 4). 11 Note that van Coetsem is concerned with the monophthongisation as a development from lPGmc umlaut allophones of the a-diphthongs (*[ae ao]); he does not comment on the consonant-conditioned monophthongisations which I have discussed in §§ 2.3.1.3–2.3.1.4.
26
Phonology and runic orthography
2.3.2.4 PGmc */w/ OHG mss. normally use digraphs to represent consonantal /w/, with the letter appearing towards the end of the OHG period. Where /w/ is adjacent to /u/ or is geminated, the orthography varies between , and . OS also tends to use digraphic , with a single common after a consonant or before /u/ (e.g., tuelifo “twelve”; uundrode “wondered”). Phonologically, PGmc */w/ develops in a number of ways, depending on its position (BR §§ 106–114): • Initial /w-/ is generally unchanged. In the clusters /wr- wl-/ it is preserved in OS, but in OHG it is deleted at a stage predating the earliest ms. sources (e.g., PGmc *wr¯ıtanan > OS wr¯ıtan, OHG r¯ızan “to carve, write”).12 In the context /C_u-/, /w/ is sometimes elided (at least orthographically) in OHG (e.g., huosto “cough” < *hwuosto < *hw¯osto < PGmc *xw¯ost¯on. Braune gives several more examples, in each of which the /-u-/ is a product of the diphthongisation of */¯o/ (§ 2.3.2.3). Where a stem with initial /w-/ forms the second element of a compound (especially a pers.n.) it is often elided in OHG: e.g., -old, -olf (< -wald, wolf). • Syllable-final or word-final /w/ following a vowel normally becomes syllabic /o/ (or occasionally /u/), e.g., OHG kneo, OS knio nom.sg. “knee” (< PGmc *knewan); OHG farota pret. to far(a)wen “to dye, colour”. • In certain words, medial /w/ following an open syllable is syllabicated to form a diphthong (e.g., OHG s¯eula, OS seola ~ siola “soul” < PGmc *saiwal¯o). • Following a long vowel and preceding another vowel, /w/ is often (though not invariably) preserved in OHG (gr¯aw¯er “grey” (nsm.), e¯ wa “law”,13 sp¯ıwan “to spit, spew” vs. gr¯ae¯ r, e¯ a, sp¯ıan). Where it follows a long vowel and precedes a consonant, it is deleted in OHG (e.g., early OHG s¯eula ~ s¯ela; l¯ata, 1.sg.pret. to l¯awen “to betray” (< PGmc *l¯ewjanan)).
12 Initial /w-/ in these clusters is preserved in MFrk, with occasional appearances in other dialects, in early mss. (e.g., Alam. uuerecho “avenger”). Most of the examples cited by Braune have an anaptyctic vowel. 13 Note that the OS cognate e¯ o does not qualify as a parallel for or counter-example to this phenomenon, as it is a masc. (pre-OS *aiw-Ø < PGmc *aiwaz), whereas OHG e¯ wa is a fem. form. The OS reflex of */w/ becomes word-final following the loss of thematic */-a-/, and is therefore syllabicated.
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
27
2.3.3 Front vocalics 2.3.3.1 PGmc */i/ In OS, this phoneme is subject to lowering conditioned by the vowel of the following syllable: */i/ > /i/ before a high vowel or semivowel, /e/ before a mid or low vowel (Gallée 1910 § 56; Holthausen 1921 §§ 84–85). There is, nevertheless, a considerable amount of variation, and we find alternants like lebdin vs. regular libdin 3.pl.pret. “lived” (< PGmc *lib¯edun). The pattern in OHG is less consistent. Under most conditions, reflexes of */i/ appear as (occasionally ), even before a following mid or low vowel (BR § 31). (presumably M /e/) appears before a non-high vowel in the following: 1. some adjectives, e.g., OHG quec “alive” (compare the related verb quicken); 2. weak verbs of classes 2 and 3, e.g., kleb¯en “to stick”; 3. some nouns, e.g., steg “footbridge” (< PGmc *stigan); lebara “liver” (< *lib(a)r¯o). Some authors have attributed this lowering of */i/ to a-umlaut (e.g., Antonsen 1964:181–184; van Coetsem 1994:88). However, as Connolly (1977:174–176) objects, lowering is the exception rather than the rule in OHG, where it is more frequent than in most of the other Gmc dialects. Proponents of the a-umlaut hypothesis are forced to assume a great deal of analogical restoration of */i/. Connolly argues instead that the lowering may be explained by the presence of a PIE laryngeal. For the purposes of this project, there is no need to debate this point. More lexical items develop /e/ < /i/ during the OHG period (e.g., lirn¯en ~ lern¯en “to learn”; skif ~ skef “ship”). Lowering occasionally occurs before /h/ or /r/ (e.g., widarbirgi ~ widarbergi “steep, arduous”). In final unstressed position, /-i/ tends to be lowered to /-e/ in both OHG and OS. This process is identifiable in 9th-century sources (BR § 58 Anm. 2; Gallée 1910 § 113; Holthausen 1921 § 184), although in the earlier OHG material and many of the OS sources the contrast of /-i/ and /-e/ appears to be preserved. This lowering may be part of the general levelling of the unstressed vowels (BR §§ 59–60). After a long or disyllabic stem, final /-i/ is normally deleted (e.g., OHG OS gast “guest” < *gasti < PGmc *gastiz, vs. short-stem wini “friend” < *weniz).
28
Phonology and runic orthography
2.3.3.2 PGmc */e/ According to Braune (BR § 28 Anm. 1–2), inherited /e/ is realised as [Ô] in OHG, with a distinct i-umlaut allophone [e] which merges with the i-umlaut allophone of /a/ = [e] (§ 2.3.4.2). This variation results in a phonemic split (/e/ = [Ô ~ e] > /Ô, e/) from the 9th century. In the primary sources, both variants are commonly written , though in some mss. the open allophone appears as or . Braune marks the open variant as ë, the close one as e (e.g., ërda “earth” vs. felis “rock”, herti “hard” (< hart)). In both OHG and OS, we find evidence of the raising of PGmc */e/ > *[i] (M ) before a syllable containing a high front vocalic, and before a tautosyllabic nasal (§ 2.2.1; §BR 30; Gallée 1910 §§ 56–63; Holthausen 1921 § 84). Note that the handbooks on the daughter languages state the conditioning factor for this raising as a cluster N+C, rather than as a nasal at the syllable coda. Additionally, reflexes of PGmc */e/ are raised before a syllable containing /u/ or (usually) before /ww/ (e.g., OHG miluh, OS miluk “milk” < PGmc *melukz; OS OHG triuua “loyalty, troth” < PGmc *treww¯o). Braune (loc.cit.) implies that this change belongs to the early stages of OHG, noting instances of preserved [Ô] M in the earliest sources, especially before simple /w/ (e.g., pret.part. gisëwan “seen” ≠ *gisiwan). Raising before a high back vocalic is not consistent; and even before a high front vocalic we commonly find cases where [Ô] is preserved( ? ) or (more probably) restored by analogy (e.g., OHG hërza “heart” has gen./dat.sg. hërzin, not the expected *hirzin). Conversely, analogical (M [i]) sometimes appears in place of regular (e.g., bëta “request” ~ bita < PGmc *bed¯o). Occasionally in OS, appears where we would expect , e.g., worold for werold “world” (< PGmc *wira-aldiz). Before /r/, inherited /e/ is often lowered to /a/ (e.g., farahe dat.sg. to (regular) fer(a)h “life” (< PGmc *ferxwan)) (Gallée 1910 § 57). OS /e/ often becomes /a/ (or a vowel represented ) before /r/: e.g., farahtlîco vs. regular ferahtliko “wisely” (< PGmc *ferxwt- (Köbler 2000)).
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
29
2.3.3.3 PGmc */¯ı/ PGmc stressed */¯ı/ remains unchanged in OHG and OS (and is normally spelled or ), although in Notker it is diphthongised to /ie/ before /h/ (e.g., liehte vs. the more common l¯ıht “easy”). -spellings also occur sporadically in other contexts (BR § 37). */¯ı/ is also preserved in unstressed syllables in OHG (to some extent, at least, and more commonly in UG than in Frk) prior to the levelling of unstressed vowels in later OHG (BR § 57 Anm. 1). In OS, unstressed */¯ı/ is normally shortened to /i/ and frequently lowered to /e/ (Gallée 1910 § 113; Holthausen 1921 § 133). On the general shortening of unstressed long vowels, see § 2.3.1.2.
2.3.3.4 PGmc */¯e1/ PGmc */¯e1/ unconditionally develops into /¯a/ in all the WGmc dialects, as well as in PNorse and ON. Braune does not assign the change to a common NWGmc stage, however. In Frk (as represented in Latin records of pers.ns.), /¯a/-variants do not start to appear before the 6th century, and do not become the norm until the 7th, with /¯e/ still appearing in the 8th (e.g., Theudom¯erus, Dagor¯edus) (BR § 34; Bremer 1886:17–29). Occasional /¯e/-forms also appear in OS, e.g., uuêpan-berand ~ uuâpan-berand “weapon-bearer” (PGmc *w¯epnan) (Gallée 1910 §§ 81–83; Holthausen 1921 §§ 90–91). Felder (1978:26) attributes and spellings on coins to Burgundian or Gothic influence.
2.3.3.5 PGmc */¯e2/ In early OHG sources, the reflex of */¯e2/ is /¯e/ (written or ), which later undergoes diphthongisation > /ea, ia/ (9th c.) > /ie/ (10th c.) in stressed syllables (BR § 35, § 53). This diphthongisation is believed to be part of the “OHG vowel shift” (§ 2.3.1.4.2; § 2.3.2.3). The chronology of forms suggests that the diphthongisation can be subdivided into (i) lowering of the second mora, followed by (ii) raising of the first mora and/or of the whole diphthong (Moulton 1961:20). Note that this subdivision parallels that of the monophthongisations of */ai/ and */au/ (§§ 2.3.1.3–2.3.1.4). Braune also notes some spelling variations, including occasional , for /¯e/ and /ea/. In the later sources where is normal, a variant occasionally appears.
30
Phonology and runic orthography
The OS reflex of */¯e2/ appears as , with a particular ms. favouring one form or the other (Gallee 1910 § 84; Holthausen 1921 § 92). and are also attested. Gallée does not discuss chronology; it may be that this phoneme undergoes diphthongisation in some OS dialects, as in OHG; or the variation might result from the influence of OHG scribal practices. Holthausen ascribes the digraphic spellings to Frankish influence.
2.3.3.6 PGmc */j/ According to Braune (BR §§ 115–119), /j/ is always written in OHG mss.; is not used at all. In Notker, consonantal /j/ is indicated by an accent on the following vowel (e.g., iâr, iúng, vs. syllabic /i/ in îo, bîeten, íuuër). Before a following /i/ or /e/ it is often written , possibly realised as a fricative []. A similar situation exists in OS: /j/ is normally written , with appearing before a front vowel (Gallée 1910 § 158; Holthausen 1921 § 170). Frequently (though by no means always), reflexes of PGmc */ij/ or */jj/ appear in OHG as or , e.g., fiiant “enemy” vs. fiant (< PGmc *fij¯endz). Medial /j/ after a consonant (except /r/) starts to disappear in early OHG, and in 9th-century sources is regularly deleted. Where it does appear, it is usually written before , before . here probably represents a lowered [ j], resulting from assimilation to the following vowel (see BR § 118). This deletion does not normally occur in OS: e.g., PGmc *sebj¯o > OS sibbia, OHG sibba “kinship”; PGmc *skapjanan > OS skeppian, OHG skepfen “to shape, form, create”. /j/ is preserved in OHG after /r/ (which is not affected by the WGmc consonant gemination), e.g., nerian ~ nerien “to nourish, feed, save, redeem, heal” (in sources where postconsonantal /j/ is otherwise absent). In Alam. and Frk dialects, where /r/ undergoes a secondary gemination (unconnected to the WGmc gemination), /j/ is deleted (> nerren). Braune argues (BR § 118 Anm. 3) that where this /j/ is preserved it is strengthened to [], often written (like /j/ before a front vowel – see above). In final syllables, /-ja/ > /-e/ even in the earliest OHG sources: e.g., PGmc *sundj¯o > pre-OHG *sundja > OHG nom./acc.sg., nom./acc.pl. sunte, dat.sg. suntiu. Where /j/ becomes word-final by deletion of following material, it becomes syllabic /i/, even where /j/ is otherwise deleted: e.g., OHG OS kunni “kin, tribe, people” (< PGmc *kunjan) vs. gen.sg. OHG kunnes (with /j/-deletion), OS kunnies (without).
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
31
2.3.4 Low vowels 2.3.4.1 PGmc */a/ OHG shows some variation between and for reflexes of */a/. Braune classifies these /o/-variants into 4 types (BR § 25): a. Pairs like hal¯on ~ hol¯on “to fetch, call, take”; mahta ~ (Frk) mohta “power, might”; rask ~ rosk “quick”. Some of these cases can be attributed to older ablaut; others to assimilation; Braune mentions labialisation (in mohta?), but does not elaborate. b. Occasionally appears before nasals and /l/: e.g., wamba ~ womba “body”; weralt ~ werold “world” (< PGmc *wira-aldiz). These -variants probably reflect assimilation to the following consonants. c. for inherited /a/ is common in weakly stressed function-words, e.g. joh “and”; oh “but”; fan(a) ~ fona “from”. d. Deuterothemes in pers.ns. often contain for inherited /a/, e.g., -bald ~ -bold; -walt ~ -(w)olt; -bato ~ -boto. For this group, as for group c, weak stress appears to be the motivator (although I note that many of the examples cited by Braune have a following /l/, and so may be connected with group b). OHG medial /a/ is susceptible to assimilation by the vowels of neighbouring syllables (BR §§ 67–68). The conditioning vowel is usually that of the final syllable (e.g., heidinisc “heathen” (adj.) vs. heidan “heathen” (subst.); keiseres gen.sg. to keisar “emperor”), less frequently the preceding stem-vowel (e.g., h¯ohona ~ h¯ohana “from above”; gicorone ~ gicorane pret.part. “chosen”). Where medial /a/ is affected by i-umlaut (§ 2.3.4.2), the product is usually /i/, not /e/.14 This /i/ may in turn trigger umlaut in the preceding syllable. In OS, several other changes to /a/ are observable besides i-umlaut (Gallée 1910 §§ 50–55; Holthausen 1921 §§ 76–81): 1. Occasionally, /a/ > /e/ before /rC/ (in spite of the tendency of this environment to block i-umlaut), e.g., forthuuerd “forward” ~ regular foruuardas. In some sources, /a/ is also raised and fronted before /g k/ and sporadically in other contexts, e.g., in pers.ns.Gêrdeg, Hillidg (< -dag). 2. /aha/ > /¯a/ (M ~ ): e.g., gimâlda < gimahalda (pret. to gimahlian “to speak”) (see § 2.5.1.4.2).
14 On Braune’s proposed three-member system of unstressed vowels, see § 2.3.2.1.
32
Phonology and runic orthography
3. /a/ assimilates a following nasal before /θ f s h/, producing a lengthened vowel represented or : e.g., ôar nom.sg., âthres gen.sg. “other” (< PGmc *andraz) (§ 2.5.2.2). 4. /a/ > /o/ in certain consonantal environments (compare group b of the OHG /o/-variants above): a. before /nC/ (e.g., hondscôhe “gloves”). b. before /l/+dental (e.g., hagastoldos pl. “servants” ~ -stald-; pers.ns. Grimbold, Athalold (< -bald, -wald)). c. between /w/ and /r/ (e.g. andsuôr “answer” < PGmc *and-swaran).
2.3.4.2 “Primary” i-umlaut The other major phenomenon affecting /a/ in OHG and OS is “primary” i-umlaut before a syllable containing /i ¯ı j/, e.g., heri “army” (< *xariz/*xarjaz) (BR §§ 26–27, § 51; Gallée 1910 §§ 46–49; Holthausen 1921 § 115; Schweikle 1964). Enclitic personal pronouns may trigger umlaut of /a/ in the preceding word, e.g., drenk ih “I drank”. An inherited /i ¯ı j/ in a third syllable can trigger assimilation of an unstressed vowel in the second and consequent umlaut of the stressed vowel in the first: e.g. apful “apple” M nom./acc.pl. epfili. This is not consistent – e.g., zahar “tear” invariably has pl. forms zahari, zahiri, without umlaut. Unmutated forms are found in the earliest OHG glosses, although umlaut is frequent even here (BR § 27; Szulc 1987:84). Before /ht hs/ and /Cw/, umlaut is not evident until the 12th century (e.g., OHG nom.pl. mahti (> MHG mähte) to maht “power, might”; nahti gen./dat.sg. (> MHG nähte) to naht “night”). In UG dialects, /lC/, /rC/, /x/ (< PGmc */k/) and /h/ (< PGmc */x/) also block umlaut (BR § 27; Paul et al. 2007 §§L16, L30). We often see unmutated forms in deadjectival abstract nouns (e.g. starch¯ı ~ sterch¯ı “strength” < stark “strong”), nouns in -ida (e.g., bigangida ~ bigengida “care”), and adjectives in -¯ın (e.g. tann¯ın ~ tenn¯ın “made of pine”). The gen. and dat.sg. of masc. n-stem nouns are often unmutated (e.g., hanin alongside regular henin, to hano “cock”), by analogy with the other caseforms; and certain derivational suffixes with /i ¯ı/ appear not to trigger umlaut: -nissi, -nissa, -l¯ıh (e.g., irstantnissi “resurrection”; langl¯ıh “long”). The mutated vowel is normally written in OHG and OS mss., with variants also attested. This vowel is conventionally regarded as being phonologically distinct from /Ô/ < PGmc */e/ prior to the loss of the conditioning environment (9th c.?), but its actual development and phonetic real-
The vocalic systems of OHG and OS
33
isation are controversial (BR § 14 Anm. 2; Gütter 2003; Liberman 1991:126; Penzl 1971:115–124; Schmidt 1894:19–20; Szulc 1987:82–86). As we have seen with some of the other sound changes, the expected patterns are disturbed by analogical or otherwise irregular forms in OS. We find in, e.g., aldiro comp. “older” (alongside mutated eldir); elilandige “foreign” (vs. elilendige). Conversely, analogical appears where we would expect : e.g., gestseli vs. regular gastseli “guest-hall”. In OS, umlaut is often (though not always) blocked before /rC/, and before the clusters /hl, hn, ht, hs/ (e.g., huuargin ~ hwergin “somewhere”; mahtig “powerful”; trahni pl. “tears”). Mutated forms do appear occasionally (e.g., alamehtig). Before /nC/, there seems to be considerable variation between mutated and unmutated forms (e.g., bandi ~ bendi pl. “bonds”). 2.3.4.3 lPGmc */¯ax/ < PGmc */anx/ This phoneme merges at an early stage with /¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/ (§ 2.3.3.4), and remains /¯a/ in OHG and OS: e.g., h¯ahan “to hang” < PGmc *xanxanan; f¯ahan “to catch” < PGmc *fanxanan (BR § 33). OS shows some indications that this vowel is subject to i-umlaut (e.g., êhtin ~ unmutated âhtin pl/pret. to âhtian “to ban, proscribe”).15 2.3.5 Anaptyxis Anaptyxis in OHG and OS falls into the following types (for more detailed data and analysis, see Reutercrona 1920): 1. Common to all the WGmc dialects is vowel-anaptyxis between a consonant and a resonant (/r l m n/).16 In both OHG and OS, the epenthetic vowel is normally /a/ (sometimes /e/); before /m/, /u/ is usual (with /o/ appearing less frequently) (BR § 65; Gallée 1910 § 133; Holthausen 1921 §§ 141–142). Examples: PGmc *fuglaz > OHG fogal, OS fugal (: Go fugls, ON fugl) “bird”; PGmc *Âunraz > OHG donar, OS thunar (: ON Âórr) “thunder”. 15 The umlaut of /¯a/ in OHG presents a problem of interpretation: the mutated vowel is not marked orthographically, even where the conditioning environment has already been lost. See Schweikle (1964). 16 OE shows considerable variation in the appearance of these anaptyctic vowels, in the surface forms at least: compare, e.g., fugol, Âunor vs. Âegn (~ Âegen (BT)) (Campbell 1959 § 574.3).
34
Phonology and runic orthography
2. Anaptyctic vowels appear (inconsistently) in OHG and OS in the following contexts: a. between liquids (/l r/) and /h/; b. between liquids and /w/ (occasionally between /s/ and /w/ in OHG, /t d/+/w/ in OS). In this case the anaptyctic vowel is usually /a/, or /o/ before /w/; but it is frequently identical with the vowel in an adjacent syllable (more often the final syllable than the stem). Examples: OHG fëlhan ~ fëlahan “to save”; OS naru ~ narawo “narrow” (< PGmc *narwaz) (BR § 69a; Holthausen 1921 § 144). 3. In UG and OS, epenthetic vowels appear between /r/ and a velar or labial consonant (/k x g b p f m/); and occasionally between /r/ and /l/. Here, as in type 2, the new vowel is often harmonious with an adjacent vowel. Examples: UG wurum “worm”; OS aram “arm” (BR § 69a; Holthausen 1921 § 144; Howell 1991). Additionally, epenthesis may occur in OS between /n/ and /s/ (e.g., finistri “darkness”); in initial syllables (e.g., kanagit 3.sg.pres. “gnaws”; Heribarant); and in between C and /r/ (e.g., Afer¯ıkus) (Gallée 1910 § 134).
2.3.6 Summary The major sound changes of which we need to be aware are the following: • Umlaut or umlaut-like changes in height in the diphthong */eu/ (> [iu eo] > /iu eo/) and the short high and mid monophthongs */i e u/, conditioned by the height of the following vowel (§ 2.3.1.1; § 2.3.2.1; § 2.3.3.1; § 2.3.3.2). The invocation of a-umlaut in the lowering of */i/ is problematic, as /e/ < /i/ is relatively rare in OHG (though more widespread in OS). • Consonant-conditioned alternation between /iu/ and /eo/ < */eu/ in UG (§ 2.3.1.1). • Monophthongisation of */ai au/ in unstressed syllables (§ 2.3.1.2). • Shortening of unstressed final vowels (§ 2.3.1.2). • Monophthongisation of */ai au/ in stressed syllables (§§ 2.3.1.3–2.3.1.4): – Unconditioned monophthongisation in OS. – Consonant-conditioned monophthongisation in OHG. • Deletion of unstressed final */-i -u/ after a long syllable (§ 2.3.2.1; § 2.3.3.1). • Raising of final */-¯o/ > /-¯u/ (§ 2.3.2.3). • Diphthongisation of */¯o/ and */¯e2/ (§ 2.3.2.3; § 2.3.3.5). It is doubtful whether diphthongisation takes place in OS.
35
The consonantal system of lPGmc
• • • • • • • • • • •
Raising of */e/ before a syllable-final nasal and/or N+C cluster (§ 2.3.3.2). Irregular(??) alternations between */i/ and */e/ (§ 2.3.3.1; § 2.3.3.2). Lowering of final */-i/ > /-e/ (§ 2.3.3.1). */¯e1/ > /¯a/ (§ 2.3.3.4). */a/ > /o/ conditioned by certain consonant clusters, and in some contexts where the motivation is unclear (§ 2.3.4.1). Total assimilation of medial */a/ to the vowels of neighbouring syllables (§ 2.3.4.1). */a/ > /e/ conditioned by certain consonants( ? ) in OS (§ 2.3.4.1). PGmc */axa/ > OS /¯a/ (§ 2.3.4.1). “Primary” i-umlaut of */a/ (§ 2.3.4.2). PGmc */anx/ > /¯ah/ (§ 2.3.4.3). Anaptyxis in various consonant clusters (§ 2.3.5).
Sound changes affecting the non-syllabic vocalics */j w/ (§ 2.3.2.4; § 2.3.3.6) are: • Deletion of initial */w/ in the clusters */wr- wl-/ in OHG only (except MFrk). • Syllabication of syllable- or word-final */j w/ > /i u/. Final */-ja/ > /-e/. • Deletion of medial */w/ between a long vowel and a consonant, or after consonants other than the liquids */l r/. • Deletion of */j/ after consonants (except */r/) in OHG, but not OS. Note that these lists do not represent an attempt at a relative chronology for the sound changes. Since our objective is to investigate sound change in the epigraphical data, it is appropriate to list the processes atomistically and to avoid making assertions about their relative chronology prior to our examination of the data. Where appropriate, comments on the chronologies proposed in the literature will be made in the later discussions.
2.4 The consonantal system of lPGmc The following consonant phonemes can be reconstructed for PGmc: Voiceless plosives:
*/p/
*/t/
*/k/
*/kw/
Voiced obstruents (see below):
*/b/
*/d/
*/g/
*/gw/
Voiceless fricatives:
*/f/
*/s/
*/x/
*/xw/
*/θ/
36
Phonology and runic orthography
Voiced fricative: Nasals:
*/z/ */m/
*/n/
Approximant:
*/r/
Lateral approximant:
*/l/
I follow the practice of Moulton (1972) and Ringe (2006) in classifying the obstruents as “voiced” vs. “voiceless”, while recognising the uncertainty about whether voicing is the key contrast. Iverson and Salmons (1995), for instance, argue that the tenues (= “voiceless” osbstruents) are distinguished by the feature [spread glottis], while the mediae (= “voiced” obstruents) have no specification for this feature – in other words, the contrast is lenis-fortis, rather than voiceless-voiced (see also Davis et al. 1999:193–194). The semivowels */j w/ will be treated in this study as part of the vocalic system (§ 2.2.1; § 2.2.4), since the sound changes which they undergo involve alternation with the phonetically similar syllabics */i u/. Although a phoneme */gw/ (< PIE */gwh/) is included alongside the other labiovelars, it appears only after */n/ (= *[ŋ]). In all other contexts, it has been is lost in a complex set of assimilations (Moulton 1972:143; Ringe 2006:105–112). It appears that the labiovelars remain unitary phonemes rather than /Cw/ clusters in PGmc (Ringe 2006:91). In the daughter languages, however (except perhaps Gothic – see Moulton 1972:147), the labiovelars do become clusters. They are not treated as separate phonemes in the later parts of this study. There is, inevitably, a certain arbitrariness about the transcription of some phonemes due to uncertainties about phonetic reconstruction. I have assumed that the principal places of articulation are labial – dental/alveolar – velar – labiovelar, with */θ/ assumed to be interdental. Some transcriptions deserve further comment: • */f/ is used for the reflex of PIE */p/; this was probably bilabial */φ/ at an early stage, although its reflexes in the daughter languages (except possibly Gothic) are all labiodental (Moulton 1972:142; Ringe 2006:215). • I use */x/ rather than */h/ for the PGmc reflex of PIE */k/, as we have good grounds for treating this phoneme as underlyingly velar */x/, with a debuccalised allophone *[h] in initial position (Moulton 1972:143, 172; Ringe 2006:215). • The reflexes of the PIE voiced aspirates */bh dh gh/ show alternation between plosive and fricative allophones in the daughter languages (see Moulton 1972:142–143, 170–173), and it is open to debate which should
The consonantal system of lPGmc
37
be taken as unmarked. The traditional view regards the fricatives as the underlying forms in PGmc (because they merge with the products of Verner’s Law, i.e., the voiced alternants of ePGmc */φ θ x xw/), with the plosives developing secondarily as part of what Prokosch terms an “intermediate shift” between the First and Second Consonant Shifts (Prokosch 1939:50–57; see also Moulton 1972:171–172). Ringe (2006:100, 215), on the other hand, argues that both allophones can plausibly be reconstructed for PGmc; it is not clear which (if either) is to be regarded as unmarked. I follow Ringe in using */b d g/ (even when citing Orel (2003), who uses Ò). • The phonetic properties of PGmc */r/ are not discussed by Lehmann (2005–2007), Moulton (1972) or Ringe (2006). In grammars of the daughter languages it is traditionally assumed to be alveolar (and probably a tap or trill), although there is some evidence that dorsal articulations are present in OHG (§ 2.5.2.1.1), as well as the other early Gmc dialects and therefore possibly PGmc (Runge 1973). • The existence of a velar allophone of */n/ = *[ŋ] before a velar obstruent can be posited for PGmc (Moulton 1972:171; Ringe 2006:215). Where it follows a vowel and precedes */x/, */n/ is assimilated by the vowel with compensatory lengthening and nasalisation (§ 2.2.2). In the view of Ringe (loc.cit.), word-final */n/ is also assimilated by a preceding vowel (e.g., */-an/ > *[-ã]).
2.4.1 Subcategorising the obstruents In § 7, the obstruents will be subdivided by (approximate) place of articulation, so that those phonemes which are involved in splits and mergers can be treated together. The divisions used here are the traditional categories of the handbooks: “labial”, “dental”, and “guttural”. It is to be recognised that these labels are phonetically imprecise, and can give rise to some conclusions which I consider erroneous (see entry on 25. Friedberg in § 7.2.1.1). They are intended only as a convenient way of classifying the obstruent system, in the same spirit as the “front/back/low” division of the monophthongs (§ 2.2.4). The sound changes described in § 2.5 involve changes in the manner of articulation and voicing (or articulatory force, if the contrast between, say, */p/ and */b/ is to be interpreted as fortis vs. lenis, rather than voiceless vs. voiced); but apart from some assimilations, phonemes tend to remain within the same “sets”. The PGmc “dentals” */t d θ s z/, for example, are subject to complex restructuring in OHG, but all of their reflexes remain “dental” obstruents; none of them becomes “labial” or “guttural” (with the
38
Phonology and runic orthography
possible exception of those reflexes of */z/ which merge with */r/, if the latter is velar/uvular – see § 2.5.2.1). The same cannot be said for the nasals (§ 2.5.2.2).
2.5 The consonantal systems of OHG and OS 2.5.1 The obstruents Two processes require particular attention, as they mark out the obstruent system of OHG from that of OS, and from those of the other WGmc dialects: the Second Consonant Shift and Spirantenschwächung (BR §§ 165–167; Penzl 1971:165–173).
2.5.1.1 Early development of the PGmc obstruents On the evidence of OHG manuscripts, the PGmc system of obstruents is retained as the input to the Second Consonant Shift, except that the reflexes of */b d g/ are plosives in all positions (in most dialects – see below). In OS (as well as in OE and ON), both plosive and fricative allophones are in evidence for */b/ and */g/. */d/ has both types of allophone in ON, but in all of the WGmc dialects it appears to be invariably a plosive [d] (ON dóttir : OE dohtor, vs. órð : word). 2.5.1.1.1 Reflexes of PGmc */b/ The distribution of allophones in Go, ON, OE and OS is similar: a plosive [b] appears initially or after a nasal (e.g., PGmc *beranan > Go baíran, ON bera, OE OS beran; *lambaz > Go ON OE OS lamb); and a fricative [β] or [v] elsewhere. The fricative is normally spelled as follows in the dialects: Medial
Final
Go
OS
ON, OE
(~ )
Reflexes of */b/ which have undergone “WGmc gemination” before */j/ (BR §§ 90–99) become plosives in all of the WGmc dialects, but remain
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
39
fricatives in ON and Go: e.g., PGmc *sebj¯o > OS sibbia, OE sibb vs. Go sibja (= [siβja]), ON sifjar (nom./acc.pl.). Braune and Reiffenstein (§ 82; § 134) posit a pre-OHG situation similar to the above ([b] initially/after nasal; [β/v] elsewhere). This alternation is retained only in MFrk; the other OHG dialects have a plosive in all contexts (> /p/ via the Second Consonant Shift in UG – see § 2.5.1.2).
2.5.1.1.2 Reflexes of PGmc */g/ In OS, the reflexes of */g/ are fricatives everywhere except in geminates and after nasals: e.g., PGmc *gastiz > OS gast (= [ast]); *augan > o¯ ga (= [¯oa]); *legjanan > OS liggian (= [lig:jan]); *singanan > OS singan (= [singan]). This probably also applies to OE, although initial [] eventually becomes a plosive (Campbell 1959 § 50.4). In OHG, the situation is believed to be parallel to that for reflexes of */b/: most dialects probably have a plosive in all contexts (BR § 82; § 88c), with the fricative predominant in non-initial positions in MFrk (BR § 148).
2.5.1.1.3 Loss of PGmc */z/ In all of the attested WGmc dialects non-root final */-z/ is apocopated before the period of attestation (which, together with the preceding syncope of nonroot */e/ and */a/, is a crucial factor in the simplification of the inflectional systems of these dialects (Antonsen 2002:28–29)). Where it occurs in root syllables, */z/ merges with the reflex of */r/ in all the NWGmc daughter languages, but at different times. In Scandinavian runic inscriptions, a contrast is maintained between */r/ = r and */z/ = z/R17 at least into the 9th century (Arntz 1944:99; Gutenbrunner 1951 § 63; Runge 1973:245 n. 44). In all of the WGmc dialects, the merger predates the earliest written records. The runic evidence from the Continent is assessed in § 7.1.2.2.5.
17 It is common in the runological literature to transliterate 0 as R, implying that the rune represents an “intermediate” sound between [z] and [r], although the evidence for this is scant (for further discussion, see Antonsen 1975:1–2; Krause 1971:45; Moulton 1972:148).
40
Phonology and runic orthography
2.5.1.2 The Second Consonant Shift The High German dialects are distinguished from Low German (and from the “coastal” WGmc dialects) by the set of changes to their obstruent systems that fall under the rubric of the Second or High German Consonant Shift. The following summary is based chiefly on the fuller account in BR (§§ 83–90, 130–136, 140–149, 155–164).
2.5.1.2.1 Phonetic development: Tenuisverschiebung The voiceless plosives remain unchanged after a voiceless fricative (e.g., PGmc *spennanan > UG spinnan; PGmc *naxtz > UG naht) and in the cluster /tr/ (e.g., PGmc *trewwaz > UG triuwa), but otherwise undergo lenition: Word-initially, when geminate, or after a sonorant, */p t k/ become affricates /pf ts2 kx/18 (e.g., PGmc *kurnan > UG chorn vs. OS korn;19 *satjanan > WGmc *sattjan- > UG setzen ~ sezzen vs. OS settian; *werpanan > UG werpfan vs. OS werpan). In certain words with the shifted affricate following /l r/, there is a secondary development to a fricative in the 9th century (e.g. werpfan > werfan > modG werfen). Other words (e.g., scarpf “sharp”) retain an affricate into the MHG period; although even here, fricatives also appear (BR § 131 Anm. 5). In upper Alam. dialects, there is also a later shift to a fricative in initial position (/kind/ > [xind]); there is no evidence that this has taken place in the OHG period (BR § 144 Anm. 4). Postvocalically, the pre-OHG voiceless plosives become geminate fricatives, which (like other geminate consonants) are degeminated in final position and before consonants (e.g., ean “to eat”, i “ate” (1./3.sg.pret.)), as well as after a long vowel (BR § 93; for OS, see Holthausen 1923 § 253). They are normally spelled as digraphs in the early OHG sources, which suggests that degemination postdates the shift itself (BR § 92; § 97). The fricatives derived from */p/ and */k/ are not distinguished orthographically from the OHG re18 I have presented the affricates as clusters here, although there is debate about whether they should really be analysed as such, or as single segments /pf ts2 kx/. Davis et al. (1999:187) make a case for the affricates being considered disegmental medially and monosegmental word-initially, at least in the early stages of the Consonant Shift. On the notation /s2/, see below. 19 OHG scribes vacillate in their representation of the velar affricate: even where affrication has clearly taken place, /kx/ is commonly spelled , alongside the more usual (BR § 144 Anm. 2).
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
41
flexes of */f/ and */x/, and are assumed to merge with them – although the fact that the fricative < */k/ does not trigger monophthongisation of /ai/ in OHG, while the reflex of */x/ does (§ 2.3.1.3.1), suggests that their merger is not complete at the time of monophthongisation. The fricative reflex of */t/ is commonly written < >, with reserved for the affricate (BR § 7; § 157). However, both sounds are usually spelled in the primary sources, except for the OHG Isidor, which uses for the affricateand for the fricative. Langob. sources also mark the contrast orthographically, using for the fricative and for the affricate. The use of for both sounds might lead us to wonder whether we are genuinely dealing with two phonemes rather than one. As evidence that there are two phonemes, we have the orthographic contrast in the Isidor, and the consistent contrast between affricate and fricative reflexes of */p/ ( vs. ) and */k/ ( vs. , although there is some variation, with used for both affricate and fricative in some texts (BR § 145)). For more detail, and other supporting evidence, see BR (§ 157 Anm. 1). The phonetic characteristics of the fricative < */t/ present something of a puzzle. It is thought to be voiceless and to have a front articulation, but it remains distinct from inherited /s/ throughout the OHG period, merging with it by the end of the MHG period (BR § 168; Hickey 1984:673). The traditional view is that the fricative < */t/ is “dental” (i.e., postdental or alveolar), in contrast to a pre-palatal reflex of PGmc */s/, realised as [ʃ] or something similar. The contrast between the two may also be associated with force of articulation, the reflex of */t/ being fortis and that of */s/ lenis (BR § 168). Various dissenting views are listed below: 20 */s/ >
*/t/ >
Author
laminal [s ]
apico-alveolar [s ]
Hickey (1984).
apical [s ]
laminal [s ]
Joos (1952) (i.e., the reverse of the above).
apical [ʃ]
alveolar, pre-dorsal20 fortis [s ]
Penzl (1968:344–345; 1970; 1971:149).
“lax” [s]
“tense” [Ù]
Voyles (1972); criticised by Hickey (1984:677).
20 Discussions of this issue in German favour the term prädorsal, where English writings use laminal; the two are taken to be equivalent for purposes of the present debate, although they are not technically identical.
42
Phonology and runic orthography
As a diplomatic response to this debate, I notate the fricative reflex of */t/ as /s2/. That it is a sound phonetically similar to, but systematically distinct from, /s/ < PGmc */s/, is not in dispute. It is generally agreed that the shift of the voiceless plosives began as aspiration, but opinions differ on whether the fricatives developed secondarily from the affricates (*/p/ > */ph/ > */ph/21 > */pf/ > */f:/), or directly from the aspirated (or affricated?) plosives (*/p/ > */ph/ > */φ:/ > */f:/) (Braune 1874:49–50; BR § 90.2a; Davis et al. 1999:182–186; Iverson and Salmons 2006:50–51; Penzl 1964b:39–40; Vennemann 1994a:273–274). Davis and Iverson (1995; 2006; see also Davis et al. 1999) use evidence from modern dialects (specifically the early 20th-century variety of Wermelskirchen, just north of the Benrath line) to argue that the shift of the voiceless plosives first occurred after short stressed vowels, later spreading to other contexts (postvocalic after long vowels; postconsonantal; and lastly initial position): compare Wermelskirchen [Ôsn ] “to eat”, [ʃtrɔ:tə] “street”, [pÔfɐ] “pepper” vs. standard German [Ôsn ], [ʃtra:sə], [pfÔfɐ]) (Davis et al. 1999:182).
2.5.1.2.2 Phonetic development: Medienverschiebung The plosive reflexes of PGmc */b d g/ become /p t k/ (e.g., PGmc *beranan > UG peran vs. OS beran; *duxt¯er > UG tohter vs. OS dohter; *gastiz > UG kast vs. OS gast). In those dialects where this shift occurs, /d/ is affected in all positions, while /b/ and /g/ show some variation (§ 2.5.1.2.3). RFrk (where /b d g/ are apparently not subject to the shift) shows a tendency to use for unshifted /t/ (e.g., in the clusters /ht ft st tr/ M ). This would seem to imply that /d/ is subject to devoicing in this dialect (> [d]), and that the surviving contrast between it and inherited (unshifted) /t/ is a ˚lenis-fortis distinction, rather than one based on voicing. The actual phonetic situation is unclear, however (BR § 161 Anm. 3–4; § 163 Anm. 3).
21 This stage of the process is explained by Davis et al. (1999:181; also Iverson and Salmons 2006:51) as the “segmentalisation” of medial aspirates to conform to a general preference for bimoraic stressed syllables in Gmc: e.g., pre-OHG */’o.phan/ > */’op.han/. The segmentalised /h/ subsequently assimilates to the preceding plosive to produce an affricate.
43
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
2.5.1.2.3 Geographical distribution The effects of the Consonant Shift are further advanced in southern than in northern dialects of OHG and MHG. The following table is based on that in BR § 89, with the shifted consonants shaded (for greater detail, see Davis et al. 1999:187): PGmc OS MFrk RFrk
*/t/
*/k/
*/b/ = *[ β, b] */d/ = *[ ð, d] */g/ = *[ , g]
/t/
/k/
[b-]
[-β/v-]
/d/
[g-]
[--]
/-f:-/ /ts2-/ /-s2:-/ /k-/ /-x:-/ [b-]
[-β/v-]
/d/
[g-]
[--]
*/p/ /p/ /p-/
[p-]/[pf-] /-f:-/ /ts2-/ /-s2:-/ /k-/ /-x:-/
EFrk
/pf-/
/-f:-/ /ts2-/ /-s2:-/ /k-/ /-x:-/
Alam.
/pf-/
/-f:-/ /ts2-/ /-s2:-/ /kx-/ /-x:-/
Bav.
/pf-/
/-f:-/ /ts2-/ /-s2:-/ /kx-/ /-x:-/
/p-/
/b/
/d/
/g/
/b/
/t/
/g/
/t/
/g/ ~ /k/
/t/
/g/ ~ /k/
[-p/b-] /p/
Common to all the dialects are the development of an affricate from */t/ and of fricatives from all of the voiceless plosives. For each series of phonemes (including /b d g/, although this is less apparent in the table), the “dental” member is the most widely affected, followed by the labial, then the velar. As a division between areas where the Consonant Shift has taken effect to some extent and those which are unaffected, it remains conventional to use the maken/machen isogloss (the Benrath line), which runs approximately east-west between the Rhine at Düsseldorf-Benrath (Nordrhein-Westfalen) and the Oder at Frankfurt a.d. Oder (Brandenburg) (see Schützeichel 1976:184). The following inscriptions in the corpus have find-sites to the north of this line: 9. Beuchte; 22. Ferwerd; 27. Geltorf II; 33. Heide; 35. Hitsum; 37. Hoogebeintum; 49. Liebenau; 65. †Rügen; 71. Sievern; 72. Skodborg; 73. Skonager III; 85–87. †Weser I–III; 88. Wijnaldum B; 89. Wremen.
2.5.1.2.4 Chronology The conventional view, based on the geographical distribution of shifted forms, is that the shift began in the south and spread northwards (Braune 1874; BR § 90.2b). The phonemes which are affected over a wider area are assumed to have been affected earliest: the dental/alveolar consonants underwent the shift first, followed by the labials and finally the velars. The shift of the voiced plosives postdates that of the voiceless plosives (BR § 87 Anm. 5). The symmetry in the “place bias” of both major stages, taken together with parallels between the First and Second Consonant Shifts, has led to specu-
44
Phonology and runic orthography
lation that the latter (possibly including the despirantisation of */θ/) is a chain shift or a series of related chain shifts (Penzl 1964b:31–32; 1968:345). For criticism of chain-shift interpretations, see Davis et al. (1999:194–196). It has been proposed that the shift is not the result of a single impetus from Upper Germany but a set of independent processes in the various dialects. The debate between monogenetic and polygenetic theories of the shift will not be discussed here. Although there are unresolved questions surrounding the activation and implementation of the Consonant Shift, Braune’s description of a monogenetic shift appears to be well supported (see, inter multos alios, Barrack 1978; Davis 2008; Höfler 1957 – Höfler being one of the main proponents of polygenesis). Another important model is Vennemann’s “Bifurcation” theory (Verzweigungstheorie), according to which the shift was carried through completely in all dialects below the Benrath line (“High Germanic”) at a very early stage (perhaps as early as the 1st century BC), but was partly displaced by “Low Germanic” (i.e., unshifted) dialects encroaching from north to south as a sociolinguistic manifestation of the spread of Frankish political power (Vennemann 1984; 1994a:280–282 et passim). In Vennemann’s view, all unshifted consonants in OHG (and pre-OHG) dialects are to be explained by the imposition of an unshifted Frankish superstrate in dialect areas which previously exhibited a more systematically complete shift. The differences between OHG dialects are taken to reflect the greater influence of the unshifted superstrate in areas closer to the centre of Frankish power. For discussion and criticism of the theory, see Moulton (1986); Penzl (1986); Voyles (1989). Opinions differ widely on the absolute chronology of the shift. As mentioned above, Vennemann places the shift in the first century BC. Place-name evidence referred to by Braune and Reiffenstein (§ 87b Anm. 6) suggest the following dates for the shift of the tenues: /t/ > /ts2 s2:/ 6th century (or 5th/6th century – Sonderegger 1979:128). /p/ > /pf f:/ 6th – 7th century. /k > /kx x:/ 7th – 8th century. Penzl argues (also chiefly from place-name evidence) that the Tenuisverschiebung must have been complete by the end of the 7th century (Penzl 1971:154–156), while Davis et al. (1999:184; see also Haubrichs 1987) propose somewhat later dates, employing evidence from pers.ns. as well as p.ns.: in the south, the initial stage of the shift (segmentalisation of aspirated /ph th kh/ > /ph th kh/ after a short stressed vowel – § 2.5.1.2.1) is dated to the early 7th century for /t/, c.700 for /p/, and the 8th century for /k/. Although the Medienverschiebung (devoicing of /b d g/) must have occurred later than the Tenuisverschiebung (since the resultant plosives /p t k/
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
45
do not subsequently become affricates/fricatives), we have scant evidence to use as a basis for absolute dating: mss. from St. Gallen show alternation between and
as early as the 8th century (BR § 88; § 136; Penzl 1971:163). These sources suggest that the shift is likely to be underway by the 8th century in at least some UG dialects, but that scribes differ in how they represent its output.
2.5.1.3 Spirantenschwächung and the despirantisation of /θ/ In all of the daughters of NWGmc, the fricatives */f θ s x/ undergo lenition (Spirantenschwächung) in voiced environments. In OHG and OS, lenition occurs in intervocalic position and – in some sources – initially (BR §§ 102a, 137–138; Gallée 1910 §§ 228, 280, 288; Holthausen 1923 §§ 195, 197, 200, 206, 210). The fricatives derived from */p t k/ via the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2) are not directly affected, as they are normally geminated (BR § 137). This process produces voiced allophones of /f θ s/ = [v ð z], at least in Frk dialects; the situation in UG is not clear (BR §§ 102a, 137–139. 150–154, 168–170). In OS and MFrk, where /b/ has a fricative allophone (§ 2.5.1.1.1), this fricative merges with /f/, and becomes devoiced > [f] in contexts where inherited /f/ remains voiceless, such as in final position (BR § 139 Anm. 1; Gallée 1910 §§ 223–227; Holthausen 1923 §§ 220–223). On the basis of the spelling alternation ~ , Braune and Reiffenstein date the development of the voiced allophones to the mid-8th century (BR § 102a; § 137; § 139 Anm. 2). The reflex of */x/ is believed to be debuccalised [h] both intervocalically and initially – a situation which may already obtain in PGmc (§ 2.4). Where it remains a velar fricative (chiefly in consonant clusters), it is often spelled in OHG sources (e.g., in pers.ns. like Chrotchildis, Chlotaharius). In the runological literature, there is a tendency to use the label Spirantenschwächung to refer to a process which is presumably related, but is not identical, to the above: namely, the unconditioned despirantisation of /θ/ > /d/ in OHG. This change is presumed to have come about by generalisation of the voiced allophone [ð] (although alternative mechanisms have been proposed – see Penzl 1964a:180), probably beginning in UG, and probably in medial positions before word-initial position (Braune 1874:53–56; BR §§ 166–167; Penzl 1964a). From a systematic point of view, Penzl argues that we are dealing with two different processes affecting different dialects: in the southern dialects (those
46
Phonology and runic orthography
where the change occurs earliest), the change postdates devoicing of inherited */d/ > /t/ as part of the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2), so the system of dental/alveolar obstruents changes from /t ts2 θ s s2/ > /t ts2 d s s2/. In these dialects, therefore, the despirantisation of /θ/ changes the value of one phoneme, but does not affect the size of the phoneme inventory. In the more northerly dialects (those in which the Consonant Shift does not affect /d/), the system changes from /t ts2 d θ s s2/ > /t ts2 d s s2/: the phoneme inventory is reduced by the merger of /θ/ with the existing /d/ (Penzl 1964a:182–184). Nedoma (2004a:18, 145) rejects the idea that despirantisation has occurred in the “runic” period by referring to the evidence of OHG sources: he states that spellings for reflexes of PGmc */θ/ are not found until the late 8th century in Alam.; after 900 in RFrk; and even later in MFrk. Braune is less emphatic, tentatively dating the beginnings of the process to the mid-8th century (which would nonetheless imply that it is not active in the period of the runic inscriptions). The spellings are common in early UG sources, but is also present, and in the St. Gallen documents is very common (although it does not necessarily represent a plosive (Penzl 1964a:171–172, 178–179)); it displaces the digraphs by the end of the 8th century (Braune 1874:53; BR § 167). Penzl likewise dates the change to the 8th century for Bavarian and for some Alamannic dialects (1964a:179). While Nedoma’s arguments are valid in respect of the OHG evidence, I do not share his confidence that despirantisation in the “runic” period should be ruled out a priori across all dialects. Our assessment of the status of this phoneme in CRun must proceed from the analysis of the data (§ 7.1.2.2.3).
2.5.1.4 Other processes affecting the obstruents 2.5.1.4.1 Notkers Anlautgesetz and final devoicing In Notker’s orthography (Alam., late 10th/early 11th century – see BR §§ 1–5), word-initial plosives (including /d/ < */θ/ (§ 2.5.1.3), but excluding /t/ < */d/) are voiced where the preceding word ends with a voiced sound, and voiceless otherwise. This pattern – which presumably reflects real processes of assimilation – also affects the second elements of compounds, and (irregularly) /f/ = [f] ~ [v]. Sentence-initial plosives are always voiceless. For more detail, see BR (§ 103); Penzl (1971:102–105). This pattern is not evident in earlier Alamannic sources, but because it deals with allophonic alternations rather than phonemic ones, we cannot rule out the possibility that something like it is present in earlier OHG and perhaps even in the “runic” period( ? ).
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
47
It is doubtful whether the devoicing of final obstruents which is characteristic of MHG (and modG) is present in OHG (BR § 103a). In UG, where the voiced plosives are devoiced via the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2), there is some alternation in respect of /b/ > /p/ and /g/ > /k/ in final position (e.g., Bav. framkanc ~ framkange (vs. Frk. framgang) “progress”; occasional lip, gap vs. more frequent lib “life”, gab “gave” (1./3.sg.pret.). The devoiced alternant also occurs word-initially, however (e.g., keuuisso “certainly, surely”). Note that /d/ < */θ/ (§ 2.5.1.3) is not devoiced finally until the 11th century (BR § 103a). On the other hand, = [kx] < /g/ in final position does appear occasionally in Bav. sources as early as the 8th century (BR § 103a Anm. 1). In the Frk. dialects, there is more evidence for final devoicing: the OHG Isidor consistently uses final vs. medial , and frequently vs. (BR, loc. cit. and § 148 Anm. 1). Other Frk texts show a similar tendency, and a preference for vs. medial for reflexes of PGmc */d/ (but not for reflexes of */θ/) (BR § 163). In OS, /b d g/ are all believed to be devoiced word-finally and medially after a voiceless consonant, on the evidence of spellings alongside the more frequent “etymological” spellings in (Holthausen 1923 § 246; § 248; § 252).
2.5.1.4.2 Deletion of /h/ Both OS and OHG sources contain evidence for the loss of /h/ (or at least the orthographic omission of ) in some contexts: • /h/ is gradually lost in the clusters < PGmc */xl xr xn xw/ (as well as */xsC/) in OS and OHG (BR §§ 153–154; Gallée 1910 § 259, § 264; Holthausen 1923 §§ 215–217). Early sources usually (though not invariably) retain in their spellings, but it disappears over the course of the 9th century in OHG (the handbooks are not clear on the chronology of the change in OS, but is generally preserved in the H¯eliand): e.g., OHG hl¯ut > l¯ut “loud”; hw¯ı > w¯ı “white”; OHG OS hn¯ıgan > n¯ıgan “to bow, bend down”. In OS, deletion sometimes occurs in the cluster /ht/ (whether < PGmc */xt/ or */ft/ – § 2.5.1.4.3): e.g., fortian < forhtian “to be afraid” < PGmc *furxtjanan; kratag “strong, powerful” < *krahtag < kraftag (Gallée 1910 § 263; Holthausen 1923 § 214). • The occasional omission of initial prevocalic in OHG and OS mss. (e.g., OHG elfa for helfa “help”) (BR § 153 Anm. 2; Gallée 1910 § 258) is probably purely orthographic; there is no known German dialect in which /h-/ is deleted in this context.
48
Phonology and runic orthography
• Intervocalic /-h-/ is often deleted in both OHG and OS, producing variation between forms with and without : e.g., OHG OS sean vs. sehan “to see” (modG sehen) (BR § 154 Anm. 1–2; Gallée 1910 §§ 258–260; Holthausen 1923 § 218). • Final is often omitted in OS: e.g., avu ~ auh “evil” (< PGmc *abuxaz/*abugaz); fera ~ ferah “life” (< PGmc *ferxwan) (Gallée 1910 § 265; Holthausen 1923 § 214). As the examples show, the deletion is by no means consistent and it is unclear whether or not we are dealing with a real phonological process.
2.5.1.4.3 Irregular( ? ) changes in consonant clusters In OS and MFrk texts, the cluster /ft/ often appears as (or sometimes metathetic
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
49
2.5.2 The sonorants Whereas OHG undergoes a far-reaching reorganisation of the obstruents, the sonorants (the nasal stops, the semivowels and the approximants traditionally labelled “liquids”) remain much the same in OHG and OS as in lPGmc. The most significant changes affecting these phonemes are those relating to the semivowels (here treated as part of the vocalic system in § 2.3.2.4; § 2.3.3.6) and the merger of non-final */z/ with */r/ (§ 2.5.1.1.3).
2.5.2.1 The “liquids” (PGmc */l r/) Neither of the so-called “liquids” undergoes significant change in OHG or OS (BR §§ 120–122; Gallée 1910 §§ 199–201; Holthausen 1923 §§ 177–181). Some variations worth noting are: • A few Latin loanwords show a dissimilatory change of /r/ > /l/ in OHG (e.g., murmul¯on ~ murmur¯on : Lat. murmurare “to murmur”). In at least some cases, we cannot be sure that the change occurs after borrowing: e.g., pilicr¯ım reflects MLat. pelegrinus, not CLat. peregrinus (BR § 120 Anm. 1). A similar dissimilation is found in the OS p.n. Pathelbrunno “Paderborn” (Holthausen § 180 Anm.). • is sometimes omitted in monosyllabic function words in OHG, possibly indicating apocope of /-r/: e.g. d¯a, s¯a, e¯ , h¯ıe vs. regular d¯ar “there”, s¯ar “suddenly, at once”, e¯ r “he/it” (3.nom.sg.masc.), h¯ıer “here”. A tendency for medial /r/ to be elided (with compensatory lengthening of a preceding vowel?) is also suggested by Otker’s assonances between words with /orC/ and those with /¯oC/ (e.g., arn¯on:korn; wort:gisaman¯ot) (BR § 120 Anm. 2). • In hypocoristic OHG pers.ns., /r/ is often assimilated by a following consonant, e.g. Erpo > Eppo; *Irma > Imma (cf. OS irmin “large, powerful”) (BR, ibid.). • /r/ (including /r/ < */z/) is the only consonant which does not undergo “WGmc gemination” before */j/, but it is subject to secondary processes of gemination: in UG, /r/ is geminated before /j/ if it follows a long vowel: e.g., PGmc *xauzjanan > pre-OHG *haurjan > UG h¯orran vs. Frk. h¯oran “to hear” (BR § 121.3). In Alam. and the Frk. dialects, gemination before */j/ occurs after a short vowel (e.g., nerren vs. Bav. nerien) (BR § 121; see also § 2.3.3.6). • There are some instances of assimilation producing geminate /l:/ in OHG (e.g., guotl¯ıch ~ guoll¯ıch) (BR § 122). OS contains a few forms in which /l/ appears to have been assimilated (in some cases after syncope of an in-
50
Phonology and runic orthography
tervening vowel) by a following consonant in unstressed syllables (e.g., Fokdag vs. Folkdag; succa, succan vs. sul¯ık “such” (< PGmc *swa-l¯ıkaz)) (Gallée 1910 § 201 Anm. 1–3; Holthausen 1923 § 177 Anm. 1). • OS sources occasionally show metathesis of /r/ with a neighbouring vowel: e.g., hers vs. the more usual hros “horse” (< PGmc *xrussan); -braht (in pers.ns.) vs. berht “bright” (< *berxtaz) (Gallée 1910 § 200; Holthausen 1923 § 180).
2.5.2.1.1 The phonetic quality of OHG OS /r/ In the handbooks it is generally assumed that OHG /r/ was an apical, alveolar trill [r], but this is open to doubt: Penzl makes a plausible case for the coexistence of both apical and dorsal realisations of this phoneme, i.e. [r] ~ [r], with differing distributions in the dialects (Penzl 1961; see also Howell 1991:104–106; Runge 1973]). The evidence of rhymes and of direct description by orthoepists and grammarians suggest that both types existed in late MHG, but the evidence for OHG is more indirect: • the appearance of spellings after in later OHG (e.g., nerigen vs. nerien “to nourish, feed, save”) indicates (in Penzl’s view) that the underlying /j/ has developed into a palatal fricative, subsequently velarised under the influence of uvular [r] (Penzl 1961:495). • /r/-clusters block “primary” i-umlaut in UG (§ 2.3.4.2). The other clusters which have a similar effect involve back consonants, /h/ and /w/. Penzl sees this as evidence for a dorsal [r]. He does not mention that /l/-clusters also block umlaut, a fact which ought by the same reasoning to imply that /l/ also has a dorsal allophone (see discussion in § 7.2.1.2). • The association of /r/ with velar /w/ and /h/ as conditioning consonants for the monophthongisation of /ai/ (§ 2.3.1.3.1) leads Penzl to infer that /r/ must be dorsal in this environment, a property which would favour the loss of the high front offglide of the diphthong. Conversely, the loss of the high back component of /au/ before /r/ and the alveolar consonants leads him to conclude that /r/ following /au/ is apical (e.g., PGmc *auz¯on > pre-OHG *aur- > OHG o¯ ra “ear”) (Penzl 1961:495–496; Runge 1973:236–238). If velarity/uvularity is the key factor here, however, we must account for the fact that the Consonant-Shifted reflex of PGmc */k/ does not trigger monophthongisation (leading to OHG *¯eh rather than attested eih “oak”). The evidence for both apical and dorsal realisations of /r/ in OHG is suggestive, but not compelling. Neither Penzl nor Runge offers any account of the distribution of the two forms: Runge (1973:241) does suggest that PGmc */r/
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
51
was initially uvular, and the front alternant arose from the NWGmc rhotacism of */z/ (which implies that no apical [r] existed in Go.); but he gives no account of why this apical sound should displace dorsal *[r] in some contexts but not others, stating simply that they were in free variation (1973:245). If the involvement of /r/ in the monophthongisations of the a-diphthongs is taken to indicate that it is [r] after /ai/ and [r] after /au/ (regardless of other phonetic factors), what motivates this difference?
2.5.2.2 The nasals (PGmc */m n/) In both OHG and OS, final /-m/ frequently becomes /-n/ in inflectional suffixes: e.g., OHG dat.pl. tagum > tagun; 1.sg.pres.ind. hab¯em, hab¯en; OS dagum ~ dagun, *salom ~ salon (but habbiu) (BR § 124; Gallée 1910 § 208; Holthausen 1923 § 185).22 Braune and Reiffenstein date this change to the 9th century; early UG sources show some forms in , but even here remains the norm up to c.800. For OS, /-n/ is already the most frequent variant in the earliest sources. The evidence in mss. is not always clear, however, as both OHG and OS scribes frequently follow the common practice of using a stroke to indicate a nasal (with no distinction made between abbreviated /-n/ and /-m/). Where final /-m/ belongs to the stem, it is usually preserved in both OHG and OS (e.g., OHG a¯ tum, OS a¯ om “breath”; OHG buosum, OS b¯osom “bosom”) (Holthausen 1923 § 185). In runic inscriptions (and other epigraphical traditions), there is a well-attested orthographic practice of omitting nasals before a homorganic consonant (§ 2.6.2). Alongside this, we have to consider processes of assimilation which are phonetically real. For the nasals, as for the “liquids”, there are instances of assimilation in consonant clusters: e.g., OHG stimma ~ stimna 22 The OHG 1.sg.pres.ind. endings -¯om (class 2), -¯em (class 3) in the weak verbs, as against -u (< PGmc */-¯o/) for weak class 1 and all the strong verbs, may (so BR § 305) be inherited from PIE, where there appear to be two alternative primary 1.sg.pres.act.ind. suffixes, */-mi/ and */-h2/ (Ringe 2006:31). OS has -on in class 2, but -u otherwise (Gallée 1910 § 208; Holthausen 1923 § 463). For PGmc, Lehmann (2005–2007 § 3.8) reconstructs */-¯o/ for class 2 and */-a/ for other weak classes, while Ringe (2006:238–267) has */-¯o/ for weak class 2 and factitive verbs of class 3, vs. */-¯o/ for all other weak and strong verbs. The OHG endings in -m may alternatively be analogical creations based on the high-frequency 1.sg.pres.ind. forms of the anomalous verbs g¯am, d¯om (< PGmc *g¯ami( ? ), *d¯omi (Ringe 2006:264; Lehmann does not discuss these verbs)).
52
Phonology and runic orthography
(< PGmc *stebn¯o/stemn¯o); OS ellevan (< PGmc *aina-lifa/*aina-liba). (BR § 123 Anm. 2; Gallée 1910 § 204, § 212; Holthausen 1923 § 184). Where /n/ precedes a labial consonant in OHG it is assimilated to /m/, although spellings still predominate alongside variants in : e.g., ummaht, imb¯ıan alongside regular unmaht “weakness, impotence”, inb¯ızzan “to bite, eat”; fimf (< PGmc *fenfe) “five” (BR § 126). In OS as well, occasional forms in appear alongside the more usual forms (e.g., ammaht < ambaht “servant” (= OHG ambaht) < PGmc *ambaxtaz/*andbaxtaz (see entry in Orel 2003)) (Gallée 1910 § 205; Holthausen 1923 § 245). A major type of assimilation which distinguishes OS (as well as OFris and OE) from OHG is the deletion of /n/ before a homorganic fricative, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (via a nasalised stage): e.g., OS OE f¯ıf vs. OHG fimf (< PGmc *fenfe); g¯os vs. gans (< *gansiz). /n/ survives before a fricative where the cluster has arisen through the syncope of an intervening vowel (e.g., OS h¯ona ~ h¯onitha (not *h¯oa) “disgrace” < PGmc *xauni¯o). In some cases, /n/ is retained through the influence of a related verb (e.g., in inflected forms like kanst (not *k¯ast), 2.sg.pres. to kunnan “to know, understand”). Loanwords such as tins “interest” (Lat. census) retain /n/, and are presumed to have been borrowed after the assimilation process was complete and no longer productive (Holthausen 1923 §§ 191–192). In unstressed syllables before /-g/, /n/ (= [ŋ]) is also often deleted in OS (e.g., kunig vs. kuning “king”) (Holthausen 1923 § 193).
2.5.3 Epenthetic (and prothetic) consonants Mss. show evidence of consonant insertion in various contexts: • OHG texts contain numerous forms with unetymological initial (e.g., hensti vs. ensti “favours, graces” (nom./acc.pl., to anst < PGmc *anstiz); huns vs. uns “us” (dat.); herda vs. erda “earth”); and with an epenthetic between vowels (e.g., s¯ahan vs. s¯aen “to sow” (< PGmc *s¯eanan); bluohan vs. bluoen “to bloom” (< PGmc *bl¯ojanan < *bl¯oanan)) (BR § 152). It is doubtful whether prothetic represents a real sound: most of the witnesses are in glosses or in mss. which Braune and Reiffenstein regard as carelessly produced, and are evidently influenced by Romance orthography. Other examples may be ascribed to analogy (e.g., Tatian’s h¯orun “ears”, perhaps influenced by gih¯oret “hears, obeys” (3.sg.pres.)) (BR § 152 Anm. 1). The epenthetic , on the other hand, does appear to represent a spoken /-h-/, as it appears in mss. which otherwise use in a regular and consistent fashion (BR § 152b).
The consonantal systems of OHG and OS
53
• In OS an epenthetic /b/ appears between /m/ and /l r/ in some witnesses: e.g., simbla “always” vs. simla (< PGmc *seml¯en/*semlai); timbron “to build” (< PGmc *temrjanan/*temr¯ojanan) (Gallée 1910 § 203; Holthausen 1923 § 183). The same phenomenon is well attested in the other WGmc languages (OS simbla : OHG simbles, OE sim(b)le; OS timbron : OHG zimbren, OE timbran). • The OHG sources contain a few instances of epenthetic /r/ intervocalically at word boundaries: e.g., wolar abur (< wola abur “but” (emphatic)), a phenomenon comparable to the “intrusive r” of modern British English (the canonical example being law and order = [lɔ:rəndɔ:də]). • Word-internal /r/-epenthesis is attested in OHG wirdar vs. widar “against” (< PGmc *wiÂra(n)) (BR 167 Anm. 11).
2.5.4 Summary The major sound changes affecting the consonants which might show up in the runic record are: • Alternation between plosive and fricative reflexes of */b d g/: survival of fricatives (as in OS and/or MFrk) vs. generalisation of the plosives (as in the OHG dialects other than MFrk) (§ 2.5.1.1). • Affrication/frication of */p t k/ as part of the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2.1). • Devoicing of */b d g/ as part of the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2.1). • Intervocalic voicing of */f θ s x/ (§ 2.5.1.3). • Despirantisation of */θ/ > /d/ (§ 2.5.1.3). • Phonetically-conditioned alternations between voiced and voiceless plosives in initial and/or final positions, not directly related to the Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.4.1). • Deletion of reflexes of */x/ in phonetically weak positions (§ 2.5.1.4.2). • Lenition in consonant clusters (*/ft/ > /ht/; */θl/ > /hl/) (§ 2.5.1.4.3). • Deletion of final /-r/ in function words, and medial /-r-/ in consonant clusters (§ 2.5.2.1). • Delabialisation of /-m/ > /-n/ in inflectional endings (§ 2.5.2.2). • Assimilation of nasals in consonant clusters (§ 2.5.2.2). • Deletion of nasals before a homorganic voiceless fricative (§ 2.5.2.2). In practice, this may be difficult to distinguish from the orthographic “nonrepresentation” rule (§ 2.6.2). • Consonant epenthesis (§ 2.5.3).
54
Phonology and runic orthography
2.6 Runic orthography 2.6.1 Graphemic representation of the high vowels and 2.6.1 the corresponding semivowels Given that the consonants /j w/ cannot be distinguished from the vowels /i u/ in articulatory terms, it would hardly be surprising if rune-carvers (or, for that matter, anyone transcribing a language that contains these phonemes) did not attempt to distinguish them orthographically. The distinction is not a phonetic one, but one of syllable position (core vs. periphery, or syllabic vs. non-syllabic). The absence of syllabic discrimination in the use of Roman ~ < j> for the high front and ~ for the high back vocalics in medieval manuscripts is sufficiently well known as to require no further comment. On the other hand, the fact that the fuÂark contains distinct runes i/j and u/w suggests that to speakers of early Gmc dialects (or at least, to the creators of the fuÂark) the distinction was perceived as significant. With respect to the Continental runic inscriptions and the phonological system(s) which they represent, we have two types of question to resolve. The first is phonological: what happens to the PGmc high vowels and the corresponding semivowels in the dialects recorded in the inscriptions? The second concerns mappings between grapheme and phoneme: to what extent (if any) are the runes j w reserved for non-syllabic /j w/ and i u for syllabic /à Œ/? Is there any evidence that grapheme-phoneme mappings are affected by factors other than the consonant/vowel distinction (e.g., vowel quantity)?
2.6.2 Orthographic rules proposed in the runological literature In the runological literature, two orthographic “rules” have been proposed whereby particular phones are not represented. The first governs the “non-representation” of a nasal: Nedoma formulates it C0VNT M C0V˜ T () (Nedoma 2004a:15). This formulation implies a phonetic component to the omission (nasalisation of the vowel); /n/ is regularly assimilated in this environment in the “coastal” dialects and OS but not in OHG (§ 2.5.2.2) (compare OE OFris g¯os, OS gôs ~ gâs (see also § 2.3.4.1), vs. OHG gans “goose” < PGmc *gansz). The non-representation of a nasal before a homorganic obstruent is the norm in Scandinavian runic inscriptions, and is also common in Mediterranean epigraphical tradition (Antonsen 1975:12). The evidence for and interpretation of this phenomenon in the Continental runic corpus will be discussed in more detail in § 7.2.2.2.
Runic orthography
55
The second process of letter-omission is “Grønvik’s law”. As stated by Nedoma (2004a:15), a high vowel may be omitted before a R+C cluster: C0VRC M C0RC (). Grønvik (1985:187) does not in fact specify that ˚ be high; and one of the examples he invokes is the Etelhem the vowel must fibula (KJ 14) wrta M w(o)r(h)ta, where a mid vowel is involved. I discuss the possible epigraphical evidence for unrepresented vowels (both those which meet the conditions for “Grønvik’s law” and those which do not) in more detail in § 5.2.1.1.
56
Phonology and runic orthography
PGmc */eu/
57
3. The diphthongs The sound changes with which we are concerned in this chapter are the allophonic, and ultimately phonemic, split(s) affecting PGmc */eu/ (§ 2.3.1.1); the NWGmc monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ and */au/ (§ 2.3.1.2); and the monophthongisations of stressed */ai/ and */au/ (§ 2.3.1.3; § 2.3.1.4).
3.1 PGmc */eu/ Since */eu/ remains without exception a front-back diphthong throughout Gmc, we would expect it to be represented in our inscriptions by digraphs consisting of a front and a back vowel grapheme (i.e., iu eu io eo). For the sake of completeness, we should also consider the possible involvement of the “yew-rune” ï (which probably represents a front vowel – see § 5.2.4) and the semivowel graphemes. These give us 12 possible digraphs: iu iw io eu ew eo ïu ïw ïo ju jw jo. In this section we will test the hypothesis that these digraphs are distributed in a way consistent with the umlaut process and/or the UG consonant-conditioned change described in § 2.3.1.1: as evidence for umlaut variation, we might expect to see iu (or iw ïu ïw ju jw) before a high vowel or glide and eo (or io ïo jo) before a non-high vowel, with eu (or ew) possibly appearing in any position as an “archaic” spelling, or at any rate a representation of an underlying /eu/ which disregards the distinction /iu/ vs. /eo/. If the UG consonantal blocking of */eu/ > /eo/ is active in the dialects of the inscriptions, then iu may appear before a non-high vowel if a labial or velar consonant intervenes. Although it is not our principal purpose in this study to propose a theoretical account of the variations, it is worth pointing out that, as mentioned in § 2.3.1.1, the umlaut variants must be phonemic after the deletion of unstressed final */a/. If the UG consonant conditioning is to be explained as blocking of a-umlaut by the labials and velars, then the consonant conditioning must predate the loss of the umlaut-triggering environment and the phonologisation of /eo/. In this case, given that the majority of our inscriptions are associated with Alamannia and Bavaria (later UG dialect territory), we
58
The diphthongs
might expect to see the UG pattern, with iu spellings predominating, and eo appearing only before dental or /h/ + non-high vowel. The digraphs (io ïo jo) would be anomalous within this system, if they are understood to represent a phonetic form *[io]; but we should not rule them out a priori.
3.1.1 Data This section includes all inscriptions containing one of the digraphs listed above as possible spellings for a reflex of */eu/. Of particular interest are the reflexes of PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (see entry for 7. Bad Krozingen A), which accounts for most of our evidence for the development of this diphthong. The results of this survey of the data are discussed in the following section (§ 3.1.2). 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ This inscription is only a candidate if we allow Marstrander’s interpretation of the text as Mada liub Ada “Mada (is) dear to Ada” (Marstrander 1939:297). This interpretation ignores the small cross-like symbol transliterated ?, which is generally treated as a word-divider or other paratextual mark. Whatever its function may be, it makes a reading of liub as a single word (< PGmc *leubaz “dear”; see 7. Bad Krozingen A, below) most unlikely. 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike leub is identified throughout the literature as a reflex of PGmc *leubaz (> Go liufs “beloved”; ON ljúfr “dear, beloved”; OE l¯eof “desirable, pleasant, beloved”; OFris li¯af, OS liof, OHG liob “beloved”). Düwel (2002b:15) identifies its function as either an adjective modifying Boba (in which case the text means “Boba (is) dear to Agirik”), or as an acc.sg.neut. substantive denoting either the object or a blessing on the part of Boba (“Boba (wishes) something dear/lovely/nice for Agirik”). All commentaries on the object are based on one or both of these interpretations, with no others having been suggested (Fingerlin 1998; Fingerlin et al. 2004; Nedoma 2004a:151–158, 244).
PGmc */eu/
59
9. Beuchte fibula [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso Complex II is normally interpreted as a metathetic form of a pers.n. BŒriso (see § 4.1), with i and r transposed. An alternative metathesis (not mentioned in the literature) is at least hypothetically possible: buirso M biurso, perhaps a pers.n. or epithet with a stem *biur- < PGmc *beuran (> ON bjórr, OE b¯eor, OFris bi¯ar, OHG bior “beer”). If this were a hypocoristic form in /-is-o/, as BŒriso is believed to be (Nedoma 2004a:264–265), we would have to assume that the medial /-i-/ (which would support a diphthong with the form /iu/, as opposed to /eo/) had been elided (compare the interpretations of Grønvik and Krause, in § 4.1). I know of no evidence for the use of the “beer”-word as a name-element; but there might be a semantic parallel in the productive element Alu-, if the latter is the “ale”-word (PGmc *aluÂ) (see 33. Heide in § 4.1). On balance, the interpretation of ui as /iu/ here is unlikely, though not impossible. 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) wiwo?(??) is interpreted as either (i) w¯ı wo(l) “how good/well”; or (ii) a pers.n. with an element W¯ı- (see § 4.1). There is no suggestion in the literature that iw here might represent a reflex of */eu/, and I am not aware of any possible etymon in *weu-. 20. Engers fibula leub The major interpretations of this inscription are: (i) a strongly-inflected nom. pers.n. (m. or f.) Leub < PGmc *leubaz (fem. *leub¯o) “dear” (for the etymology, see 7. Bad Krozingen A) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:205; Krause 1966:283; Nedoma 2004a:355–357); (ii) a nom.sg. substantivised form (any gender) of the adjective (“something lovely/nice”), either denoting the object itself or expressing a wish on the part of the donor (again, see Bad Krozingen) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:205–206; Krause 1966:283; Nedoma 2004a:354–355). Looijenga’s treatment of leub as a noun “love” is possible, but less promising: I suspect that she has in mind the ¯ın-stem (PGmc *leub¯ın > OHG liub¯ı > modG Liebe); but since we have no termination *-i or *-in, this does not seem likely. Braune notes that in OHG some members of this class are transferred to the o¯ -declension (BR § 231 Anm. 2). There is an OHG lioba (¯o-stem), listed by Wells (1990) as a gloss for Lat gratia “favour, esteem, lik-
60
The diphthongs
ing”, cor “heart, mind, feeling”, which could be a transferred variant of the ¯ın-stem. An interpretation of leub as *leub¯ı M *leub-Ø “love” (nom.sg. o¯ -stem – see § 4.4) is not impossible, but it involves the assumption that leub is an ¯ın-stem carried over into the o¯ -declension, and that this type of transfer is in progress during the “runic” period. This strikes me as an unnecessarily complicated explanation, and one which cannot be verified in the absence of co-text to support a particular semantic interpretation. OHG lioba occurs only twice (in the OHG Isidor (8th c.), and in a 10th-century gloss) (Köbler 1993; 2006). Nedoma (2004a:355) argues that the case for a pers.n. is strengthened by the fact that leub is isolated. We have in the Continental corpus a substantial number of inscriptions consisting solely of pers.ns. (or at least, sequences that are generally believed to be pers.ns.), but there are no known examples of a Continental text consisting just of a “formula-word”. The only possible exceptions are the alu and ota inscriptions, which are probably either imports from Scandinavia or imitations of Scandinavian inscriptions (see 33. Heide; 38–39. Hüfingen I–II in § 4.1). 22. Ferwerd comb case meura/meur (Looijenga 2003a:303). This is an unlikely case: firstly, the reading e (as part of a bind-rune me) is questionable; and secondly, in Looijenga’s interpretation, e and u belong to separate words: meur M m¯e Ura (or Ur, if I is here given its fronted “Anglo-Frisian” value). 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade Throughout the literature, leub is connected to the adjective < PGmc *leubaz “dear” (see 7. Bad Krozingen A), or a noun derived from it. Interpretations include: (i) a strong nom.sg.fem. adjective modifying a FN Birg; (ii) an acc.sg.neut. adjective “something lovely/nice”; (iii) a strongly inflected nom. (or voc.?) sg.masc. substantive denoting the addressee, in Krause’s interpretation of birg as an imp. verb-form “help, protect” (Krause 1966:291) (see § 5.1); (iv) a nom. pers.n. Leub (see 20. Engers).
PGmc */eu/
61
50. Mertingen fibula ieok aun Düwel (2000a:14; Babucke and Düwel 2001:169–170) offers an (admittedly speculative) interpretation connecting ieok with PGmc *jeuk¯enan (> Go jiukan “to fight, conquer”, ga-jiukan “to overcome”; MHG jouchen “to chase, drive”), which is itself derived from PGmc *jeukan (> Go juk, ON ok, OE geoc, OS juk, OHG juh ~ joh “yoke”) (Orel 2003; Pokorny 1959–1969). He proposes that ieok + a (as a haplograph) represents *jeuka, either a 1.sg.pres.ind. verb-form “I fight” (: Go jiuka, OHG *jeoch¯em), or a related noun “fight” (Go jiuka f. “quarrel” < PGmc *jeuk¯o). The verbal interpretation provides a suffix consistent with Gothic (/-a/ < PGmc */-¯o/), but not with OHG (/-¯e-m/, the ulterior etymology of which is not certain (BR § 305)). 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna The sequence which concerns us here is lbi, which most commentators interpret as the ¯ın-stem noun l(iu)b¯ı “affection, love” (< PGmc *leub¯ın) (Düwel 2002c:27; Looijenga 2003a:249; Nedoma 2004a:241; 2006a:145; Opitz 1982:488; Scardigli 1986:353). Nedoma (2004a:241) doubts that the sequence represents a pers.n. L(iu)bi, as this would imply an interpretation “Liubi (and) Imuba [give this] to Hamal”1, making Hamal (a man) the owner of an object found in a woman’s grave. The expansion of lbi M liub¯ı is speculative: any other vowel could be inserted. If, in spite of this reservation, we accept the majority view, the reflex of */eu/ is not represented and so lbi gives us no information useful to the present investigation. Schwab (1998a:416) proposes that the sequence imuba contains two erroneous spellings (i for l; m for e) and that the carver intended to write not (ÉC9I but the formally similar ÜÇC9I, leuba being a magical “formula-word” derived from PGmc *leub- (see lbi, above). Nedoma (2004a:346) responds that there is no reason to believe that this is the case.
1 “Liubi (und) Imuba [schenken dies] dem Hamal”
62
The diphthongs
55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? liub might be a strong nom.sg.masc./fem./neut. or acc.sg.neut. form of the adjective < *leubaz, either modifying some noun or functioning as a substantive (compare 7. Bad Krozingen A). Since it is the only part of the inscription which can be interpreted with any confidence, we have no co-text to assist us in discriminating between these alternatives. Other possibilities are that it is a pers.n. (Opitz 1987:32) or a noun “love” (Looijenga 2003a:249 – I find this unlikely here for the same reasons as her interpretation of 20. Engers leub; see above). 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The most popular interpretation of leubwini (inter alios, Düwel 2002d:276; Krause 1966:293–294; Looijenga 2003a:250; Nedoma 2004a:362; Opitz 1987:33) is that it is a dithematic MN, with a prototheme Leub- < *leubaz (see 7. Bad Krozingen A), or perhaps a compound leubwini carrying the literal meaning “dear friend”. Another possibility is that inscription B contains a formula similar to that of Bad Krozingen: awaleubwini M Awa leub Wini. The last word could be a MN Wini or the common noun wini “friend” (< PGmc *weniz; see further § 3.2.2; § 5.1). If this is the correct interpretation, then leub is either a nom.sg.fem. adjective with Awa as its referent, or an acc.sg.neut. substantive “something lovely/nice”, as for Bad Krozingen. 57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? The few tentative interpretations that exist for this inscription are based on a left to right reading; the sequence io, however, is nowhere interpreted as a diphthong. Arntz incorporates it into a metathetic MN, reading birtlio M Bir(h)tilo (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:305), while Looijenga interprets io as jo(h) “and” (§ 4.1).
PGmc */eu/
63
60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? In Krause’s interpretation of this inscription (1966:285), deofile M deofile “Devil”. If this is correct, then we appear to be dealing with a vocalic sequence /eo/, but this is an adaptation of a Latin form (CLat diabolus and/or LLat *diuvalus (Kluge 2002)), not a Gmc word. The loan is well-attested in forms like OHG diufil, OS diuul.2 I note, however, that no forms are attested, even in cases like diufal where the following vowel is low and where PGmc */eu/ would regularly give OHG (Frk) OS /eo/ (§ 2.3.1.1; see further § 3.1.2.1). It is in any case questionable whether we are deaing with a diphthong at all here, rather than two monophthongs separated by a syllable boundary (CLat. diabolus M /di.a-/; OHG diufil M /di.u-/? /diu.-/?). Krause’s interpretation remains the dominant one (compare, e.g., Looijenga 2003a:253; Martin 2004:194; Opitz 1987:36). Nevertheless, it remains problematic, not least because the terminal -e is difficult to account for (see § 5.1). 65. †Rügen stone piece fgiu The only interpretation available in the literature is that of Arntz, who treats giu as an abbreviated verb-form gibu “I give” (Arntz 1937:7–8). If this is correct (which I do not believe to be the case – see entry on 27. Geltorf II in § 4.1), iu does not represent the diphthong */eu/. 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd Krause (1966:300) treats leuba as a weakly inflected nom. FN Leuba, or perhaps a by-name literally meaning “dear one” (< PGmc *leub- – see 7. Bad Krozingen A, above), syntactically parallel to Alagu(n) (see § 4.1; § 6.1). The two named women are understood as subjects of the verb dÀdun “made” (§ 4.1), the implicit object of which is taken to be “the blessing” or “the inscription”, rather than the capsule (Krause 1966:300; Looijenga 2003a:255). leuba may alternatively be interpreted as an acc.sg. o¯ -stem noun or adjective, perhaps referring to the owner of the object (“Alagun (and) Arog¯ıs
2 The “devil”-word appears in many variant forms in OHG (see Schützeichel 2006 for a comprehensive list, and see discussion in § 3.1.2.1).
64
The diphthongs
made (the owner) a happy person”), or to the object itself (“Alagun (and) Arog¯ıs made something which brings luck”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:343; Schwab 1998a:417). Schwab (ibid.) also suggests that it could be a nom.sg.fem. adjective modifying AlagunÂ. 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo The generally accepted interpretation of complex II is as a weakly inflected nom.sg. MN Leubo, again with the stem leub < PGmc *leub- (7. Bad Krozingen A; and compare 67. Schretzheim I leuba). It could alternatively be a masc. n-stem noun with the literal meaning “dear one” (compare OHG liobo “beloved, friend, disciple”); Looijenga also suggests that leubo might represent a nom. form (any gender) of the adjective leub “dear, lovely”, but does not analyse it further (2003a:256). 70. Schwangau fibula leob (Meli, cited by Düwel 1994b:277; Schwab 1998a:412). This transliteration has been rejected by the runological community in favour of Looijenga’s (2003a:257) aebi (§ 3.2.1). If, in spite of this, leob is correct, then it represents a parallel to 20. Engers leub, a reflex of PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (pers.n.?). On the etymology of *leubaz, see 7. Bad Krozingen A. 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu That complex I contains a weakly inflected MN (or by-name) with a stem derived from PGmc *neujaz (> Go niujis, ON n´yr, OE n¯ıwe, OFris n¯ı, n¯ıe, OS OHG niuwi “new”) is not controversial. If the inscription is PNorse, as the majority view holds, the spelling is curious – we would expect *niujila (compare Darum V-C (IK 43; KJ 104) niujil). Krause explains the iuw spelling as either a simple error for iuj (1966:254–255), or representing an incidental glide in the later PNorse *Niuila (*Niuwila) < Niujila (1971:163). Antonsen (1975:76) identifies the text as WGmc, on the grounds that uw represents a geminate, PGmc *niu.j- > WGmc *niww.j- > *niuw.j- (for further discussion of gemination, see § 3.3.1.1). If the surface form is simply erroneous, or can be explained without invoking the WGmc consonant gemination, then we have little reason to include it in this study. Some support for a non-PNorse identity might come from the suffix: Müller (in Düwel et al.
PGmc */eu/
65
1975:161–162) comments that the dim. suffix /-il-/ is very common in EGmc and WGmc names, but extremely rare in ON (including the rich stock of pers.ns. recorded in Viking-Age runic inscriptions); he does not, however, infer that the Skonager inscription is WGmc. 79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· Complex III liub(i) is treated in the literature as either a nom. MN Liubi, or possibly the nom.sg. ¯ın-stem liub¯ı “love” (see § 5.1. Compare also 54. Neudingen-Baar II lbi). The reading of a final i is doubtful: Arntz uses it to argue that the variation between eo and iu in complexes III–IV is phonetically motivated, but he makes this argument a priori and relies on it to support his reading of an i-rune (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:365, 367). Complex IV leob is usually interpreted as an acc.sg.neut. substantive “something lovely/nice”, referring either to the fibula or an abstract wish (see 7. Bad Krozingen A, above) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:366–368; Krause 1966:288; Nedoma 2004a:365–366). Looijenga (2003a:260) notes that leob is now indistinct, and does not accept Arntz’ reading of i in complex III. She interprets liub as an a-stem noun “love” (= OHG liob n. “love, luck, salvation” < PGmc *leuban (Köbler 1993)), or a nom.sg. adj. (any gender); and leob as a nom. MN (comparable to 20. Engers leub). An obvious problem when attempting to read the text as a whole is that the complexes are located on several distinct parts of the fibula and so are physically isolated from one another. As we cannot be certain that the inscription is to be read as a single text, the assignment of grammatical roles to the various parts is speculative at best. Nedoma indicates (2004a:258) that the inscriptions on the footplate and the knobs of the paired fibula (80. Weimar II) are the work of at least two different carvers. It is entirely possible that the same applies to Weimar I – if the inscriptions were made by two or more individuals, they probably constitute two or more distinct texts. 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: The reading of leob in complex II is tentative, this part of the inscription being obscured by corrosion. Looijenga is adamant that “there is no leob as Arntz/Zeiss read, because the traces of at least five or six runes can be seen.” (2003a:262).
66
The diphthongs
There are two major interpretations of complexes II–III in the literature, which assign different functions to leob: 1. Awimund ist leob Id¯un “Awimund is dear to Ida” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:374–375; Düwel 1994b:290; Nedoma 2004a:228). 2. Awimund ¯lsd(ag) leob Id¯un “Awimund (and) ¯lsdag (wish) something dear/ lovely for Ida” (Klingenberg 1976c:371; Krause 1966:290). Both of these treat the text as a formula comparable to NN[nom.] leub NN[dat.], if this is to be interpreted as “NN (is) dear to NN” (see 7. Bad Krozingen A; 46. †Kleines Schulerloch; and 56. Nordendorf I, inscription B). 82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w The evaluation of iu here depends on how we read the runes immediately before and after it. The following readings and analyses are presented in the literature: 1. Âiuw M Âiuw “servant” < PGmc *Âegwaz (> Go Âius “boy, house-servant”; ON -Âér, ´y n. “serf, bondsman”; OE ¯eow “servant, slave”; OS theo-; OHG teo adj. “unfree”) (Looijenga 2003a:262). If this is correct, then iu does not represent a reflex of PGmc */eu/ (see § 4.1; § 7.1.3.1). 2. wiu M *w¯ıhju 3.du.pres. “they (two) consecrate” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:377). This is not plausible (see § 4.1), and even if it were, it would not be relevant to the development of */eu/. 3. Âiu represents some reflex of PGmc *ÂeuÂ- (Krause 1966:290; Nedoma 2004a:314), presumably as a Verner’s Law alternant of *Âeud- (cf *Âeudjaz > Go ÂiuÂ, OE ge´yde “good”; ON ´yðr “meek, kind, admirable”; OS githiudo adv. “seemly”; and the related PGmc *Âeud¯o > Go Âiuda, ON Âjóð, OE ¯eod, OFris thi¯ad, OS thiod, OHG diota “people, nation”). If this is the correct reading and interpretation, then we are dealing with a root vowel */eu/. I note that no parallels to a PGmc *ÂeuÂ- are attested (Âiu is readily explicable as a product of Gothic final devoicing rules, not of a proto-form *ÂiuÂ-). Weimar IV, therefore, is an uncertain case for inclusion, only allowable if we accept reading 3. Readings 1–2 both involve a syncopated consonant. Arntz reads the doubtful part of this inscription as leob : ida M leob, Ida “something dear/lovely, Ida!” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:377; see also Krause 1966:290; Opitz 1987:191). He is quite confident about the reading leob, but his advocacy of it seems to rely on its appearance on the other Weimar finds, of which only Weimar I is a reliable witness. I therefore treat it as a marginal case.
PGmc */eu/
67
88. Wijnaldum B pendant hiwi The word hiwi may also be present on the first-century Meldorf fibula (excluded from the present study for chronological reasons), if the Meldorf inscription is runic (Düwel 1981; Düwel and Gebühr 1981). Düwel’s proposed interpretation of Meldorf hiwi is as a FN with a stem < PGmc *x¯ıwan n. (> Go heiwa-frauja “master of the house”; ON hjón ~ hjún pl. “man and wife”; OE h¯ıwan pl., OFris h¯ıuna pl. “members of a household”; OS h¯ıwa, OHG h¯ıwun pl. (to *h¯ıwa) “spouse, family member”): Lat c¯ıvis “citizen”. This appears as a name-element on the Årstad stone (KJ 58) hiwigaz (Krause 1966:130), and in several other pers.ns.: OHG Hiuo (in PNs Hiuenheim, Hivenchusen); Hiuperht; Hiuorin (recte Hiuorih?) (Förstemann 1900:846). On the suffix, see § 5.1. An alternative, not advanced anywhere in the literature, is that hiwi could represent a reflex of PGmc *xewjan > Go hiwi “form, appearance”; ON h´y “down”; OE h¯ıw “shape, form, appearance; colour; beauty”. This is not attested in OHG or OS, but it would regularly yield *hiuwi (compare OS OHG niuwi “new” < PGmc *neujaz). While this is unlikely to be the etymon for OHG Hiu-perht etc. (we would expect a form *Hiui-), it is phonologically possible to interpret hiwi as a pers.n. or byname Hiu(w)i “beauty” M “beautiful/shapely”( ? ). Semantically, however, it does not seem terribly promising: although colour terms and physical descriptors are common in pers.ns., I know of no parallels for the use of a general term with a meaning like “shape, form, appearance”, except perhaps ON Ullr < PGmc *wulÂuz (> Go wulÂus “splendour”) : Lat vultus “facial expression, appearance”. If the sense “beauty” is allowable, then this is a semantic field known in nameelements such as OHG fladi “cleanness, beauty”, which appears as both a prototheme and a deuterotheme in FNs (Bach 1952/53:I,1:227; Förstemann 1900:508–509). Given that the connection with *x¯ıwan is equally plausible and better attested, I am inclined to reject the *xewjan hypothesis.
3.1.2 Summary and discussion Of the 12 possible digraphs consisting of a front and a back vowel grapheme listed in the introduction to § 3.1), only 3 are attested in reflexes of */eu/: eu iu eo. One of the iu examples (Skonager) belongs to the trigraph iuw. The question of whether or not uw represents a geminate (< WGmc */-ww-/) is not directly related to that of how the diphthong itself is represented. The fol-
68
The diphthongs
lowing handlist groups the spellings together with the following text (which may have an effect on the realisation of the diphthong): eu 7. Bad Krozingen A 20. Engers 56. Nordendorf I 67. Schretzheim I 68. Schretzheim II
leub agirike leub leubwini? leuba:dedun leubo
eo 50. Mertingen 79. Weimar I [IV]
ieok aun leob
iu 55. Niederstotzingen 73. Skonager III 79. Weimar I [III]
?liub niuwila liub(i):
We have 9 inscriptions containing 10 probable reflexes of */eu/. In all but two (Mertingen; Skonager), the diphthong belongs to the root *leub-. Four additional inscriptions are worthy of consideration, although they must be regarded as questionable cases (Kleines Schulerloch is suspect; Osthofen has a dubious interpretation of the sequence as part of a Latin loanword; and the readings of the others are too uncertain for us to have any confidence that */eu/ is represented): 46. †Kleines Schulerloch 60. Osthofen 81. Weimar III 82. Weimar IV
leub:selbrade deofile? leob Â/ iuÂ/ :ida w w
If we assume that eo M /eo/ and iu M /iu/, then we can attempt to interpret them in terms of the two types of sound change outlined in § 2.3.1.1 – umlaut and UG consonant-conditioned variation.
3.1.2.1 Umlaut The only witness which is straightforwardly attributable to umlaut is Skonager niuwila; and even this is problematic in that its identification as WGmc
PGmc */eu/
69
is uncertain. The reading of Weimar I liub(i) is questionable, and indeed the claim that a final i is present is partly motivated by the need to account for the spelling iu. Niederstotzingen liub is the end of complex I; if complex II is intended to follow on directly, its initial u might be allowable as a conditioning environment for /iu/. Given that complex II is unintelligible and is physically distant from complex I, we have no grounds on which to argue for the continuity of the text. If, on the other hand, liub represents a zero-suffixed adjective (whether substantive or not), then we would regularly expect an umlaut-form */leob/ < */leub-a-/ (§ 2.3.1.1); liub can, however, be explained in terms of UG consonant conditioning (§ 3.1.2.2, below). If Weimar IV Â/wiuÂ/w is allowable as a witness to /iu/ < */eu/, the initial iof the following sequence ida (interpreted as the FN Ida – see § 5.1) could provide a conditioning environment, provided the umlaut conditioning does not respect word boundaries. The general assumption in the literature is that only following syllables within the same word trigger umlaut (or to put it another way, juncture is assumed to be a barrier to umlaut). Turning to the eo examples, we have a plausible case for umlaut-conditioning of /eo/ in Mertingen ieok a-, where (in Düwel’s interpretation) a is treated as a haplogram M jeoka aun. Weimar I leob and Weimar IV leob are isolated on fibula knobs, their relationship to the co-text being unclear. If these represent zero-suffixed reflexes of *leubaz, the regular Frk form would be leob-Ø. The forms liub(i) and leob on Weimar I can be reconciled if we accept Arntz’ reading of an i-rune and if we assign the inscription to a dialect in which UG consonant conditioning is not operative. If we introduce Osthofen into the discussion, deofile M deofile “devil” presents us with a problem. The loanword “devil” has many variants in literary sources. OHG forms with are common, with various vowels in the second syllable (e.g., tiuval, tiuvel, tiubil) and attributable to UG consonant conditioning. However, forms with M /iə/ < /eo/ consistently have a nonhigh vowel (tieval, tievel, tiefal, dieval, dievel, diefel), as we would expect. A spelling deofile as opposed to *deofale would be irregular at any stage of the processes affecting */eu/ and its reflexes. Seen in this light, the already contentious association of this sequence with the “devil”-word seems even less likely. The most frequent spelling is eu, which demands further explanation. It is conceivable that eu represents a preserved /eu/; but if we are correct in identifying a phonemic split at a very early stage (after the deletion of unstressed final */a/), then we are left with an apparent discrepancy between phonologi-
70
The diphthongs
cal and written forms. It may be that eu is an archaic “reverse spelling” (compare the possible use of ai for the monophthongal reflexes of unstressed */ai/ – see § 2.3.1.2, and the entry for 15. Charnay in § 3.2.1); that it consistently represents one of the alternants /iu/ or /eo/; or that it is a free orthographic variant for both of them (perhaps reflecting an awareness on the part of carvers that /iu/ and /eo/ are in some underlying sense the same, even though they are – from a modern phonological perspective – distinct phonemes (§ 2.3.1.1)). With the exception of Nordendorf leubwini?, every instance of eu occurs before an overt or underlying non-high vowel, where the umlaut process would regularly produce /eo/. On the other hand, all of them appear in the root *leub-, with a labial consonant which would regularly yield UG /iu/ (§ 3.1.2.2). On the face of it, we could hypothesise that eu is either a free variant with eo for /eo/, if the consonant conditioning does not apply; or that it is a free variant with iu for /iu/, if this conditioning does apply. A third possiblity is that eu represents an intermediate stage in UG consonant conditioning (see below). Although the reflex of */eu/ in leubwini? has /i/ (< PGmc */e/? – see entry in § 5.1) in the following syllable, this syllable begins with a vocalic /w/, which does not trigger umlaut (§ 2.3.1.1). The dithematic MN Leubwini is attested in OHG mss. as Leuboin, Leobwini, Leobwin, Liubwin, Lioboin, Liopwin, Liefwine (Förstemann 1900:1029); /eo/ predominates, with the /iu/ form probably to be explained as a product of UG consonant conditioning, rather than of umlaut.
3.1.2.2 UG consonant-conditioned variation As mentioned in § 3.1.2.1, the eu spelling is attested only in leub-, with a labial consonant and in a vocalic environment where we would expect Frk leob vs. UG liub. As regards the context of the finds, it is worth noting that almost all of the inscriptions containing reflexes of */eu/ come from sites well within UG dialect territory (the exceptions being Engers, Skonager and Weimar). If all of the eu inscriptions can be identified as dialectally UG, and if we accept the hypothesis that the UG consonant conditioning has taken place (as it must, if this conditioning is to be interpreted in terms of blocking a-umlaut, rather than as a later development of /eo/), then eu may simply be a variant spelling of iu M /iu/; although if this is the case, we might reasonably ask why eu is more frequent. Conversely, if the eu sequences can be assigned to a regional dialect or to a chronological stage in which the UG assimilation to the following consonant
PGmc */eu/
71
has not taken place, then eu might be an orthographic variant of eo M /eo/, which leaves us with the same question about frequency. A simple solution to this is to hypothesise that eu is simply an archaism, as discussed in the previous section. Alternatively, we could postulate that the UG consonant conditioning is underway, but that in the dialects of the inscriptions it has reached an intermediate stage, with only the off-glide assimilated by the following consonant. This is not plausible in the “blocking” model of the change (which assumes that /iu/ before a labial or velar is simply an inherited */iu/ unaffected by a-umlaut); but if UG /iu/ before a labial or velar consonant with a following non-high vowel is a secondary development (i.e., PGmc *leub-a- > pre-OHG *leob-a- > pre-UG *leob-Ø > *leub-Ø > UG liub-Ø), then it is conceivable that the off-glide */o/ is raised under the influence of the following /b/. In Vennemann’s account (1972; see also § 2.3.1.1, above), the dentals and /h/ are transparent to a-umlaut because the back of the tongue is relatively low during their articulation. This implies that the labials and velars involve a relatively high tongue posture which attracts the off-glide (*/o/ > */u/). The raised off-glide might in turn exert an assimilatory raising of the on-glide /e/. If this is correct, a development of this sort is plausible from a phonetic point of view. It does, however, require us to explain the iu spellings as either umlaut forms or “advanced” forms of the UG consonant conditioning. As we saw in the previous section, Skonager niuwila has iu readily explicable as a product of conditioning by the following i. There is in any case no suggestion that the dialect of this inscription is UG. A case can be made for umlaut in Weimar IV Â/wiuÂ/w, and perhaps Weimar I liub(i). This leaves us with Niederstotzingen liub, for which we have no conditioning vowel. The find-site is well within UG dialect territory – as has been mentioned – and would seem to be best explained as UG-type /liub/. This might pose a problem for the hypothesis that eu represents an intermediate stage in the raising of pre-UG */eo/. On the other hand, I note that the Niederstotzingen find is dated relatively late in the “runic” period (early 7th c.), while the datings for the other */eu/ inscriptions are all in the 6th century.3 The dating of inscriptions is an imprecise business in most cases (§ 1.1.2), but we could argue tentatively that Niederstotzingen belongs to a relatively late phase in which the hypothetical raising of */eo/ > */eu/ > */iu/ before labials and velars has been fully carried through. More problematic for this hypothesis is the Engers witness. This is not late in date, the find-site is in Frankish dialect territory and there is no evidence 3 Datings for Nordendorf I vary widely, but the current consensus is that it belongs to the mid-6th century (see catalogue entry).
72
The diphthongs
that it originated further south (though the possibility cannot be ruled out). We have here a form leub in an area where the normal 8th-century form would be leob. The eu spelling in this instance is probably best accounted for as an archaism. Mertingen appears to be anomalous in any model of UG consonant conditioning. Here we have an eo spelling with plausible umlaut-conditioning, but with a velar consonant, found well within UG territory (Mertingen is only 8 km from Nordendorf). The fibula is an imitation of the “Nordic” type, which (according to Martin 2004:179 n.45) was probably manufactured in mid- or southern Germany. We can, then, cautiously suggest that the Mertingen inscription may originate in an area in which UG consonant conditioning is not operative, and came south as an import. The doublet of Weimar I leob, liub(i) is at odds with UG consonant conditioning (regardless of what model we use), unless we claim that the two examples belong to different dialects and are the work of different carvers. This is certainly possible: Nedoma’s comment that Weimar I and Weimar II are the work of multiple carvers and therefore contain multiple texts has already been noted (see Weimar I entry in § 3.1.1), although he does not claim that different dialects are involved. The most straightforward explanation for the forms of Weimar I is as umlaut alternants in a non-UG dialect. The Weimar inscriptions belong to two individuals in adjacent graves, and it is generally assumed that these individuals were related. Given Weimar’s relative isolation from the main areas of rune-production (the upper Danube and the middle and upper Rhine), it may well be that the two women migrated from one of these areas. The only */eu/ inscription in which UG consonant conditioning must be operative, then, is Niederstotzingen. Most, but not all, of the eu forms could be co-opted into a model in which eu represents either UG /iu/ or an intermediate */eu/ < */eo/. If we are to claim that the UG distribution of /iu/ and /eo/ is present in the “runic” period, then we have also to find some other way of accounting for Mertingen eo (if we are prepared to accept Düwel’s speculative interpretation). Some hypotheses which would account for the data are: 1. The eu spellings represent an intermediate */eu/ < */eo/ (and UG consonant conditioning is a matter of raising triggered by labials and velars, rather than blocking of a-umlaut). Mertingen is an import, or an indicator that the raising process affects labials before it affects velars, or does not in fact contain a reflex of */eu/. Niederstotzingen is a later witness, with a fully-developed UG /iu/. Engers is an isolated archaism, or an import from the UG area.
PGmc */eu/
73
2. The eu spellings are archaisms in free variation with iu M UG /iu/ : eo M Frk /eo/, and UG consonant conditioning on either the “umlaut-blocking” or the “raising” model is operative. Mertingen is an import, or is inadmissible (see 1.). 3. UG consonant conditioning is a later development (and must therefore be explained by the “raising” model rather than the “umlaut-blocking” model), attested only in the relatively late Niederstotzingen example. eu is an archaic spelling which can stand for any reflex of PGmc */eu/.
3.1.3 Conclusion: reflexes of */eu/ in the corpus For each of the sound changes affecting reflexes of */eu/, we have only one clear-cut piece of evidence (Skonager niuwila for umlaut; Niederstotzingen liub for UG consonant conditioning). The Weimar doublet is best explained as an umlaut pairing, leob M /leob/ < */leob-a-/, liub(i) M /liubÃ/, and the Mertingen and Weimar IV witnesses can credibly be explained as products of the same process. The most frequent form, however, is eu, which must be explained either as an innovative consonant-conditioned form (as in the first of the three hypotheses proposed in § 3.1.2.2), or as an “archaic” or “traditional” spelling. All of our eu spellings are found in the root *leub-; if this root belongs to the realm of formulaic language (see, for example, Schwab 1998a), it may well be resistant to phonetically motivated re-spelling. Given that most of our inscriptions come from areas in which UG dialects of OHG are spoken, we might expect to see more evidence for the UG distribution of /iu/ vs. /eo/. If the “umlaut-blocking” model of this distribution is correct, it must already be operative before the deletion of the conditioning */a/. The runic data are consistent with a model in which the UG consonant conditioning is a matter of secondary raising rather than of umlaut-blocking, with eu perhaps representing an intermediate and Niederstotzingen iu a fullydeveloped form (hypothesis 1, above). If this model is correct, we would expect to see early forms in eo or early (6th c.) Latin witnesses in giving way to eu / forms in the UG dialect region. Förstemann’s earliest witnesses to the name-element leub- are two 5th-century( ? ) FNs, Erelieva and Sedeleuba (Förstemann 1900:454, 1018, 1315). The latter has , the former a peculiar . If the source is reliably datable to the 5th century, this spelling cannot be equivalent to OHG /ie/, which does not develop from /io/ < /eo/ until end of the 9th century (§ 2.3.1.1). Förstemann notes a set of names in Lib-, which are not distinguishable from Leub- names; and parallels Lid-,
74
The diphthongs
Did- are common Lat spellings for name-elements derived from PGmc *leudiz “people” and *Âeud¯o “people, nation”, respectively. The spelling in Erelieva may be related to this practice of using to represent some reflex of */eu/ (/iu/?). Reichert (1987) cites forms in earlier Latin sources, e.g., Leub (a.158); Leubasnius (3rd c.); Leubius (1st c.); Leubo (150/250). If is the unmarked form in early Latin witnesses, this would seem to support the hypothesis that eu is the unmarked (archaic) form in the runic inscriptions, and should not be adduced as evidence for the “raising” model of UG consonant conditioning. On the other hand, this still leaves us with the question of why, if the UG distribution of /iu/ vs. /eo/ is in place in the period of the inscriptions, it is not reflected more satisfactorily in the data.
3.2 PGmc */ai/ As has been noted (§ 2.3.1.3), the evidence of the later dialects indicates that by the 8th century, reflexes of PGmc stressed */ai/ and */au/ are generally monophthongal in the north, with consonant-conditioned monophthongisation in the south. In the runic inscriptions we would expect to find ai (or ae, aï( ? ), possibly representing an intermediate stage of development) predominating; if monophthongisation has been carried through, we would expect e (or perhaps i, ï, ei, eï, if we allow our runographers some phonetic and orthographic leeway). In the following sections, I deal first with digraphs interpretable as reflexes of */ai/ (§ 3.2.1), then with monographs believed (at least by some authors) to represent the product of monophthongisation (§ 3.2.2). In unstressed syllables, we would expect monographic spellings (i, e, ï?) for the product(s) of the NWGmc monophthongisation (§ 2.3.1.2); or possibly archaic digraphs (ai, ae, aï?).
3.2.1 Data: digraphs 2. Aquincum fibula [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia The reading and interpretation of ?lain are unclear: Opitz (1987:7) regards complex II as uninterpretable, while Krause (1966:24) suggests that it may be a string of “purely magical” runes, i.e., a sequence with no overt linguistic meaning. Nevertheless, several interpretations are available in the literature, all of which treat ai as a reflex of PGmc */ai/ (on the interpretation of kŋia, see § 4.1; § 5.1):
PGmc */ai/
75
1. ain:kŋia M ain-kunningia “only (i.e., intimate) friend” (PGmc *ainaz > Go ains, ON einn, OE a¯ n, OFris a¯ n ~ e¯ n, OS e¯ n, OHG ein “one; single”) (Krause 1966:24–25; Opitz 1987:182). 2. ?lain:kŋia M klain kingia “[This is] a pretty fibula” (PGmc *klainiz > OE clæne ¯ “clean, pure”; OFris kl¯ene, OS kl¯eni “narrow, thin”, OHG klein(i) “delicate, fine, small” (Grønvik 1985:179). Grønvik posits the additional sense “pretty” without further comment. It is not among the numerous meanings given for OHG kleini by Köbler (1993) or Schützeichel (2006), although Köbler does cite it as a meaning for MHG kleine (Müller and Zarncke (1854–1861), however, do not). 3. ain:kŋia is an error for aig:kŋia = aig kinga “owns the brooch” (the preceding ?l is taken to be the ending of a pers.n.). Here aig is 3.sg.pres. to *aigan pret.pres. (PGmc *aixa (Orel 2003)/*aiganan (Ringe 2006:261) > Go áihan, ON á, OE a¯ gan, OFris aga, h¯aga, OS e¯ gan, OHG eigan “to have, own”) (Looijenga 2003a:227; see further § 7.1.3.1). None of these interpretations is free of difficulties, and – as noted above – we cannot be certain that the complex contains any linguistic sense at all. For this reason Aquincum must remain a doubtful case. 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) [II] :uÂfnÂai:id [III] dan:liano [IV] ïia [V] k r Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:174–175) and Krause (1966:22–23) regard this inscription as linguistically EGmc, chiefly on the basis of the interpretation of uÂfnÂai as a 3.sg.pres.opt. verb-form u(n)Â-f(i)nÂai “may … discover” (PGmc *-fenÂai; see further § 4.1; § 5.1), with the terminal -ai understood to be diphthongal. However, it is far from certain that unstressed */ai/ remains a diphthong in EGmc. In Wulfila’s Gothic orthography, the digraphs are used to represent reflexes of PGmc */ai au/, but also of monophthongal */¯e1 o¯ /. In the view of Wright (1954 § 90), where these digraphs represent an inherited diphthong, they are probably also diphthongal in Gothic. Durrell, on the other hand, states that “[i]t is commonly assumed … that the Gothic digraphs ai and au represent monophthongs even where they derive from Gmc. diphthongs” (1977:72; also Grønvik 1987:116). If this latter view is correct, then the spelling -ai would have to be either an archaism (see below), or a runic parallel to Wulfila’s spelling, which is itself based on contemporary Greek orthography. If -ai here represents a monophthong, then it could plausibly be an archaism in a WGmc text (as in Antonsen’s interpretation, below). We can find some additional support for EGmc identity in the form of the
76
The diphthongs
pers.n. iddan, though the presence of an EGmc name does not necessarily imply that the dialect of the whole text is EGmc (Findell 2010:9–13). All of the attested WGmc dialects regularly have (M /-e/?) in inflectional suffixes derived from PGmc */-ai/ (§ 2.3.1.2). Accordingly, we have in the corpus several sequences readily interpretable as dat.sg. MNs with -e representing a monophthongal reflex of PGmc */-ai/: 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike; 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade; 54. Neudingen-Baar II hamale (see § 3.2.2). There is nothing else in the corpus reliably interpretable as a 1./3.sg.pres.opt. verb-form (although this interpretation has been proposed for 19. Eichstetten muni; see entry in § 3.2.2). An alternative interpretation of complex II is that of Antonsen (1975:77), who reads uÂfaÂai M u(n) fa¯e “to (my) husband”; fa¯e is dat.sg. to a reflex of PGmc *fadiz (> Go faÂs, fadis “master”). On the consonants, see § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1. In Antonsen’s view the dialect is WGmc, with -ai an archaic spelling of a reflex of NWGmc */-æ/ ¯ < PGmc */-ai/. If this proposed decoupling of orthography and pronunciation is allowable, it may seriously undermine our attempt to reconstruct a phonological system from the epigraphical data (see § 8.3.1). It is without parallel in the Continental corpus; Antonsen cites 5 more examples of the spelling -ai, but all are Scandinavian. It seems probable, therefore, that either (i) the majority view expressed in the literature is correct and the dialect of this text is EGmc (in which case it is of marginal relevance to the present study); (ii) it contains a WGmc ending /-À/ with an archaic spelling -ai; or (iii) the interpretations proposed in the literature are all incorrect and a more satisfactory one has yet to be found. For the time being, I leave Charnay to one side as a questionable case for a CRun reflex of PGmc */ai/. Also worth mentioning here are two marginal interpretations of liano in complex III. While other commentators take it to be a pers.n. (albeit one of unknown etymology) (Antonsen 1975:77; Arntz and Zeiss 1939:191; Düwel 1981a:374; Krause 1966:22), Gutenbrunner (cited without full reference by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:191) sees here a metathetic form of 3.pl.pres.opt. *lai(h)nÕ (OHG l¯ehan¯on “to grant, lend”, 3.pl.pres.opt. l¯ehan¯on < PGmc *laixwn¯on). This interpretation of liano assumes not only metathesis ia M ai, but also the orthographic omission of medial /-h-/ and of terminal /-n/. None of these is impossible in itself, but as a whole, the interpretation involves a great deal of conjecture. Opitz (1987:115–116) interprets complex III dan:liano as Danila (a “Germanised” form of the name of the prophet Daniel) – laion (= Go *laion
PGmc */ai/
77
nom./acc. “lion”; note that no word for “lion” is attested in Gothic (Feist 1939; Lehmann 1986; Wulfila Project)).4 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida Complex I is uncontroversially interpreted as B¯oso wrait r¯unł “B¯oso wrote/ carved runes”. There are difficulties with the etymology of B¯oso (§ 3.3.2; § 4.1) and the assignment of number to runa (acc.sg. r¯una < PGmc *r¯un¯on, or acc.pl. r¯un¯a < *r¯un¯oz; see further § 4.1). What concerns us here, however, is wrait, 3.sg.pret. (< PGmc *wrait, to *wr¯ıtanan), which contains an unambiguous reflex of PGmc */ai/. If the spelling ae represents a “pre-monophthongal” [ae] with a lowered off-glide, it might be evidence of regional variation (compare 54. Neudingen-Baar II and 62. Pforzen II urait). A following alveolar consonant is not a context that triggers monophthongisation in OHG. 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag hailag can be interpreted unproblematically as the adjective hailag (PGmc *xailagaz > ON heilagr, OE h¯alig, OFris h¯elich, OS h¯elag, OHG heilag “holy, invulnerable”), nom.sg.(neut.?), with the fibula as an implied referent: “(This fibula is) holy to W¯odan” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:273; see also Opitz 1987:53). This would be a straightforward witness, were it not for the high likelihood that the inscription is a forgery (see Appendix 2). 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali Looijenga (2003a:245) reads the latter part of the inscription as gihiali, which she takes to be a metathetic form of gihaili, either 2.sg.imp. to a verb cognate with OHG giheilen “to heal, save”, 2.sg.imp. giheili (< PGmc *xailjanan); or a noun meaning “salvation” in the Christian sense (OHG heilà f. (Köbler 1993; Schützeichel 2006) < PGmc *xail¯ın). Neither of these interpretations is objectionable in itself, but Looijenga’s reading is questionable (see catalogue entry). 4 Although the word “lion” appears several times in the New Testament (2 Tim 4:17; 1Ptr 5:8; Apc 4:7, 5:5, 10:3, 13:2), none of these passages is present in any of the surviving Gothic Bible mss. (see Wulfila Project website).
78
The diphthongs
54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna The final part of this inscription is interpreted by all commentators as Bl¯ıÂgu(n) wrait r¯unł “Bl¯ıÂgun wrote/carved runes (or a rune/counsel/mystery)”, a parallel to 23. Freilaubersheim B¯oso wrait r¯unł (see above). 61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun? [II] ltahu·gasokun? This text contains two pers.ns. which may have initial reflexes of */ai/: Aigil (masc.) and (if the reading aï is correct) Ailr¯un (fem.). The most likely etymon for Aigil is PGmc *aixa/*aiganan “own” (see Looijenga’s interpretation of 2. Aquincum ain, above); the name is to be distinguished from OHG Egil < *Agil and ON Egill (which are probably derived from PGmc *agez “fear” or *agj¯o “edge” – see § 5.1) (Marold 2004:219–220; Nedoma 1999b:100; 2004a:165; Wagner 1999b:117). The first element of Ailr¯un has been analysed in two ways: (i) as a reflex of PGmc *ailan n. (> OE a¯ l “fire”; no other known reflexes, but PGmc *ail-idaz > OE æled, ¯ OS e¯ ld, ON eldr “fire” may be related) (Nedoma 1999b:100–101; 2004a:168–169; 2004b:345–346; Wagner 1995:106; 1999a:93–94); (ii) as a derivative of Agil- via a process of palatal assimilation (see § 7.1.3.1). What, if anything, the spelling aï (vs. ai) signifies is not clear. It is generally ignored in the literature. For interpretations based on the alternative reading al-, see § 4.1; § 6.1. For further discussion of the “yew-rune”, see § 5.2.4. 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa In complex II it seems clear that we have another parallel to the NN wrait r¯unł sections of 23. Freilaubersheim and 54. Neudingen-Baar II. The spelling of the verb as urait is identical to that of Neudingen-Baar II (qv). 70. Schwangau fibula aebi This sequence may represent a MN Aebi < PGmc *aibijaz, a ja-stem derivative of *aib¯o f. (> Langob aib “district”) (Looijenga 2003a:257). Nedoma expresses doubt about this etymology (2004a:147), and mentions (but does not
PGmc */ai/
79
discuss in detail) alternative proto-forms *aiwa- (see Kabell’s interpretation of 56. Nordendorf I awa in § 3.2.2), or *eb- (a secondary development from *aiw-/*aib-) for the similar Langob. Aibone abl. (a.650; compare MHG Eibo) (Francovich Onesti 1999:174, 190). 78. †Trier serpentine object [I]wilsa [II] wairwai The only available interpretation is that of Schneider (1980), who divides complex II into two words, wair wai. The second of these he considers to be the interjection “woe!” (PGmc *wai > Go wai, ON vei, OE w¯a, OS OHG w¯e). For wair he posits a PGmc etymon *waiza- > ON veis, OE w¯ıse f. “stalk”, which he interprets as a metaphor for the penis (the whole text being in Schneider’s view an erotic charm). Leaving aside this dubious semantic extension, there is, from a phonological point of view, no reason why wair cannot be an a-stem noun *wair < oiso-. The problem is a lack of positive evidence: the PGmc *waiza- < PIE *u only attested Gmc word which might have this etymology is OE w¯ar n. “seaweed” (BT) (> modE (dial.) ware; also NFris Du wier “seaweed, pond-weed” (OED)). We cannot rule out the possibility that the present wair is a Continental cognate of this (*wair > OHG OS *w¯er), though it is hard to see what it might signify (certainly not “male member”, as Schneider would have us believe). Although the authenticity of the object remains unresolved (Appendix 2), Schneider’s sexual interpretation is, to say the least, tenuous and unreliable. His etymology is questionable (there is insufficient space here to discuss it in detail), and the semantic shift “stalk” M “penis” is unjustified. Schneider also invokes dubious Begriffsrune and numerological interpretations. 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la Looijenga (2003a:262) reads complex I as aergu M Aergu(n)Â, a dithematic FN with a prototheme derived from PGmc *aiz¯o (> OE a¯ r, OFris e¯ re, OS e¯ r, e¯ ra, OHG e¯ ra “honour”). The reading is disputed, the majority opinion favouring alirgu M Alirgu(n) (see § 5.1). From my own inspection of the original and of photographs from Waldispühl’s 2008 autopsy, I am unable to decide between the two alternatives (Ç vs. Ü(). I shall therefore cautiously allow this inscription to stand as a possible, though uncertain, instance of PGmc */ai/.
80
The diphthongs
3.2.1.1 Summary: digraphs representing PGmc */ai/ The only unproblematic examples of a digraph representing a reflex of PGmc */ai/ are the three wrait r¯unł inscriptions (Freilaubersheim wraet; Neudingen-Baar II urait; Pforzen II urait) and one of the pers.ns. on Pforzen I (aigil). In all of these, the digraph occurs in a context where we would expect a diphthong in OHG. Freilaubersheim obviously stands out from the other examples geographically, being much further north (in the Rheinland-Pfalz, and to the west of the Rhein). On this extremely scanty evidence we might tentatively postulate a variation between local orthographic traditions and/or dialects. The evidence of OHG suggests that may reflect an intermediate stage in the monophthongisation process (§ 2.3.1.3.3). If this applies to the runic inscriptions, then we would expect ae spellings to occur in contexts where later dialects develop monophthongs – i.e., before an “open continuant” in the more southerly dialects and unconditionally in the north. We have two further possible ae-spellings: Schwangau aebi (if Looijenga’s etymology is correct) and Weingarten I aergu (if we prefer this reading to alirguÂ). Both are located deep in UG dialect territory, and in fact are among the most southerly finds in the corpus. However, since neither of these sequences can be considered a reliable case, they do not give us satisfactory grounds to discard the hypothesis of a regional division between ai and aespellings. These two witnesses give us little help in deciding what ae represents. aergu does have the digraph in a context where OHG develops a monophthong, so this form could represent an intermediate diphthong [ae] or a monophthong [Ł]. We cannot explain aebi in this way, however: if the reading and the etymology are correct, then the form is anomalous and points to free variation between ae and ai, rather than to the monophthongisation process. Pforzen I aÿlrun (if this reading is correct) gives us a third spelling, although its significance is unclear: it is unique in the Continental corpus, although there is a parallel on the Caistor-by-Norwich bone raïhan M (pre-OE?) raihan gen.sg. to *raiha (OE r¯aha) “roe-deer” (< PGmc *raixan) (Page 1999:179–180; Parsons 1999:48). The phonetic value of the “yew-rune” is, moreover, a subject of debate (§ 5.2.4). Given that /l/ does not trigger monophthongisation in OHG, it seems unlikely that the aï vs. ai spellings represent a phonetic distinction (or at least, not one belonging to the process which produces OHG [ae] > [Ł]). We might postulate that /l/, like /r/, triggers some subphonemic change in the off-glide of the diphthong. If this were the case, we would have to devise some expla-
PGmc */ai/
81
nation of why /l/ does not participate in the further development of /ai/ (i.e., why /ail-/ does not produce *[ael-] > *[Łl-]). The only other example of a phonemic sequence /ail/ in the corpus is †Kärlich hailag, with the “regular” ai spelling. Given the doubts about its authenticity, however, this witness must be treated with caution.
3.2.2 Data: monographs 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike In all the available interpretations, complex II is a dat. MN Agirike (see § 5.1; § 6.1), with the dat.sg. suffix (consonant-stem or a-stem) /-À/ < PGmc */-ai/. This is a regular product of the NWGmc monophthongisation (§ 2.3.1.2). 12. Bopfingen fibula mauo Three main interpretations have been suggested for this sequence: 1. a MN Mau(w)o < PGmc *maguz (> Go magus, OE magu, ON mogr “boy, youth”; OHG magu-zogo “educator, mentor”) (Förstemann 1900:1067– 1070; Haubrichs 2004:89; Kaufmann 1968:243; Opitz 1979:367). See further § 7.1.3.1. 2. dat.sg. maw¯o “to/for the girl”, to nom. *mawi < PGmc *magwj¯o (> Go mawi, ON mær ´ “girl”), itself a derivative of *maguz (Looijenga 2003a:231). Nedoma again objects to this on phonological grounds. This time his objection is to the termination /-¯o/, which would in his view be abnormal for (pre-)OHG (Nedoma 2004a:387–388). OHG j¯o-stems have dat.sg. /-iu/ > /-u/, transferred from the inst. (BR § 209). Looijenga here appears to be referring to the dat.sg. suffix /-o/ of “pure” o¯ -stems, which is a later secondary development (BR § 207). 3. Possibly a name or by-name based on an onomatopoeic word like MHG mou(w)en, m¯awen “to miaow” (< PGmc *maiwjanan); the modG reflex mauen also has transferred meanings “to whine, grumble, gripe” (Nedoma 2004a:388–389). The “seagull”-word, PGmc *maiwaz (> ON már ~ mór, OE mæw ¯ ~ m¯aw (< *maiwiz), Fris meau ~ mieu, MLG m¯eve), is derived from this verb (Orel 2003), and is attested as a name-element in Scandinavia and England, though apparently not on the Continent (Müller 1970:83–84).
82
The diphthongs
If the third etymology (the only one involving PGmc */ai/) is valid, we have here a reflex of */ai/ represented as a M /¯a/. The following consonant /w/ is a suitable conditioning environment for OHG monophthongisation (§ 2.3.1.3.1); but in both OHG and OS, the monophthongal reflex of */ai/ is /¯e/, not /¯a/ (as MLG m¯eve shows. Compare also, e.g., OHG OS e¯ wa f.“law” < PGmc *aiw¯o : *aiwaz/*aiwiz m.). On the other hand, if *maiwjanan ought to give us OHG OS *m¯ewen, then MHG m¯awen – which is not attested until the 14th century (Kluge 2002; Müller and Zarncke 1854–1861) – requires some further explanation. In OE, the monophthongisation of */ai/ > /¯a/ predates our earliest manuscript material (Campbell 1959 § 132, § 134; Prokosch 1939:106), which implies that it also predates the OHG and OS monophthongisations.5 OFris varies between /¯a/ and /¯e/ (§ 2.3.1.3), but before /w/, the usual form is /¯a/. This means that the PGmc root *maiw- should regularly develop into OE *m¯aw-, OFris *mæw¯ > *m¯aw-( ~ *m¯ew-?). We might speculate that MHG m¯awen is borrowed from a “coastal” dialect (as opposed to an “inland” one), in which the reflex of */aiw/ is /¯aw/.6 If the meaning “seagull” and/or “to mew [like a seagull, as opposed to a cat]” is primary, the maritime semantic field might provide us with an explanation for such a borrowing into inland dialects.7 In the absence of more substantial material evidence, I do not propose to speculate that the named individual (if the text is a pers.n.) was a Frisian immigrant or a Frisian craftsman – though neither of these explanations is impossible. Nonetheless, from a phonological perspective, MHG m¯awen cannot be a regular reflex of *maiwjanan, if the conventional analyses of OHG and OS phonology are accurate. An alternative (and more radical) hypothesis would be that there might be some CRun dialect in which */ai/ > */¯a/ (at least before /w/). There is no supporting evidence for this within the runic corpus, and it sits uneasily with the evidence of OHG and OS. We do, however, have roughly contemporary inscriptions from the Frisian area which appear to contain /¯a/ < */ai/ (Amay( ? ) comb (AZ 43; L IX.1) eda; Harlingen solidus (AZ 21; L IX.6) hada) and indicate that this monophthongisation had taken place in the period of the Continental inscriptions.
5 Caistor-by-Norwich raïhan does appear to show a preserved PGmc */ai/ in the 5th century (§ 3.2.1.1). 6 It is not my intention here to support or defend the hypothesis of an “Anglo-Frisian” dialect group (see § 1.1.1). I mention OE and OFris here simply because both happen to have /¯aw/ < PGmc */aiw/, whereas OHG and OS regularly have /¯ew/. 7 I note, however, that the only recorded use of MHG m¯awen refers to a cat (or rather, a lion( ! )), not a seagull (Müller and Zarncke 1854–1861).
PGmc */ai/
83
Nedoma (2004a:88) does not comment on the monophthongisation in */aiw/ > */¯aw/, which he appears to assume has taken place in this text, but which is alien to the dialects of the region as we know them. 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) Looijenga (2003a:238) and Fischer (2007:133) regard muni as 3.sg.pres.opt muni “may X remember” (on the stem, see § 4.1). If this analysis is correct, then i must represent a reflex of PGmc 3.sg.pres.opt. */-ai/ (> NWGmc */-¯e/ > OHG OS OE /-e/; ON /-i/).8 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag The first part of the inscription is supposed to be a dat. form of the theonym W¯odan (PGmc *w¯odanaz > ON Óðinn, OE W¯oden, OS W¯odin, OHG Wuotan), which is derived from PGmc *w¯odaz (> Go woÂs “possessed”; ON óðr “mad, frantic, furious”; OE w¯od “mad”). The terminal -i is interpreted as a monophthongal reflex of the dat.sg. suffix < */-ai/ (§ 2.3.1.2) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:273). This is regularly /-e/ in OHG and OS. For further discussion, see § 3.2.2.1. 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade selbrade is interpretable as a dat. MN in /-À/ < PGmc */-ai/ (see 7. Bad Krozingen A, above). On the etymology of the name, see § 5.1. 47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada In the most popular interpretation, this inscription represents a dithematic FN with the deuterotheme -fada < PGmc *fa¯o (> OE faðu “aunt”) (Bammesberger 1999c:203; Düwel 1997b:19; Haubrichs 2004:78). The prototheme Aono- will be discussed in § 3.3.1. 8 In the Scandinavian runic corpus, the only evidence for this verbal ending in PNorse comes from three forms on the Strøm whetstone (KJ 50): wate; skaÂi; ligi. The identification of these as 3.sg.opt. forms is uncertain, and the variation between -i and -e is difficult to account for (Syrett 1994:241). See further § 3.2.2.1.1.
84
The diphthongs
Nedoma (2004a:194) disputes this interpretation on the grounds that it involves Spirantenschwächung (§ 2.5.1.3; § 7.1.2.1) and the analogical transfer of acc.sg. /-a/ to the nom.sg. (replacing regular /-u/ < */¯o/) in the o¯ -stems (§ 4.4); both of these changes, in his view, occur during the OHG period. He interprets aono as a weakly inflected MN (§ 3.3.1), and mentions (but does not commit to) Schwab’s suggestion (1998a:420) that fada is an abbreviation for fa(ihi)da 3.sg.pret. “made, painted, decorated” (PGmc *faixjanan > ON fá “to draw, paint”; OHG f¯ehen “to decorate”). The proposal here is that the surface text is an orthographic abbreviation, not that a represents a monophthongal /¯a/ < */ai/. 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? In complex III, klef is interpreted as a 3.sg.pret. verb-form klaif, derived from PGmc *kl¯ıbanan (> ON klífa “to climb”; OE cl¯ıfan “to cleave, to adhere”; OFris kl¯ıva “to hang”; OS bi-kl¯ıban “to take root”; OHG kl¯ıban “to adhere, stick to, be fixed to”) (Düwel 1990:8; Fingerlin and Düwel 2002:110; Looijenga 2003a:247; Nedoma 2004a:244; on the hypothesis that f represents a reflex of PGmc */b/, see § 7.1.1.1). If this is correct, then e here represents a monophthongal reflex of stressed */ai/. 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna hamale is generally interpreted as a dat. MN in /-À/ < PGmc */-ai/, although the etymology is uncertain (§ 6.1). As noted in respect of 7. Bad Krozingen A, this reflects the NWGmc monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ (§ 2.3.1.2). 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? Four candidates are to be found in this inscription. The first is the problematic termination of logaÂore, interpreted by Düwel (1982:81–84; 1991:278; 1992a:356–359; 2002d:276) as an archaic nom.pl. suffix to an a-stem noun “deceivers”. This suffix is attested in early OHG alongside regular /-a/ < PGmc */-¯oz/, though the form has not been satisfactorily explained (BR § 193 Anm. 4; Düwel 1992a:357–358; Grønvik 1987:116). Grønvik (loc.cit.) proposes instead that the final /-e/ is a nom.pl.masc. adjectival ending < PGmc */-ai/ (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 2.7.4, § 3.5.1; Ringe 2006:281). Like
PGmc */ai/
85
the dat.sg. MNs appearing in 7. Bad Krozingen A; 46. †Kleines Schulerloch; and 54. Neudingen-Baar II, this is a product of the NWGmc monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ (§ 2.3.1.2). Wagner (1995:111–112) interprets logaÂore as another dat.sg. MN (to a nom. *LogaÂor). For further discussion of logaÂor-, see § 4.1. In inscription B, leubwini? is interpretable in several ways. If wini is a reflex of PGmc *weniz (commonly interpreted as the second element of a dithematic MN or other compound), it could be nom. (< PGmc *weniz), acc. (< *wenin) or dat. (< *wenai) (see also § 5.1). In most interpretations it is assumed to be nominative. A case for a dat. form is made by Henning (1889, cited without full reference by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:288), who reads the sign after wini as ï and interprets -iï as an archaic */-iji/. Not only is there no supporting evidence for any such archaic spelling, it is doubtful whether this form existed even in PGmc: Lehmann (2005–2007 § 3.3.5) reconstructs */-ai/ for the dat.sg. of i-stems; Ringe (2006:272–273) favours */-¯ı/, but notes that this may be historically inst., replacing a dat. */-ai/ < PIE */-jej/ (2006:41–50). There is no need to appeal to Henning’s peculiar form in defence of a dat. interpretation, however. Although a dat.sg. /-e/ is regular for short-syllable i-stems in OHG, forms in /-i/ (or forms spelled , at any rate) are not infrequent in OS (Gallée 1910 § 314; Holthausen 1921 § 289), and in OHG the Abrogans consistently has (apparently an analogous adaptation of the nom./acc.sg. forms) (BR § 217 Anm. 4). I earlier (§ 3.1.1) referred to the interpretation of inscription B as Awa leub Wini, a structural parallel to Bad Krozingen B¯oba leub Agirike and Kleines Schulerloch Birg leub Selbr¯ade. The parallels provide some (admittedly weak) support for this interpretation, which, if correct, may contain a reflex of */-ai/ (unless we accept the hypothesis that this has been replaced by inst. */-¯ı/). However, it must be remembered that the opinio communis favours the interpretation of leubwini as a nom. dithematic MN Leubwini (see Nedoma 2004a:362). The third and fourth candidates for monophthongal reflexes of */ai/ are the two a-runes in awa as interpreted by Kabell (1970:14–15). Kabell claims that a here represents an open [], and that the sequence awa is to be transcribed w < PGmc *aiwai “always” (an adverbial dative to *aiwaz/*aiwiz m. > Go aiws “age, eternity”; OE æw ¯ ~ a¯ , OFris a-, OS e¯ o, OHG (f.) e¯ wa “law”). Nedoma (2004a:227) rejects Kabell’s interpretation emphatically, but does not elaborate on his reasons. My own objection is that Kabell’s argument relies on parallels from Scandinavian inscriptions, in which a is believed to represent PNorse // < */ai/ in unstressed position – a hypothesis which is itself
86
The diphthongs
not at all certain (Syrett 1994:257–261). There is no evidence to support the inference that a similar sound change has occurred in the Continental dialects. 64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] (?)riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) The only available interpretation of this inscription is that of Steinhauser (1968a) (accepted by, inter alios, Klingenberg (1976c:373; 1976d:186) and Opitz (1987:36–37, 179)), which can at best be described as fanciful. According to the more reliable work on the inscription (Haas 1958; Nedoma 2003), even if it is genuine it is in such poor condition that an interpretation seems impossible. At the end of complex I, Steinhauser reads doï M d¯oe¯ 3.sg.opt. (to PGmc *d¯onan “do”; see § 4.1) “may (it) do, make”. He regards this as a parallel to Latin inscriptions containing faciat. Steinhauser goes on to assign the value /¯e/ to the “yew-rune” (see § 5.1); in this case, it is supposed to represent a reflex of unstressed PGmc */-ai/. It should be noted, however, that the transliteration of the inscription is extremely doubtful (see Nedoma 2003:485); and that Steinhauser’s addition of ï is pure invention, not based on any reading of the surviving parts of the inscription (the object is broken at this point). 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la The sequence feha in complex II is analysed by a number of authors as a word containing /Ł/ < PGmc */ai/: Arntz and Jänichen (1957:128; also Beck 2001:311–314; Krause 1966:306; Meli 1988:159; Opitz 1987:200) suggest a weakly inflected FN with a stem derived either from PGmc *faixaz I9 (> Go filu-faihs “multicoloured, manifold”; ON blá-fár “in blue speckles”; OE f¯ah ~ f¯ag, OS OHG f¯eh “coloured, decorated”), or from PGmc *faixaz II (> OE f¯ah, OFris f¯ach “guilty, criminal, inimical”; OHG gi-f¯eh “hostile”). Schwab favours the former, interpreting feha not as a pers.n. but as an acc.sg.fem. substantivised adjective (< PGmc *faix¯on) “colourful thing, i.e., rune” (complex II as a whole is therefore interpreted as f¯eha wr¯ıt[u] al[u] “I carve the colourful alu”) (Schwab 1998a:418–419; 1999a:13–14). Beck (2001:316) accepts Schwab’s expansion of writ? … i/la, but interprets feha as a pers.n. and translates “I, Feha, carve protection” (see further § 4.1).
9 The designations *faixaz I, *faixaz II are taken from Orel (2003).
PGmc */ai/
87
Nedoma (2004a:293–294) rejects all of these interpretations, but his only stated objection to them is that the monophthongisation of */ai/ has not taken place in the “runic” period. Since this is precisely the question we are trying to evaluate here, this argument cannot be admitted to the present discussion. Alternative interpretations with a vowel not derived from PGmc */ai/ are the following: 1. feha “joy; jewellery( ? )”, acc.sg.neut. n-stem (< PGmc *fex¯on), related to OHG gi-fehan “to rejoice” (< *fexanan), gi-feho m. (n-stem) “joy”, and/ or fehen “to make colourful, decorate” (Haubrichs 1987:1356 Anm. 17). Düwel (1989a:44–45) has syntactic and semantic reservations about this hypothesis, but he does not reject it outright. Nedoma (2004a:296) is more sceptical, pointing out that the neuter n-stems are a small class mostly restricted to parts of the body (the only attested examples in OHG being herza “heart”, ouga “eye”, o¯ ra “ear”, wanga “cheek” (BR § 214)). 2. feha, acc.sg. o¯ -stem (or acc.pl. feh¯a), perhaps related to WFrk. fecho “robbery” (Nedoma 2004a:296). This word appears in the Malberg glosses; its etymology is uncertain, though it may be related to Go bi-faih(o) “exaction” (see § 2.3.1.3.2). This interpretation would give us an apparently nonsensical text feha wr¯ıt(u) “I carve robbery(/-ies)” or Alirgu(n)Â/ Aergu(n) feha wr¯ıt(iÂ) “AlirgunÂ/Aergun carves robbery(/-ies)”. On the interpretation of writ …, see § 4.1. 3. Some part of a weak verb feh¯on “to consume, eat/drink” (< PGmc *fex¯ojanan) (Nedoma 2004a:297). Nedoma does not elaborate, or offer any suggestions as to what part of the verb feha might be (the OHG weak verbs have no forms in /-a/). 4. Looijenga (2003a:263) suggests a connection with another weak verb (PGmc *fagan¯ojanan/*fagen¯ojanan > Go faginon “to feel happy, rejoice”; ON fagna, OE fgenian, OS fagan¯on, OHG fegin¯on “to rejoice”). She appears to be deriving feh- from an underlying *fah- via “primary” i-umlaut (§ 2.3.4.2; § 6.1). Looijenga does not comment on the alternation *fah- ~ *fag- (see § 7.1.3.1). None of the interpretations with a monophthongal /e/ is satisfactory, although in each case the problems arise from the assignment of inflectional categories (or the failure to assign any). Another possibility, briefly mentioned by Nedoma (2004a:295) is that feha might be a weakly inflected nom. FN as suggested by Arntz, Krause and various others (see above), but one based on a root with PGmc */e/ or */¯e2/ rather than */ai/. If a name is present, its place in the text could be as the subject of wr¯ıt-; for that matter, the verb could easily be 3.pl.pres. *wr¯ıt(and), with Alirgu(n)Â/Aergu(n) and Feha as its subjects (compare the interpretation of 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ:leuba:dedun as a
88
The diphthongs
clause with a similar structure and possibly a similar meaning “Alagun (and) Leuba made (the inscription??)” (§ 3.1.1). From the foregoing discussion, it does not seem appropriate to dismiss the possibility that the sequence feha contains a monophthongised reflex of PGmc */ai/. For the time being, it will be admitted as a questionable but possible case. 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal The favoured interpretation of latam is as 1.pl.pres.opt. (perhaps in jussive function) to a reflex of PGmc *l¯etanan (> Go letan, ON láta, OE lætan, ¯ OFris l¯eta, OS l¯atan, OHG l¯azan “to let”) (Holthausen 1931:304; Pieper 1987:234–235; 1991:355, with references to earlier literature). Nedoma (2004a:326) disputes this on the grounds that the ending is anomalous: the PGmc 1.pl.opt. suffix is */-aim(a)/ (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8; Ringe 2006:237) > pre-OS */-¯em/ > OS /-en/ ~ /-an/; OHG /-¯em/ > /-¯en/ (BR § 304; Gallée 1910 §§ 375–376; Holthausen 1921 § 408)). Instead, Nedoma analyses the verb as 1.pl.pres.ind. “we let” (/-am/ < PGmc. */-am(az)/), although he adds that the precise meaning of the verb here is unknown: possible senses include “leave”, “allow”, “decree”, “abandon”, “cede”. hari is connected throughout the literature with the “army”-word, PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz (see 79. Weimar I in § 5.1). While it is generally assigned nom. or acc. case, it is conceivable that the termination -i is dat., possibly representing a reflex of unstressed */-ai/ (§ 2.3.1.2; and compare 56. Nordendorf I -wini, above). For further discussion, see § 5.1. Pieper (1987; 1989; 1991) reads the sequence ?e as we, and interprets it as part of a pers.n. (or theonym?) Ingwe. The sign marked ? resembles a Roman Y; its transliteration as w is questionable (see § 4.1). Another interpretation of ?e M we is proposed by Seebold (1991:502): in his view it represents a reflex of the enclitic particle “and” (< PGmc *xwe). This will be discussed further in § 4.1. In some of the literature on the Weser bones this sequence is treated as a word *w¯e, either the interjection w¯e “woe!” < PGmc *wai (see 78. †Trier in § 3.2.1, above) (Schneider 1969), or the derived noun (PGmc *waiw¯o(n) > ON vá, OE w¯ea, OS w¯e, OHG w¯ewa “woe, misery”) (Holthausen 1931:304; Pieper 1987:235–236). In the same vein, Antonsen (1993:14; 2002:327) interprets we hagal as a compound w¯e-hagal “woe-hail” M “battle”.
PGmc */ai/
89
The date ascribed to the bones (5th c., or possibly even earlier) would make them a very early witness to the OHG/OS monophthongisation of */ai/. While it would be inappropriate to rule out the possibility a priori, the interpretation ?e M we M w¯e < *wai depends on a doubtful reading of a unique sign. This sequence cannot be considered reliable evidence. 87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede This inscription, like 85. †Weser I, contains a sequence hari which may be interpretable as a dat.sg. i-stem with -i representing a reflex of PGmc unstressed */-ai/. 88. Wijnaldum B pendant hiwi If Düwel’s suggestion that hiwi represents a dat. i-stem FN H¯ıwi is correct (§ 3.1.1; § 5.1), then the terminal -i represents an inflectional suffix < PGmc */-ai/ (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.3.5) or */-¯ı/ (Ringe 2006:272). This suffix is discussed in the commentary on 56. Nordendorf I leubwini?, above.
3.2.2.1 Summary: monographs representing PGmc */ai/ 3.2.2.1.1 Unstressed syllables: the NWGmc monophthongisation In most of the examples above where a reflex of */ai/ may be written by a single rune, we are dealing with a final -e or -i representing an unstressed vowel: 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike; 19. Eichstetten muni; 42. †Kärlich wodani; 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade; 54. Neudingen-Baar II hamale; 56. Nordendorf I logaÂore, wini; 88. Wijnaldum B hiwi; possibly 85. †Weser I, 87. †Weser III hari. None of the instances of -i is entirely reliable: in Eichstetten muni and †Kärlich wodani, the reading -i is questionable (though in the former case, I personally favour it over the alternative -t). There are also strong grounds for suspecting that the Kärlich inscription is a modern forgery (see Appendix 2). While Nordendorf wini, Wijnaldum hiwi and †Weser I, III hari do not suffer from these problems, all are interpretable as i-stem nouns or pers.ns., for which -i could represent nom. /-i/ < PGmc */-iz/ or acc. /-i/ < */-in/, rather than dat. /-Ã/ < */-ai/ (or */-¯ı/); hari may alternatively be a jastem (§ 5.2.1.2). The reconstruction of the PGmc dat.sg. i-stem suffix is in any case problematic, and if the proto-form */-¯ı/ (analogically derived from
90
The diphthongs
inst.sg.?) can be regarded as normal, and/or as having replaced regular */-ai/ in lPGmc, then the suffixes attested in the Gmc dialects are derived from this and do not belong to the present discussion (see § 5.2.2.4). Another hypothetical possibility is that both -i and -e represent regular reflexes of unstressed */ai/, but are allomorphs selected by some other conditioning factor. All of the examples are word-final, and we have both -e and -i in text-final position, where there is no following material to trigger an anticipatory change (hiwi and perhaps wini vs. agirike, selbrade). There does appear to be a correlation between the height of the final vowel and that of the preceding vowel, though it is not a perfect match: in three of the four -e examples (selbrade, hamale, logaÂore), -e follows a non-high vowel; while in three of the four -i examples (muni, wini, hiwi), -i follows a high vowel. The exceptions are wodani (non-high + -i) and agirike (high + -e). Given the doubts about the authenticity of the Kärlich inscription and about the reliability of the reading -i, we can perhaps discard it; but this still leaves us with agirike. If the variation results from assimilation to the preceding vowel, then this exception requires some other explanation. In OHG, final unstressed /-i/ is commonly lowered to /-e/, but this tendency is not well established until the 9th century; earlier sources preserve the distinction (BR § 58 Anm. 2). In any case, if a process of this sort were at work in the dialects of the inscriptions, it might help us to explain agirike, but it would leave us with the question of why we have -i elsewhere. A similar variation may be present in the Scandinavian inscriptions, from the very limited evidence available. Krause (1971) identifies the following sequences as monophthongal reflexes of final unstressed PGmc */-ai/: Strøm whetstone (An 45; KJ 50; SUR 94) wate, skaÂi, ligi (see note to entry on Eichstetten, above); Tjurkö I bracteate (An 109; IK 184; KJ 134; SUR 136) -kurne; Tune stone (An 27; KJ 72; SUR 105) woduride. If Krause’s interpretations are correct, we have a variation -e ~ -i not only within the epigraphical record as a whole, but even within a single inscription; and in these examples the height of the final vowel does not correlate with that of the preceding vowel. Syrett (1994:241–242) suggests that the variants may relate to the length of the stem syllable (although he is attempting to account specifically for the 3.sg.pres.opt. verbal suffix): -e follows a short stem and represents an ending */-ij¯e/, while -i follows a long stem, with the ending developing from */-ij¯e/ > */-j¯e/ > */-(j)¯ı/. However, Syrett adds that the syntactic and hence the morphological analysis of the Strøm inscription is highly uncertain, and that his model is speculative. Antonsen (1975) accepts Tjurkö I -kurne and Tune -ride as reflexes of */ai/ in final syllables, and adds the following: Årstad stone (An 12) winai
PGmc */ai/
91
(M win¯e); 15. Charnay fibula faÂai (M fa¯e); Möjbro stone (An 11) hahai (M ha(n)h¯e);10 Opedal stone (An 21) wage; Thorsberg chape (An 2) waje; Tune stone (An 27) arjostez. While Antonsen’s interpretations, like Krause’s, may be disputed, he does not identify any sequences in -i as witnesses to the development of PGmc */-ai/.
3.2.2.1.2 Stressed syllables: the OHG/OS monophthongisation We have three possible examples of a monograph representing a reflex of */ai/ in a stressed syllable: 12. Bopfingen mauo; 53. Neudingen-Baar I klef; 83. Weingarten I feha. All of these present problems, and klef is the only one for which no alternative interpretations are available in the literature. It is uncertain whether or not feha contains a reflex of */ai/ with monophthongisation triggered by the following /h/. The only stated objection to this interpretation is that the monophthongisation does not take place until the 7th century. For the purposes of the present discussion, this is begging the question. Given the range of suggested datings for the Weingarten fibula (estimates range throughout the 6th and 7th centuries), it is conceivable that feha is a late 6th or early 7th-century form with an advanced monophthongal realisation. Some weak support for this might be available if we regard the ae spellings as “pre-monophthongal” variants, pointing to a process which may be more advanced in the Weingarten example. The apparent discrepancy between the monograph in feha and the digraph in aergu will be discussed in § 3.2.3.2. If klef represents a form derived from an earlier *klaib/*klaif (: OHG kleib), it shows monophthongisation in a position where it would not be expected in OHG. It might be that this inscription reflects a more northerly dialect in which monophthongisation of */ai/ is more widespread than in the dialects from which OHG arises. The representation of /b/ as f (representing a fricative allophone [β] ~ [v]) is more characteristic of OS and MFrk than UG (BR § 134; see also § 7.1.1.1). The fibula is variously identified as Frankish or Langobardic, which together with the location of the find in the southerly part of the region would seem to argue against the presence of a northern dialect. Bopfingen mauo may contain a stressed /¯a/ < */ai/ in a context where we would expect monophthongisation in OHG. The a-rune would seem to repre10 On the hypothesis that -ai in these examples represents an archaic spelling for a monophthong, see § 2.3.1.2; and the Charnay entry in § 3.2.1.
92
The diphthongs
sent either a variant monophthongisation with no parallels in OHG or OS; or else a form from a dialect in which */ai/ > /¯a/ is normal. If mauo M M¯a(u)wo, a historically “coastal” form, then presumably it would be a loanword. The possibility that this item and Nordendorf I awa might contain an open monophthong represented as a has been discussed in the Bopfingen entry. Since we have no corroborating evidence that */ai/ in the “inland” WGmc dialects develops into a monophthong which may be represented as a rather than e, and since alternative interpretations are available for both mauo and awa, we do not have an adequate basis for this proposition (in the latter case, I regard Kabell’s interpretation with scepticism). If it can be shown that other sequences aw (or au), ar, ah may represent monophthongs < */ai/, then the hypothesis may have some merit. While this is a worthwhile avenue for further investigation, we have insufficient space to explore it at present. Having surveyed the material, I have found no suitable candidates. For the time being, it seems more reasonable to explain mauo as either a loan-form or a word etymologically unconnected with PGmc *maiw-.
3.2.3 Conclusion: reflexes of */ai/ in the corpus 3.2.3.1 Unstressed syllables: the NWGmc monophthongisation In unstressed syllables where PGmc */ai/ should regularly produce a monophthong /À/, it is consistently written as a single rune, with apparent variation between e and i (though none of the instances of i is certain), for which we have no satisfactory explanation. The corpus contains one possible example of a digraph ai representing a monophthong (Charnay, which is believed by everyone except Antonsen to be EGmc). As discussed in § 2.3.1.2, we do not have a direct means of determining whether e and i in unstressed positions represent a long or a short vowel. If the shortening of final vowels belongs to a general process of mora-reduction, as Prokosch suggests, and if this process applies more-or-less contemporaneously across all unstressed final vowels, then we might be able to draw some inference from those instances where a final long vowel in PGmc yields a zero-suffixed form in the dialects of the inscriptions. One possible example of this phenomenon is in the o¯ -stem nouns with long stem-syllables, which regularly have zero-suffixed nom.sg. forms in (pre-)OHG. Examples such as Pforzen aï/lrun M Ailr¯un-Ø/Allr¯un-Ø (< PGmc *-r¯un¯o; see further § 4.4.2) might provide us with some weak and indirect support for supposing that the monophthongal reflexes of final */-ai/ are short /-e/ ~ /-i/. Then again, if /-u/ is retained after
PGmc */ai/
93
short stem-syllables (as appears to be the case in early OHG – see § 4.4), its apocope after long stems would appear to be a process independent of general mora-reduction.
3.2.3.2 Stressed syllables: the OHG and OS monophthongisations From our survey of the data it appears that in stressed syllables, where */ai/ remains a diphthong in NWGmc, it is usually represented in the corpus by a digraph: we have four reliable witnesses, three of ai and one of ae. To these we can add another six cases which are less reliable: three examples of ai (Aquincum ain (or ?lain M klain); †Kärlich hailag; †Trier wair, wai); two of ae (Schwangau aebi; Weingarten ali/erguÂ); and one of aï (Pforzen aï/lrun). As noted in § 3.2.1.1, it is unclear whether ae represents an intermediate diphthong, a monophthongal [Ł], or simply a free orthographic variant of ai. The only clear example of ae (Freilaubersheim wraet) is geographically separate from the parallel instances of ai, and Weingarten may have ae in a context which triggers monophthongisation in OHG (before /r/). In both cases, we can plausibly hypothesise that the variation between ai and ae is phonetically real. On the other hand, Schwangau aebi cannot be explained by either of these hypotheses. It is clear that Pforzen aÿ (if correct) does not reflect a general regional variation, since an ai spelling is found on the same object; and aÿ does not appear in a context suitable for OHG monophthongisation. This form cannot readily be explained as a “pre-monophthongal” variant. Our two putative cases of e representing a reflex of stressed */ai/ (presumably a monophthongal */Ł/) are Neudingen-Baar I klef and Weingarten feha. The latter belongs to an inscription which may also have a digraph ae for */ai/ before /r/, a circumstance which at first glance calls into question the interpretation of feha as a word containing a monophthongal reflex of */ai/ (or at least, which suggests that the stem-vowels of aer- and feha are not identical). We could, though, posit a differential progress of the monophthongisation before /r/ as against /h/; this would be consistent with Braune’s remark that diphthongal forms persist before /r/ (but not before /h/ or /w/) in the earliest OHG mss. (BR § 43 Anm. 1). Bopfingen mauo contains a monograph a which can credibly be interpreted as a reflex of */ai/ in a stressed syllable. Another candidate is Kabell’s (dubious) interpretation of Nordendorf awa as w “always, forever”, which can probably be rejected with some confidence. While I hesitate to reject mauo out of hand, it is open to other interpretations.
94
The diphthongs
In summary, two of the occurrences of the digraph ae and the three credible (though doubtful) cases of monographic e/a representing a monophthongal reflex of */ai/ suggest that the monophthongisations which become regular in OHG and OS may be underway in the period of the inscriptions; although the evidence for intermediate diphthongs and for monophthongal /Ł/ or /¯a/ (*[æ]?) ¯ is slight. None of the monographs is entirely reliable: klef is phonologically problematic (§ 7.1.1.1), and plausible alternative interpretations for the others are available in the literature. Faced with so little evidence, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions or to demonstrate the existence of a regular pattern. The only case where we can be entirely confident that we have a reflex of stressed */ai/ represented as something other than ai is Freilaubersheim wraet, possibly explicable as evidence of a more northerly dialect in which unconditioned monophthongisation is underway. aergu looks promising as a case of consonant-conditioned monophthongisation, but – as has been discussed – if we want to claim that the ae digraph represents a monophthong or some intermediate diphthong, we cannot simply ignore Schwangau aebi: our three ae-spellings all require different explanations. If the alternative reading of the Weingarten example as alirgu is correct, then we have only two witnesses which could as well be free variants as anything of real linguistic significance. The remaining candidates for monophthongisation of the OHG type are wair, wai, feha and mauo. In the Trier examples, there is nothing in the orthography to indicate that monophthongisation is in progress (regardless of how we evaluate the object’s authenticity and Schneider’s interpretation). This leaves us with two ambiguous monographs which are difficult to reconcile with one another, let alone with the digraph in aerguÂ. It would be hasty to insist that the reflexes of PGmc */ai/ remain diphthongal in stressed syllables throughout the corpus; yet in the search for indicators of monophthongisation (at any stage of the process), what we find is a handful of questionable forms which – even if they all genuinely reflect some stage of phonetic change – cannot be united or neatly fitted into any model of the monophthongisation. Leaving aside the dubious witnesses of Trier, our three sequences aerguÂ, feha, mauo all purport to show some development, and we have no other examples of a reflex of */ai/ before a consonant which conditions monophthongisation. In each of these three cases, both the conditioning consonant and the representation of the (putative) reflex of */ai/ differ.
PGmc */au/
95
3.3 PGmc */au/ If Braune is correct in dating the monophthongisation of stressed */au/ to the 8th century (§ 2.3.1.4.2), then we would expect to see in the runic corpus only digraphic spellings representing the diphthong: au, aw, ao (the latter possibly representing a “pre-monophthongal” form with lowered off-glide). If monophthongisation has taken place, the product [ɔ¯ ] would most likely appear as o. In unstressed syllables, we would expect the product of the NWGmc monophthongisation to be spelled o, or possibly u. Here, as in § 3.2, I have subdivided the relevant data into digraphic and monographic spellings (respectively § 3.3.1; § 3.3.2). 3.3.1 Data: digraphs 12. Bopfingen fibula mauo Several etymologies have been proposed for this sequence, none of which is entirely satisfactory (§ 3.2.2). In none of these interpretations does au represent a reflex of PGmc */au/. 31. Hailfingen II fibula [I] (a)????( ? ) [II] ( ? )daan? Alternative reading: adaauna (Jänichen 1962:156). Jänichen’s reading of a bind-rune au is not accepted elsewhere in the literature, and from my examination of the available images I am satisfied that an is correct. If we were to allow Jänichen’s reading, auna might be a FN in Aun-, parallel to 47. Lauchheim I aono. For his own part, however, Jänichen prefers to interpret the text ada auna as two “formula-words” of unknown meaning (1962:156–157). 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi Alternative reading: ikauwi (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:124). Arntz suggests that auwi here might be a formula-word equivalent to PNorse auja (see 41. Igling-Unterigling aun-; 56. Nordendorf I awa). The reading r is generally preferred, however; the u-reading seems to be unique to Arntz, and on inspection of Krause’s photograph (Krause 1966 Taf. 65) I am confident that it is incorrect.
96
The diphthongs
41. Igling-Unterigling fibula [I] aunr?d [II] d In spite of the uncertain readings of the latter part, the consensus is that complex I represents a dithematic pers.n. in Aun-, a name-element of uncertain etymology, which is perhaps connected with PGmc *aunaz/*aunuz (> OE gee¯ an “pregnant”).11 This proto-form may be an adjectival derivative of *aujan (> PNorse auja “luck”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:299; Krause 1966:241–242). The inferred meaning of *aunaz/*aunuz is “good, prosperous”. An alternative explanation of the element Aun- is that it is a semantically obscure (or possibly meaningless) “rhythmic variant” of the name-element derived from *aujan (Awja-, Awi-la-, Awi-n-; see 56. Nordendorf I awa) (Förstemann 1900:207). Nedoma (Nedoma 2004a:196) regards this proposition with scepticism, noting that there are no known parallels for the syncopation *awin- > *aun-. Aun- appears to be quite widespread, especially as OE E¯an- (Nedoma 2004a:195; Searle 1897:208–211); and we have three more possible examples in the runic corpus (31. Hailfingen II auna (doubtful reading); 47. Lauchheim I, aono; 50. Mertingen aun). That it is present here certainly seems plausible, though given the doubtful etymology and the lack of clear co-text, it would be imprudent to accept this interpretation unreservedly. 47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada The sequence aono- is identified throughout the literature as a name-element equivalent to 41. Igling-Unterigling aun- (< *aujan “luck”, or the derived adj. *aunaz/*aunuz “prosperous”). aono is either the prototheme of a dithematic name Aonofada (§ 3.2.2), or a weakly inflected MN Aono (Nedoma 2004a:194–196). On the interpretation of -o- as a compositional vowel, see § 4.1. 50. Mertingen fibula ieok aun Düwel (2000a:14; Babucke and Düwel 2001:170) interprets aun here as an “endingless” nom.sg. form of the adjective derived from *aunaz/*aunuz 11 BT, Clark-Hall (1960) and the DOE all gloss ge-¯ean as “yeaning”, implying a specific sense relating to animals (the DOE specifies ewes). The only witness appears to be Genesis 33:13, where ge¯eane e¯ awe translates Vulg. ov¯es f¯et¯as.
PGmc */au/
97
“prosperous” (see 41. Igling-Unterigling, above). As noted earlier, the reconstruction of this adjective is uncertain, and Düwel freely admits that his suggested interpretation is speculative. Another possibility to consider is that the sequence might be the beginning of, or an abbreviated form of, a pers.n. in Aun-. Nedoma (2004a:225) rejects this notion out of hand, presumably because there is no weak suffix or deuterotheme (but compare 20. Engers leub, which Nedoma does interpret as a pers.n. (§ 3.1.1)). It remains a doubtful case for inclusion in this part of the study. 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The beginning of inscription B, awòa, is generally accepted as a weakly inflected FN Awa, apparently a short form of a dithematic name in *Awi< *Awja- (< PGmc *aujan?) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:299; Krause 1966:241; Haubrichs 2004:78; Nedoma 2004a:226–227). See also 81. Weimar III awimund. On the alternative suggestion that awa is connected with PGmc *aw¯on “grandfather( ? )/grandmother( ? )”, see § 4.1. Schwerdt’s suggestion (2000:218) that awa could be related by “grammatical alternation” (i.e., Verner’s Law) to the name-element Aba- is dismissed by Nedoma (2004a:227): the relevant alternation is actually between PGmc */b/ and */f/, not */b/ and */w/ (see my comments on 27. Geltorf II in § 4.1). 59. Oettingen fibula a?ijabrg The beginning of the inscription is read auija by Betz (1979:242) and Looijenga (2003a:267). Betz regards this as a word derived from PGmc *aujan, either as a fem. by-name Awija “divine [female] helper”, or else representing the PNorse “formula-word” auja “luck” as it appears on bracteates (compare 72. Skodborg auja). Looijenga (2003a:267) interprets the whole text as a dithematic FN Auijab(i)rg with the prototheme derived from *aujan. Nedoma (2004a:138) objects that auija M Awija/Auija is not phonologically plausible. PGmc *aujan would regularly yield a neut. ja-stem (pre-)OHG *awi/*auwi (compare OHG kunni < PGmc *kunjan); alternatively, if we take as our point of departure a derived fem. j¯on-stem (PGmc *auj¯on), this would yield (pre-)OHG *auwja. Betz’ interpretation might still be redeemable, if u is allowed to stand as a haplogram for /-uw-/, i.e., auija
98
The diphthongs
M au(w)ija (see further § 3.3.1.1). For the time being, Oettingen will be included as a possible (though uncertain) witness to */au/. 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa In complex II, aodli is generally accepted as a dithematic FN Aodli(n)Â, with an unrepresented nasal in the second element (§ 2.6.2; § 7.2.2.1). Nedoma (2004a:191–192) derives the prototheme from PGmc *audaz/*audan m./n. (> ON auðr f. “fate, destiny”, m. “wealth”; OE e¯ ad n.“wealth, prosperity, happiness”; OS o¯ d n. “happiness”). Nedoma accounts for the spelling ao as a dialectal (or sociolectal, or simply idiosyncratic) variant, representing a diphthongal reflex of PGmc */au/. He is certain that it does not stand for a monophthong. Schwab (1999a:20), on the other hand, is confident that ao represents a transitional stage in the OHG monophthongisation process, whether a “pre-monophthongal” diphthong or an open monophthong. 69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r The interpretation of the “rune-cross” on this item is extremely doubtful; there is no indication of where one should begin reading or in which direction one should proceed, and it is a matter of dispute whether or not the cross itself should be read as a g-rune. If the unclear u/r is u, then the sequence au may be the diphthong */au/. Klingenberg (Klingenberg and Koch 1974:129; see also Opitz 1987:40) proposes a reading gabau M gab au(ja) “I/he/she gave luck” (compare Sjlland II-C bracteate (IK 98; KJ 127) gibuauja). Other interpretations will be discussed in § 4.1; § 6.1. 72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid That the repeated sequence auja is the “formula-word” auja (see 41. IglingUnterigling) is, as far as I am aware, undisputed. This inscription, however, is treated as PNorse by all interpreters except Antonsen (1975:76–77), who identifies it as WGmc on the grounds that it contains zero-suffixed nom. pers.ns. Alawin, Alawid (§ 4.1).
PGmc */au/
99
81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: Complex II awimund is generally believed to be a dithematic MN with a prototheme Awi- < *aujan “luck( ? )” (compare 56. Nordendorf I awa; and (possibly) 59. Oettingen a?ijabrg).
3.3.1.1 Summary: digraphs representing PGmc */au/ The corpus contains 9 possible examples of a digraph representing a reflex of */au/ (I have included Oettingen and Schretzheim III in the list despite uncertainty about the readings, and despite the reservations mentioned above). Of these, all but two (Mertingen aun; Skodborg auja) are generally believed to be name-elements. All but one of the words containing */au/ (the exception being 62. Pforzen II aodliÂ) are thought to be connected etymologically with PGmc *aujan, either directly (56. Nordendorf I awa; 59. Oettingen a?ijabrg M auija-; 69. Schretzheim III au/r( ? ); 72. Skodborg auja; 81. Weimar III awimund; or via the derived adjective *aunaz/*aunuz (41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d; 47. Lauchheim I aono; 50. Mertingen aun). In this dataset we have two instances of a spelling ao (Lauchheim I; Pforzen II). In both cases, the spelling occurs in a context appropriate for OHG monophthongisation (respectively before /n/ and /d/), so it is conceivable that the ao-spelling reflects some stage of the monophthongisation process ([ao]? [ɔ¯ ]?). On the other hand, we have au spellings before /n/ in Igling-Unterigling and Mertingen. The variation between au and ao has received little attention in the literature. As mentioned earlier, Nedoma regards Pforzen II ao as either an idiosyncratic spelling or a dialectal/sociolectal variant, rather than an intermediate stage in the OHG monophthongisation. He makes no comment on the Lauchheim example. The distribution of the forms (Map 2) shows no obvious pattern that might reflect dialectal variation: Pforzen is further south than the main cluster of find-sites (consisting of Igling-Unterigling, Lauchheim, Mertingen, Nordendorf and Oettingen), but the other ao spelling is at Lauchheim, which is within this cluster and north of the Danube. To test the hypothesis that the variation has a sociolectal basis, we might look to the material record – are the graves containing inscriptions with ao spellings in some significant and tangible way different from those with au spellings? I have not attempted any such detailed examination of the grave contexts, but no difference of this sort is explicitly adduced by Nedoma.
100
The diphthongs
The available information about dating is too imprecise for us to account for the variation chronologically. Pforzen II appears to belong to the later part of the “runic” period, but the date-range for Lauchheim I does not stand out chronologically from the au spellings (except Skodborg). If there is no clear, positive evidence for a regional, social or chronological distinction between the spellings, we are left with the possibilities that (i) ao represents an intermediate diphthong [ao] or a monophthong [ɔ¯ ], and au in the same contexts is an archaic or conservative spelling; or (ii) that the variation has no linguistic significance – au and ao are simply free orthographic variants. The second issue to be addressed is that of the two aw spellings (Nordendorf I awa; Weimar III awimund).12 Both are believed to represent the name-element Aw(i)- < NWGmc *auja (= PNorse auja) < PGmc *aujan. The offglide of */au/, like that of */eu/, behaves like consonantal */w/ in that it is amenable to WGmc gemination before */j/ (compare 73. Skonager III niuwila M Niuwi-(i)la : OHG OS niuwi < PGmc *neujaz (§ 3.1.1)). It is not strictly accurate to say that aw represents the diphthong /au/: deletion of the thematic vowel /a/ motivates syllabication of */j/, with the geminate divided between the off-glide of the diphthong as a coda and non-syllabic /w/ as the onset of the following syllable (NWGmc *au.ja > WGmc *auw.j- > *au.wi). If this reconstruction is correct, the digraph aw is not simply an alternate spelling of /au/, but a contraction of the phonemic sequence /auw/. There is a parallel in one of the earliest (c.200 AD?) Scandinavian runic inscriptions, auwija (Vimose buckle, An 99; KJ 24), which Antonsen (1975:75; 1986:341) identifies as WGmc on the assumption that the trigraph auw represents a geminate /aww/.13 This would appear to support Nedoma’s phonological attack on Betz’ postulated auija for Oettingen. I note, however, that the Vimose text contains digraphs uw and ij, one of which is supposed to represent a significant phonological process and the other an incidental analogical spelling; and that the same inscription contains two peculiar aa sequences (the first of which Antonsen interprets as representing /an/, and the second as a long /¯a/, without commenting on the unusual orthography). Since the uw and ij digraphs consist of a vowel-rune followed by the homorganic semivowel, I wonder whether they might not both be idiosyncratic spellings rather than being phonologically significant. The Skodborg bracteate is also 12 I address the general matter of the mappings between the runes u w, i j and the phonemes /u w/, /i j/ in §§ 4–5. 13 Note that Krause (1966:60; 1971:174) interprets the sequence asauwija quite differently, as a(n)sau w¯ı(h)ia “I consecrate to the Ase [sc. W¯odan]”.
PGmc */au/
101
classified as WGmc by Antonsen, but has the spelling auja with no signs of gemination. If this is a WGmc text and PGmc *aujan is subject to WGmc gemination, then auja ought to represent *auwja. We must then explain why the geminate */ww/ is not represented orthographically. It might be the case that the Skodborg bracteate utilises a form borrowed from or imitative of contemporary non-WGmc auja (auja) inscriptions, although in fact the only known parallel is Sjlland II-C (IK 98, mentioned above in the entry on Schretzheim III). If we accept that Skodborg auja is WGmc and that gemination has taken place, the au spelling might reflect a decision on the part of the carver to represent the off-glide of the diphthong and the following consonantal /w/ with a single rune, in line with the orthographic convention for geminate consonants in general. The aw spellings can be explained in the same way, as can Oettingen auija.
3.3.2 Data: monographs 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida boso is interpreted throughout the literature as a MN B¯oso (compare OHG Buoso), but there are disagreements about the etymology. Förstemann (1900:329) posits a connection with OHG b¯osi “worthless, senseless, weak, evil” < PGmc *bausaz (transferred to the ja-declension). However, the stemvowel /uo/ in OHG results from the diphthongisation of /¯o/, which does not merge with the monophthongal reflex of */au/ (OHG /ɔ¯ /) (§ 2.3.1.4; § 2.3.2.3). This implies that OHG Buoso must have a stem-vowel derived from PGmc */¯o/, not */au/ (Nedoma 2004a:253–254). For a more plausible etymology, see § 4.1. 39. Hüfingen II Kleinbrakteat (??? ?) ota Although the sequence ota is attested on Scandinavian bracteates and may be a formulaic (PNorse) word (see § 4.1), Schwab (1999a:18–19) suggests that the Hüfingen example represents *¯ota(g), a reflex of PGmc *audagaz/*audigaz (> Go audags “blessed, fortunate”; ON auðigr, OS o¯ dag, OHG o¯ tag “rich, opulent”; OE e¯ adig “happy, blessed, prosperous”). In so doing, she is proposing that ota is a product of both monophthongisation and the Second Consonant Shift (¯ota(g) < *¯odag < *audag < *audag-) (§ 7.1.2.2.2). The ab-
102
The diphthongs
sence of final /-g/ in this supposed reinterpretation is not explained. Given that Scandinavian bracteates provide a model from which the maker of the Hüfingen Kleinbrakteaten appears to have worked, and from which s/he did not deviate, there is no need to invoke an additional etymology. Schwab’s hypothesis can only be an untestable speculation. 48. Lauchheim II comb ?dag Alternative reading: odag (Schwab 1999a:20) Schwab’s reading of the first sign as o is doubtful; it is read elsewhere as g (Düwel 1998:16; Looijenga 2003a:265), or as a paratextual mark (Nedoma 2004a:272). Schwab interprets odag as *¯odag < PGmc *audagaz/*audigaz (see 39. Hüfingen II, above). Nedoma rejects this, but the only stated reason for doing so is that the monophthongisation cannot have taken place in the “runic” period. Since this is the question currently under examination, we cannot employ this criticism at present. If Schwab’s reading is correct, then we may have here a genuine case of monophthongised */au/. However, the reading of this peculiar sign as o is not at all convincing: it resembles a Roman V with the strokes crossing just above the base. The top of the sign is crossed by a mark which both Nedoma (loc.cit.) dismisses as an unintentional scratch. For a more straightforward interpretation of dag, see § 6.1. 49. Liebenau bronze disc ra … Alternative reading: ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138). Düwel reads ra?zwi M Ra(u)zw¯ı, a dithematic name with the first element a reflex of PGmc *rausan/*rauzan (> ON reyr “reed”), for which he posits an extended meaning “spear, sword” (on the deuterotheme, see § 4.1). This is treated with caution elsewhere: Nedoma (2004a:398–399) declines to commit to any interpretation except to say that the text is likely to contain a pers.n. beginning Rł-. The reading of the inscription is so uncertain that it can be accepted and used in the present study only with caution. 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: That hahwar represents a dithematic MN Hłhwłr is uncontroversial. The first element is usually identified with PGmc *xanxaz “horse” (see § 6.1). An
PGmc */au/
103
alternative etymon, apparently attested in OS names like Haward (9th c.), is PGmc *xauxaz (> Go hauhs, ON hár, OE h¯eah, OFris h¯ach, OS OHG h¯oh “high”); OS “¯o2” [ɔ¯ ] can be spelled or (§ 2.3.1.4.3), and it is possible that the same applies in this inscription (Nedoma 2004a:314–315). To claim that hah represents h¯ah- < *xaux- rather than h¯ah < *xanx- would be at odds with the majority view, but it is a possibility that cannot at this stage be excluded. 82. Weimar IV bead  wiu /w:ida:?e????a:hahwar:
Â/
The sequence hahwar here presumably represents the same name as in Weimar III (above); given that both inscriptions are from the same grave, it is possible that they refer to the same individual.
3.3.2.1 Summary: monographs representing PGmc */au/ The only monographs which can credibly stand for monophthongal reflexes of */au/ are in speculative etymologies of 23. Freilaubersheim boso and 81–82. Weimar III–IV hahwar, as well as 48. Lauchheim II ?dag, if we accept Schwab’s questionable reading odag. Since these cases have other, more plausible explanations, we have no convincing evidence that the reflex(es) of stressed */au/ can be represented by a single rune. We also have no witnesses to the NWGmc monophthongisation of unstressed */au/, although we can probably infer from the parallel evidence for the monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ (§ 3.2.2.1; § 3.2.3) that it has taken place.
3.3.3 Conclusion: reflexes of */au/ in the corpus Wherever we can be confident that we have a reflex of */au/ in the inscriptions, it is represented as a digraph au, ao or aw (the latter only appearing where the off-glide has produced a geminate – § 3.3.1.1). The contexts of the two ao spellings are consistent with the hypothesis that they represent some stage of the monophthongisation process. With only two witnesses, we must be cautious in this conclusion, but the case looks promising. We are not faced with the ambiguities encountered in the reflexes of */ai/, although this may simply reflect the lack of data.
104
The diphthongs
The back vocalics
105
4. The back vocalics Bearing in mind the developments of the back vocalics in the later Continental dialects (outlined in § 2.3.2), we might expect to see the following behaviour in the data: The reflexes of PGmc short */u/ will be written u, w or o. The distribution of u/w vs. o will tend to conform to that of the PGmc allophones *[u o]; so we would expect to see spellings like *sunu, *wolf. The presence of contrary spellings (e.g., *sonu, *suno, *sono; *wulf) may result from analogy, and may reflect real phonetic variation or simply variant orthography. In unstressed syllables, other variants may appear (e.g., a for inherited /o/) (§ 2.3.2.1). PGmc */¯u/ ought regularly to appear as u, although variants such as w, o, uo (or perhaps ui, ua) are hypothetically possible (§ 2.3.2.2). PGmc */¯o/ may show signs of incipient diphthongisation in stressed syllables. Given that this process is conventionally thought to begin in the 8th century (§ 2.3.2.3), it is unlikely that a reflex of */¯o/ would appear as a digraph, though the possibility should not be ruled out a priori; it is at least conceivable that some early modification of the long vowel might be underway, and that a carver might feel the need to represent it with two runes (e.g., *oa). Otherwise, we can reasonably expect any reflex of */¯o/ to appear as o if in a stressed syllable, alternating with u in unstressed positions. The semivowel, where it is present, may be transcribed u or w. Although the fuÂark offers carvers the means to distinguish between syllabic /Œ/ and nonsyllabic /w/, it remains to be seen to what extent this distinction is upheld in the use of these two runes. A spelling o is also possible, especially where a reflex of */w/ has become syllabic in final position or as a compositional vowel (§ 2.3.2.4). In the survey of the data below, it will also be necessary to consider the possible deletion of /w/ in contexts where this occurs in the later dialects.
106
The back vocalics
4.1 Data The following are excluded from this survey: • Instances of u or o which are reliably (or at least consistently) interpreted as the off-glide of a diphthong < PGmc */eu au/ (including products of WGmc gemination, i.e., */euwj auwj/ < */euj auj/). These have been discussed in § 3.1 and § 3.3. • Instances of -o -a representing the nom.sg. suffix of n-stem nouns or pers.ns.; these are discussed in more detail elsewhere (Findell 2010). Terminal -u, -a, -o (or -Ø) interpreted as nom.sg. o¯ -stem suffixes < PGmc */-¯o/ are mentioned here, but will be analysed in more detail in § 4.4. 1. Aalen neckring noru This sequence is believed to be a pers.n., either a nom. masc. u-stem or a nom.( ? )/dat. fem. o¯ -stem. Nedoma argues that the stem-vowel must be long, since the same element appears to be attested with diphthongisation in the p.n. Novrenberc (modG Nürnberg) < *Nuoro- < *N¯oro- (Nedoma 1999a:12–13; 2000:26; 2004a:390–391; compare Bammesberger 1995/96). He offers two possible etymologies relating this name-element to: 1. OSwed n¯or, Norw nor “strait, sound, narrow stretch of water”; or 2. Norw Dan nor “infant”; OIc nóra f. “small piece”. Underlying both of these is a PGmc adj. *n¯oraz, related by ablaut to *narwaz (> OE nearu, OS naru “narrow, oppressive”). As a personal name-element, it is likely (so Nedoma) to have developed from a byname “little one” or similar. Some weak support for Nedoma’s identification of the vowel as long may be found in the fact that, if it is a reflex of PGmc short */u/, we would expect to find the high allophone [u] conditioned by -u in the following syllable; the sequence would regularly be *nuru. As noted in § 2.3.2.1, however, the regular distribution of these allophones is disrupted in OHG and OS, so an irregular form is conceivable here. Referring to dithematic names like OHG Norigand, Norigaud, Norigas, Kaufmann (1968:270) posits a PGmc stem *nori- < PIE *narja- (> Skt narya- “manly, masculine”) (compare Düwel 2000b:21–22). No cognate of Skt narya- is attested in OHG, and I would add that Pokorny (1959–1969) does not cite any Gmc reflexes for PIE *narja- or for any derivative of the underlying root *ner- (see also Nedoma 1999a:13–14). The Nori- forms with overt compositional vowels (and without diphthongisation) seem to point to a short root-vowel; on the other hand, the majority of the witnesses cited by
Data
107
Förstemann (1900:1168–1169) lack a compositional vowel (e.g., Nor-Ø-bert, Nor-Ø-heri), suggesting a long stem; and while is the predominant spelling of the root, a few digraphs are recorded (e.g., Nuorinc). Nedoma (1999a:12; 2004a:392) is doubtful about the identification of -u as a nom. u-stem suffix (< PGmc */-uz/). In OHG and OS, long-syllable u-stems have a zero suffix in nom.sg., e.g., OS hand, OHG hant “hand” < PGmc *xanduz. Düwel (2000b:21–22) comments that in OHG, a /-u/ ending could only be inst.sg., a very rare form. He suggests that noru might be an irregular nom. n-stem (see § 4.4.1). If we are dealing with an o¯ -stem, -u is either nom. /-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/, or dat. /-Œ/ < PGmc inst. */-¯o/ (replacing inherited dat. */-¯oi/) (Prokosch 1939:236). For further discussion, see § 4.4. 2. Aquincum fibula [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia One of several interpretations of kŋia proposed by Krause is that it represents a word related to OIc kunningi “friend” (derived from PGmc *kuningaz/ *kunungaz > ON konungr, OE cyning, OFris kining, koning, kening, OHG OS kuning “king”). If this is correct, we are dealing with an unrepresented stemvowel /u/. We cannot appeal to “Grønvik’s law” (C0V[+high]RC M C0RC) to account for the elision (§ 2.6.2), unless i represents a consonantal /j/ – that is, if the sequence should be expanded to *kungja or *kuningja. This has not been proposed in the literature, and it is not clear what it might mean. A more plausible alternative is that kŋia M k(i)ngja or kinga “brooch, fibula” (§ 5.1). The case for an unexpressed /u/ here is weak, and this inscription will be excluded from further discussion. 3. Arlon capsule godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…) godun is treated throughout the literature as an oblique form of a weakly inflected FN GÕda, with u representing an unstressed long /¯u/ < PGmc */¯o/ (PGmc dat.sg. /-¯oni/ > OHG /-¯un/ (BR § 221; Findell 2010:9; Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.2.3; Ringe 2006:280)). The quantity of the stem-vowel is uncertain: it could be long /¯o/, if the stem is derived from PGmc *g¯odaz (> Go goÂs, ON góðr, OE OFris OS g¯od, OHG guot “good”); or short /o/, if the etymon is PGmc *gudz/*gudaz (> Go guÂ, ON goð ~ guð, OE OFris OS god, OHG got “god”). In the latter case, the form god¯un (as opposed to *gud¯un) would have to reflect analogical levelling from the nom. *goda.
108
The back vocalics
There seems to be a consensus in the literature that ( ? )ulo represents a weakly inflected nom. MN (suggestions include Lul(l)o, F¯ulo, Áulo). Because all of these are speculative, they cannot tell us anything of use about the quantity of the vowel. Here, as with godun and 1. Aalen noru, if the stemvowel is short, it displays a form at odds with the distribution of the PGmc allophones; a regular form would be */-olo/ M *-olo. That rasuwamud represents a dithematic MN is uncontroversial. The proto¯ theme is interpreted as R¯asuwa- : OIc rsir “chief, captain, king”; OE ræswa “counsellor; prince, king, leader”, ræswan ¯ “to think, suspect, consider” (< PGmc *r¯eswa- ?) (Nedoma 2004a:396), with an anaptyctic vowel (compare OHG zesawa f. “right side” < PGmc *texsw¯on (§ 2.3.5)). The deuterotheme is identified as -mu(n)d, commonly associated with PGmc *mund¯o (> ON OE OS mund, OHG munt f. “hand, protection”; OFris mund m. “protection”) (Förstemann 1900:1133; Kaufmann 1968:262). Nedoma (2004a:231–232) argues for a connection with late OHG munt m. “guardian”; OFris mund ~ mond, MHG munt “protection”; OIc mundr “brideprice”. Nedoma traces these to a pre-form *Mundu-, a masc. u-stem (PGmc *munduz) derived from the same root as *mund¯o and functioning as a nomen agentis “protector”. The final sequence is difficult to read and interpret. All the interpretations in the literature identify woÊro as a weakly inflected MN: (i) Woro (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:436); (ii) W¯oro (Krause 1966:286) (both of these assume Êr to be an error for r); or (iii) W¯oÂro (Nedoma 1992; 2004a:417–422). Arntz offers no etymology; Krause identifies W¯oro with OE w¯orian “to wander” and w¯erig “weary” (< PGmc *w¯oragaz/*w¯origaz). Nedoma treats W¯oÂro as a short form of a dithematic name with a prototheme *w¯oÂ-r- < PGmc *w¯oÂ-/ *w¯od- > *w¯odaz “mad, furious, possessed” (see wodan in 42. †Kärlich; 56. Nordendorf I; for further discussion, see § 7.1.2.1). Both of these etymologies involve a long stem-vowel */¯o/. 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ Complex II has been interpreted in several ways: Arntz interprets uba as a pers.n. Uba, for which he offers no etymology (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:200). All other interpretations posit an omitted nasal u(m)b ….: The whole complex is commonly interpreted as a compound u(m)bi-bada (or u(m)ba-bada) “consolation, comfort, health” (Krause 1966:282; Nedoma 2004a:370; Opitz 1987:29, 127–134). The first element umbi- ~ umba- is
Data
109
connected to OE ymb(e), ON um(b), OFris umbe, OS OHG umbi “around, about” (< PGmc *umbi). Opitz treats it as an independent word umba, with the sense “for the sake of ”. In OHG, umbi- appears as a prefix in numerous verbs (e.g., umbi-faran “to go around”) and deverbal nouns (umbi-fart “circuit, circulation”). Most commentators relate the sequence bada to OS gibada f. “consolation”. This noun declines as an o¯ -stem (see § 4.4.3), but the etymology is uncertain. It may be derived from a PGmc root *bad- < PIE *bheh1 - “to heat, warm” (Krause and Werner 1935:333; Nedoma 2004a:370–371). Looijenga (2003a:228) treats it as a name-element < PGmc *badw¯o (> OE beadu, ON böð, OS badu, OHG batu “battle”). Nedoma (2004a:370–371) objects that a short-syllable w¯o-stem would regularly have a nom.sg. form in /-u/ (BR § 208 Anm. 5); in practice, however, both OHG and OS show conflation of the w¯o-stems with the “pure” o¯ -stems (BR § 206; Gallée 1910 § 310; Holthausen 1921 § 286). If it were a regular development consistent with the attested reflexes of the “battle”-word in OHG and OS, then a FN with this element should have the form *-badu if strongly inflected (nom.), or *-bad(w)a ~ *-bad(u)a if weakly inflected. Looijenga’s interpretation is not impossible, but it depends on the assumption that the element has lost the */w/ of its stemformant. It appears here in a phonological context where medial /w/ is normally deleted in OHG (§ 2.3.2.4), but the reflex of *badw¯o (whether it appears as a noun “battle” or as a name-element) is one of the known exceptions to this rule (compare OHG gazzo “lane, alley; quarter, district of a town”, < PGmc *gatw¯on). I find it unlikely, therefore, that the word written bada involves a deleted */w/. 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike boba appears to be a weakly inflected nom. FN with a direct analogue in OHG Buoba, Puopa, Bova (Förstemann 1900:318). The diphthongs of forms like Buoba (8th c., cited by Nedoma 2004a:244) indicate that the stem-vowel is long /¯o/. B¯oba is a parallel to masc. B¯obo (13. Borgharen bobo). Etymologically, this is probably derived from PGmc *b¯ob¯on (> ON bófi “knave, rogue”; MLG b¯ove “scam, scoundrel”; MHG buobe “boy, servant”). The names B¯oba, B¯obo are distinguished from the superficially similar form bubo on 80. Weimar II.
110
The back vocalics
8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? The beginning of the inscription is in such poor condition that it cannot safely be read or interpreted. Proposals such as that of Krause (1966:303) that a?uz represents PNorse ansuz “god” (M “Wodan”?) must be regarded as speculative. Several authors interpret amilu? as a patronymic Amilu(n)k = Amilung “descendant of the Amals”, perhaps referring to Theoderic the Great (v. Grienberger 1908:267; Krause 1966:303; Opitz 1987:112–121). This name-element most commonly appears as Amal-, but Amil- ~ Emil- forms are attested (Förstemann 1900:88–96). For further discussion of the stem and its etymology, see § 5.1; § 6.1. On the suffix -uk M -u(n)k < -ung, see § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1. Arntz regards amilu (alternatively read amulu) as a nom. o¯ -stem FN (Arntz cites similar names Amilo, Amulo, Amela, Amulunc in the Libri Confraternitatum (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:129; see also v. Grienberger 1908:264–266)). In his later comments (1939:131) and in his translation of the text, however, he treats it as a dative. Nedoma (2004a:188) argues that the suffix /-u/ must be dat., not nom. (see § 4.4.1). A third interpretation as an oblique fem. n-stem may be possible (§ 7.2.2.2). 9. Beuchte fibula [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso Complex II buirso is generally believed to be a metathetic form of a pers.n. BŒriso. In principle, the stem-vowel could be either long (B¯ur- < PGmc *b¯uran n. (> ON búr “chamber, pantry”; OE b¯ur “cottage, dwelling, room”; OS b¯ur m. “dwelling, room”; OHG b¯ur m. “house”)) or short (Bur- < PGmc *buriz m. (> Go baur “he who is born”; ON burr, OE byre “son”)). Alternatively, it has been proposed that the medial /-i-/ of BŒriso has been syncopated and the digraph ui represents an i-umlauted vowel, /u/ = [y] (Syrett 1994:183); or else u represents a mutated vowel followed by an epenthetic /i/ (Grønvik 1998:35). Nedoma (2004a:262) rejects these interpretations, arguing that there is a lack of evidence for i-umlaut in the “runic” period (for my own comments on “primary” i-umlaut of /a/, see §§ 6.2–6.3); that an initially allophonic distinction [u] vs. [y] is unlikely to be represented orthographically; and that medial unstressed vowels after long syllables are
Data
111
normally retained in the Continental runic inscriptions (e.g., 23. Freilaubersheim golida; 62. Pforzen II gisali). As for the terminal -o, the majority view is that BŒriso is a weakly inflected pers.n.; most interpreters assume that it is masc., in line with the regular pattern for weakly inflected names in OHG (Findell 2010:1–3). Antonsen, however, identifies it as fem. B¯uris¯o, literally meaning “little daughter” (Antonsen 1975:78); he does not discuss it further, but he may be working on the assumption that the gender-based dimorphism of the n-stems has not been established at this stage, or that it is a name following the Gothic pattern (masc. /-a/, fem. /-¯o/) (see further Findell 2010). 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid There appears to be universal agreement in the literature that complex I represents a reflex of PGmc *wunj¯o (> OE wynn, OS wunnia, OHG wunna, wunnia “joy”), either acc.sg. (w)un(n)ja (< *wunj¯on) or acc.pl. (w)un(n)j¯a (< *wunj¯oz). In this case, the rune is not simply representing the short vowel /u/ < PGmc */u/, but is a haplogram for a CV sequence /wu-/. I know of no direct parallels in the runic record; Krause (1966:309) notes the spelling of /wu-/ as w on the Thorsberg shield-chape (KJ 20) owlÂuÂewaz M W(u)lÂuÂewaz (Krause interprets the preceding o as a Begriffsrune, rather than treating owlÂu- as a metathetic form of a name-element WolÂu-). Complex II is uncontroversially interpreted as a dithematic FN GÕdahi(l)d. The first element could be derived from either PGmc *g¯odaz “good” or *gudz/*gudaz “god” (see 3. Arlon). Attested names in G˘od- and G¯od- are common, and it is often difficult to distinguish between them (Haubrichs 2004:84; Nedoma 2004a:310–311). Nedoma argues (with reservations) that the presence of a compositional vowel probably indicates that the preceding syllable is short. On the deuterotheme -hid, see § 5.1. 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun That arsiboda represents a dithematic FN Arsiboda is generally accepted in the literature (although the etymology of the element Arsi- is unknown – see § 5.1). The deuterotheme is identified as a feminised derivative of PGmc *bud¯on m. (> ON boði, OE OFris boda, OS bodo, OHG boto “messenger”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:329; Krause 1966:309; Nedoma 2004a: 207–209).
112
The back vocalics
The terminal -a is commonly interpreted as a weak inflectional suffix. Nedoma, however, argues that since dithematic names are normally declined strong, this cannot be correct. He instead interprets the suffix as gen. /-ł/, to an o¯ -stem deuterotheme (Nedoma 2004a:205; also Looijenga 2003a:231). If this is correct, then -a represents a suffix < PGmc */-¯oz/ (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.3.2; Ringe 2006:269). Braune (BR § 207 Anm. 3) states that this suffix is probably still long /¯a/ in the earliest OHG sources (but shortened to /a/ later on, as in OS (Gallée 1910 § 307; Holthausen 1921 §§ 282–283)); if so, then presumably it is also long here, although we have no direct way to verify this. The semantic interpretation of complex II is a topic of debate in the literature, but it is generally agreed to represent a word similar to OHG segan m. and to be a loanword from Lat. signum n. “mark, sign” (M “sign of the Cross” M “blessing, benediction”). Whatever meaning is intended in this inscription, since we are dealing with a loanword u represents either an adaptation of the Lat. thematic vowel /-u-/ (< PIE */-o-/), or perhaps an anaptyctic vowel (signum M *sigun-Ø M *segun- ?). In the latter case, it belongs to the common WGmc anaptyxis (§ 2.3.5) (compare PGmc *regnan/*regnaz > Go rign, ON OE regn, OFris rein, OS regan- ~ regin, OHG regan “rain”). 12. Bopfingen fibula mauo The various interpretations of this sequence have been summarised in § 3.2.2. Two of the three proposed etymologies (etyma *maguz “youth”, *magwj¯o “girl”) involve u representing a semivowel /w/ derived from PGmc intervocalic */g/. The third – the one favoured by Nedoma – derives the stem from the onomatopoeic *maiw-, with u again representing /w/, though in this case it is a reflex of the PGmc semivowel. In most interpretations, mauo represents a weakly inflected MN in /-o/. The sole exception is Looijenga (2003a:231), who sees in -o a dat.sg. o¯ -stem suffix /-¯o/. This is improbable, however: OHG o¯ -stems can have a dat.sg. ending /-o/ (alongside regular /-u/ – see § 4.4.1, and compare 1. Aalen); but this form is not attested before the 10th century (BR § 207). Nedoma (2004a:387–388) therefore rejects Looijenga’s analysis. I am inclined to be more cautious about rejecting the -o spelling as a possible irregular or erroneous representation of final /-u/.
Data
113
13. Borgharen buckle bobo This inscription probably contains a MN BÕbo, which is common in OHG sources (Nedoma 2004a:245). A feminine parallel is attested in 7. Bad Krozingen A boba. For the etymology, and discussion of the evidence for a long stem-vowel, see the Bad Krozingen entry, above. 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? The readings (and hence, the interpretations) of complexes II–III are uncertain. Krause’s suggestion that du represents a 2.sg.nom. personal pronoun (< PGmc *¯u) is widely accepted (Krause 1966:307); this, however, assumes that /θ/ has undergone Spirantenschwächung, a hypothesis firmly rejected by Nedoma (2004a:298) (see § 2.5.1.3; § 7.1.2.1). In complex III, Krause (loc.cit.) speculatively expands the sequence (f)t to a verb-form f(a)t(o) 2.sg.imp. “embrace”, to PGmc *fat¯ojanan (> ON fata “to step”; OHG fazz¯on “to grasp”). Krause’s interpretation is accepted by Klingenberg (1976b:314) and Opitz (1987:14, 196–197). Schwerdt (2000:205) accepts this expansion, but suggests an alternative sense for f(a)t(o) “clothe”. Since the final /-o/ (< PGmc */-¯o/) here has been inserted by a modern interpreter, it does not constitute useful data for the present study, but reflects only what Krause expects to find, given his (implicit) notions of what the language of the inscriptions is like. 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) [II] :uÂfnÂai:id [III] dan:liano [IV] ï/l ia [V] k r The sequence u in complex II is invariably interpreted as a particle u(n)Âaor preposition u(n)Âa with an unrepresented nasal (§ 2.6.2), etymologically connected with Go unÂa-, OE u¯ Â, ON unn- “away” (which Lehmann (1986) traces back to PGmc *unÂa); and/or PGmc *unda (> Go und “up to, for”; OHG untaz, unzi, OS OE und “to, as far as”) (Antonsen 1975:77; Arntz and Zeiss 1939:189); see further § 7.1.2.1.
114
The back vocalics
16. Chéhéry fibula [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E (or E : ditan) [III] sum(Óik) Complex III contains a graph u, but no interpretations are available in the literature. We might consider a connection with the indefinite pronoun (PGmc *sumaz > Go sums, ON sumr, OE OFris OS OHG sum), but given that the following material is illegible, this remains very doubtful. 17. Dischingen I fibula wig/nka The generally preferred reading is winka, believed to represent a hypocoristic FN Win(i)ka, based on PGmc *weniz (> ON vinr, OE OFris wine, OS OHG wini “friend”). On the suffix -ka, see § 5.1. An alternative discussed by Nedoma (2004a:416) is that winka might contain an element *Wink-, found in e.g. OHG Uuinclind f. (9th c.); WFrk Uincuinus m., Uincoildis f. (9th c.). However, this element lacks a satisfactory etymology; Nedoma regards a connection with OHG winkan ~ winken, OE wincian “to wink, to give a sign” (< PGmc *wenkjanan) as implausible, though he does not offer any further explanation. Using the reading wigka, Looijenga (2003a:236–237) identifies the stem as PGmc *w¯ıga- “fight; warrior” (for the etymology, see 19. Eichstetten wiwo, below). 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) Looijenga (2003a:238) reads the first part of the inscription as fiaginÂ, which she inteprets as a FN in -gin = -gun (see 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ). She attempts to explain the alternate form -gin by appealing to the variation in the name-element -birg (-berg ~ -burg; see 46. †Kleines Schulerloch in § 5.1). There is no evidence for an equivalent variation -gin ~ -gunÂ, however. All of the witnesses listed by Förstemann (1900:693–713) have /-u-/ or /-o-/, the latter only when the element is a prototheme. The sequence muni has two readings and interpretations in the literature: 1. muni M muni 3.sg.pres.opt. to a verb related to PGmc *muniz m. (> Go muns “thought, intention”; ON munr “mind, longing, delight”; OE myne “mind, purpose, desire”; OS munil¯ıc “lovely”). Looijenga (2003a:238) and Fischer (2007:133) ascribe the meaning “remember” to muni in this text. On the interpretation of the suffix, see § 3.2.2.
Data
115
2. munt M OHG munt “hand” M “protection” (PGmc *mund¯o f. > ON OE OS mund “hand”; OFris mund m. “protection, guarding”; OHG munt “hand, palm as a length measure”) (Opitz 1982:486). From the available images (see catalogue entry), I am inclined to favour the reading muni. In assigning the meaning “remember”, Looijenga has in mind Go ga-munan and its cognates (OE ge-munon “to remember”; OS far-munan “to despise”). The “remember”-verb (PGmc *mana < PIE *men-) is a class IV pret.pres., for which the 3.sg.opt. stem would have the PGmc form *mun(Ringe 2006:243–244, 260–262). For our present purposes, then, it is plausible that u here represents a short /u/ < PGmc */u/. Another possibility, not discussed in the literature, is that muni may represent a noun (pers.n.?) < PGmc *muniz (> Go muns “thought, intention”; ON munr “mind, longing, delight”; OE myne “mind, purpose, desire”). A name-element Muni- (perhaps < PGmc *muniz) is attested, though not particularly frequent (Förstemann 1900:1136–1138). For parallels and further discussion, see § 5.2.1.2. For the sequence wiwo?, several interpretations are available. Firstly, it may represent a phrase w¯ı wol (Fischer 2007:133; Opitz 1982:485–486; Sasse 2001:81). In this interpretation, wi is the adverb w¯ı : OHG wio “how” (< PGmc *xwai w¯e); and wo? M wol is a nom.sg.neut( ? ). adj./adv. wol (PGmc *wel¯o(n)/*wal¯o(n) (> Go waila, ON vel, val, OE OFris wel, OS wela ~ wala, OHG wol ~ wola ~ wela ~ wala1 “well”). The second possibility is that wi represents a name-element W¯ı-, as attested in OHG W¯ıwa, W¯ıwila. Rune-sequences interpreted as names with this element appear in several Scandinavian inscriptions: Eikeland fibula (KJ 17a) wiz (M W(¯ıw)az?), wiwio; Tune stone (KJ 72) wiwaz; Veblungsnes rock wall (KJ 56) wiwila (Krause 1966:164–165; Reichert 1987:793). These are thought to be short forms of names with a prototheme based on PGmc *w¯ıxanan/*w¯ıganan (> Go weihan, ON vega, OE w¯ıgan “to fight”; OHG ubar-wehan “to overcome”); or *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan (> ON vígja, OFris w¯ıga, OS w¯ıhian, OHG w¯ıhen “to consecrate” (< *w¯ıxaz adj. > Go wihs, OHG w¯ıh “holy”; OE w¯ıg-bedd “altar”; OS w¯ıh-dag “holiday”)) (Krause, loc.cit.; Looijenga 2003a:239; see also Schramm 1957:61). Looijenga reads wiwogan, and analyses it as an oblique form of a weakly inflected MN W¯ıwoga. She comments on the etymology of the element W¯ı-, but not on the remainder of the name. As far as I am aware, no element *wog- is attested. We 1 Köbler (1993) contains an entry for wol, but no such form appears in Schützeichel (2006) or in Kluge’s (2002) etymology of modG wohl.
116
The back vocalics
might speculate that -wog- is a variant representation of the element wag-, which appears twice in Scandinavian runic inscriptions (Opedal (KJ 76) wage; Rosseland (KJ 69) wagigaz); although, if Antonsen (1975:40) is correct in identifying this with PGmc *w¯egaz/*w¯egiz (> Go wegs “storm”; OIc v¯agr “sea”; OE wæg, ¯ OS OHG w¯ag “rough water, swell”), a form in -o- is anomalous. Schwerdt (2000:207–208) suggests that wiwol might be a dithematic MN with the deuterotheme -wolf (PGmc *wulfaz > Go wulfs, ON ulfr, OE OS wulf, OFris OHG wolf “wolf ”). The first element could be derived from one of the following: 1. PGmc *welj¯on (> Go wilja, ON vili, OE OFris willa, OS willio “will”; OHG willo “desire, wish”); 2. PGmc *welÂjaz (> Go wilÂeis, ON villr, OE OFris wilde, OS OHG wildi “wild”); 3. PGmc *weniz “friend” (see 56. Nordendorf I for more etymological detail); 4. PGmc *widuz (> ON viðr, OE widu ~ wudu, OHG witu “wood”; OS widohoppa “hoopoe”). A further possible interpretation of the sequence, not mentioned in the literature, is a connection with PGmc *w¯ıw¯on m. (> ON lang-vé “a kind of bird”; OHG w¯ıo (> modG Weihe f.), MLG wie, wige “bird of prey, harrier, kite”),2 perhaps as a name-element (compare *ar¯on “eagle”, possibly attested in 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 67. Schretzheim I arogis). Whether this etymology is valid or not, wiwo could conceivably be a weakly inflected MN WÃwo. 21. Erpfting fibula lda·gabu The only available interpretation is that of Düwel (2003c:13–16), who interprets gabu as a dat.sg. o¯ -stem noun g¯abu “(as a) gift” (forms in g¯ab- (> modG Gabe) are attested in OHG alongside regular geb- < PGmc *geb¯o; see § 5.1). On the dat.sg. o¯ -stem suffix, see also 1. Aalen, above. Alternatively, if gabu represents an o¯ -stem noun, -u could represent the nom.sg. suffix /-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/ (see § 4.4.1).
2 modG Weihe has the specific meaning “harrier”, but appears in compound names for other raptors (e.g., Gabelweihe “kite”). OHG w¯ıo glosses Lat. avis rapax “bird of prey”; asida “ostrich”( ! ); and milvus “kite” (Köbler 1993).
Data
117
22. Ferwerd comb case ?( ? )ura This inscription is assumed in the literature to be Frisian, but has been included in this study as the object may be an import, and there is nothing in the content of the text which positively identifies it as belonging to a “coastal” rather than an “inland” dialect (§§ 1.2.1–1.2.2). ¯ ra with a stem derived from ura is interpreted as a form of a pers.n. U PGmc *¯uruz (> ON úrr, MLG u¯ r, OHG u¯ ro (n-stem) “aurochs”; OE u¯ r (a-stem) “a kind of ox, bison”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:209; Looijenga 2003a:303–304). This element is attested in, e.g., OHG Uro, Urich, Urold, Urolf (Förstemann 1900:1482–1483; Müller 1970:24–25). In Looijenga’s view, the present example may be a weakly inflected MN or a dat.sg. o¯ -stem. The latter is only plausible if the terminal -a is transliterated as Frisian - and interpreted as a parallel to OFris dat.sg. /-e/, which is in any case a product of analogical levelling: o¯ -stems have /-e/ throughout the singular in OFris (Heuser 1903 § 38). Düwel (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:371) transliterates mur, which he interprets as a weakly inflected nom. MN *Mur(r?)a. The etymology is not clear, but it might be a nomen agentis to an OFris verb *murra/*morra (which Düwel does not gloss or explain further; perhaps PGmc *murr¯ojanan (> ON murra “to murmur”; MLG murren “to drone”; modG murren “to grumble”)?). 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida There is general agreement that boso represents a MN B¯oso : OHG Buoso (early forms UG Poso, WFrk Boso are recorded). The presence of a diphthong in the OHG witnesses indicates that the name is based on a stem in PGmc */-¯o-/ (§ 2.3.2.3). The most plausible etymology connects the name with OIc bósi “clumsy man” < PNorse/NWGmc *b¯osan “lump, chunk”, and/or OHG buosum “roundness, bosom, womb” (Nedoma 2004a:254, 256). For the latter, Orel (2003) reconstructs PGmc *b¯osmaz < PIE *bhós-mo(> Skt bábhasti, Gk “to blow”), to PIE *bheu- “to swell” (Pokorny 1959–1959). Alternative etymologies (rejected by Nedoma) are that the name is cognate with Gk φ«, φ « “light; man, nobleman” (this association of meanings is disputed) : PGmc *b¯os- (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:224; Haubrichs 2004:79); or with OHG b¯osi “worthless, senseless, weak, evil” < PGmc *bausaz. The former is based on an unsupported connection with a Greek
118
The back vocalics
word, the etymology of which is itself uncertain (Nedoma 2004a:254–255). The latter involves a product of monophthongisation, which I have already discussed and rejected (§ 3.3.2). boso:wraetruna is one of several witnesses to the formula NN wrait r¯unł “NN wrote a rune/runes” (compare 54. Neudingen-Baar II; 62. Pforzen II). The presence of w- (u- in the other witnesses) indicates that deletion of initial /w-/ in consonant clusters (§ 2.3.2.4) has not taken place. Since we appear to be on safe ground in the interpretation of this sequence (there are no difficulties with the reading and we have two parallels), we can be confident that -u- in runa represents a reflex of PGmc */¯u/.3 On the suffix, see § 4.4.3.1. Most commentators interpret golida in complex II as 1./3.sg.pret. to a reflex of PGmc *g¯oljanan (> Go g¯oljan “to greet”; ON gœla “to comfort, to make happy” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:229; Krause 1966:284; Looijenga 2003a:241; Nedoma 2004a:251; Opitz 1987:198–199). An alternative interpretation is advanced by Jänichen: golida M g¯ol Ida “invoked Ida”. Here, g¯ol is 1./3.sg.pret. to a verb < PGmc *galanan (> ON gala “to crow, sing”; OE galan “to sing”; OHG galan “to enchant”) (Jänichen 1951:227). Meli (1988:112, cited by Nedoma 2004a:251) treats the sequence as a product of metathesis, golida M gl¯oida “inflamed [with love]” (PGmc *gl¯oo¯ janan > ON glóa “to glitter, shine”; OS gl¯oian “to glow”; OHG gluoen “to glow, burn”), supposedly forming part of a love-charm. He rejects Jänichen’s Ida interpretation on the grounds that it cannot be an acc.sg. form (recte *Id¯un; compare 82. Weimar III idun). All of these interpretations regard o as representing a reflex of PGmc */¯o/. 25. Friedberg fibula ÂuruÂhild Throughout the literature, this inscription is interpreted as a dithematic FN with a prototheme < PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/*Âr¯uÂij¯o f. (> OE Âr´yð, ON Ârúðr, OHG thr¯ut, dr¯ud “force, power, strength”). The first u-rune is taken to represent an 3 I avoid addressing the semantics of the word “rune” in detail. The widely accepted connection between the concepts “rune”, “mystery” and “counsel” is open to question (compare, e.g., Elliott 1989:1–2; Page 1999:106–107). Morris (1985) argues persuasively that the etyma of NWGmc *r¯un- (> ON rún, OE r¯un, OS OHG r¯una “written message, inscription( ? )”) and Go r¯una “mystery, secret” are distinct.
Data
119
anaptyctic vowel, and the second is the stem-vowel /¯u/ < PGmc */¯u/. The deuterotheme will be discussed in § 5.1. 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate lalgwu This inscription is generally regarded as uninterpretable (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:2,1:71; Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–1942:493; Nielsen 1978:358; Nowak 2003:583). Arntz (1937:7, citing v. Grienberger) does propose a reading kalgwu M (i)k al(u) g(i)bu “I give an amulet”. In this interpretation (used by Arntz as support for his own treatment of 65. †Rügen), w represents a fricative allophone of /b/ in the root g(i)b- “give” < PGmc *geb-, which is not plausible (see § 7.1.1.1). Von Grienberger sees the terminal -u as a 1.sg.pres.ind. verb-ending (< PGmc */-¯o/). If, as I argue in § 7.1.1.1, gw cannot plausibly represent the verbal root gib- ~ geb-, his entire interpretation is undermined and we cannot pursue it any further. 28. Gomadingen fibula [I] (g) [II] iglug/n [III] ?… Düwel (1996:13) suggests that complex II may contain a pers.n. Iglun/Iglug or I(n)glun/I(n)glu(n)g. Haubrichs (2004:87) favours Iglung, with a patronymic -ung suffixed to a stem < PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz (> ON igull, OE OS OHG igil “hedgehog”). Pers.ns. with this element (possibly meaning “sea urchin” rather than “hedgehog”) are attested in Viking-Age Scandinavian runic inscriptions (Müller 1970:96). On the Continent, it may be present in WFrk Higelricus (8th c.), and in PNs Igilsbuch (8th c.), Igilistruoth (11th c.) (Förstemann 1900:947). The stem will be discussed further in § 5.1. If Iglun or I(n)glun is intended, then the ending could plausibly be -¯un, to an oblique form of a weakly inflected FN *Igla/*Ingla. This possibility has not been discussed in the literature (although it is mentioned in Findell 2010:9). 29. Griesheim fibula [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru The consensus in the literature is that complex I represents a weakly inflected MN Kolo (compare Langob Colo, OE Cola, ON Koli), with a stem probably derived from PGmc *kulan (> ON kol, OE c¯ol, OFris kole, MLG kol, kole,
120
The back vocalics
OHG kol “coal, charcoal”) (Nedoma 2004a:352–353). Nedoma rejects an alternative etymology connecting KÕlo and related names with ON *kollir “helmet” (Förstemann 1900:371; Gottschald 1982:297; Looijenga 2003a:242), on the grounds that the ON word in question is actually kellir (de Vries 1961); this may, however, be related to PGmc *kullaz (> ON kollr m. “round peak; head, pate”), which might itself be a plausible etymon for kolo (M Kol(l)o), if not for Colo, Cola, Koli. There is general agreement that complex II is a dithematic FN AgilaÂr¯uÂ, with a deuterotheme < PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/*Âr¯uÂij¯o; see 25. Friedberg, above. On the prototheme, see § 5.1. 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). The only available interpretation of this inscription is that of Arntz, who reads the final sequence wihu M w¯ıhu 1.sg.pres.ind. “I consecrate” (< PGmc *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan; see 19. Eichstetten, above). If this is correct (which is very doubtful), w represents a reflex of PGmc */w/ and u represents /Œ/ < PGmc */¯o/. 33. Heide-B bracteate alu Alu is a “formula-word” which appears in a number of Scandinavian inscriptions, and is also attested as an element in pers.ns. (e.g., Vrløse fibula (KJ 11) alugod). Heizmann (2004:374) lists 14 bracteates with alu in “pure” form, and another 10 which may contain abbreviated or concealed forms. The etymology given by Krause connects PNorse alu with ON ol “beer, ale” (: OE ealu; OS OHG alu- in compounds) < PGmc *alu(Â) n., which itself (so Krause) may originally have been connected with Hitt. alwanzaää- “enchant”, alwanzatar- “magic”; Gk ` Ô “to be beside oneself ”. From this he infers that the basic meaning of PNorse *alu is “ecstasy” (Krause 1966:239. See also Antonsen 1975:37; Fingerlin et al. 1998:818; Polomé 1996; Zimmermann 2010).4 Another possibility is that alu is connected with OE ealgian “to protect”; Go alhs “temple”; Gk ’ “protection, defence”, although this may be in 4 I refrain from comment on the speculation that ale had cultic uses and was associated with shamanic or religious ecstasy. For sceptical approaches to the question, see Heizmann (2004:377); Lüthi (2004:329–330).
Data
121
some way derived from an association of beer with religious or magical practices (Düwel in Fingerlin et al. 1998:817). Since all the attested Gmc cognates preserve a consonant derived from PGmc */x/ or */g/, I find this explanation of alu questionable (though not impossible) from a phonological perspective. Elmevik (1999) raises objections to both of these etymologies, and instead interprets alu as a 1.sg.pres. verb-form, to PGmc *alanan (> Go alan “to grow on, feed on”; ON ala “to beget, bear”; OE alan “to nourish, grow, produce”). He glosses it “(I) give strength, (I) keep alive” and/or “(I) protect” (1999:28). Whether Krause’s speculations about the “original” meaning of the word and its function in inscriptions are correct or not, the text alu connects Heide with other bracteates of Scandinavian origin (though it could conceivably be a Continental cognate, rather than the PNorse word). The u represents a reflex of a short */u/ if alu is the “ale”-word, or of a long unstressed */¯o/ (the 1.sg.pres.ind. suffix) if it is a verb-form. 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi The legible part of the inscription is interpreted throughout the literature as a MN Arwi. The most widely accepted etymology for the stem is that it is a reflex of PGmc *arwaz (> OIc orr “swift, ready”; OS aru “ready for harvesting, ripe”) (Haubrichs 2004:77; Krause 1966:296; Nedoma 2004a:211). Nedoma explains the final /-i/ as being derived from a suffix */-ija-/. Two alternative etymologies have been proposed: 1. Arw- is related by a Verner’s Law alternation to PGmc *arbjan (> ON erfi “wake, funeral feast”; OE erfe, OFris erve, OS OHG erbi “inheritance”) (Schwerdt 2000:213). Nedoma rejects this on the grounds that there is no such alternation: the Verner alternant of */b/ is */f/ (Nedoma 2004a:211–212). See also my comments on 27. Geltorf II above and in § 7.1.1.1. 2. The name is an abbreviated form of a dithematic name *Ar(a)-w¯ı(h) (Düwel 1972:139; see also Schwerdt 2000:213–214). If correct, w represents the initial w- of a deuterotheme < PGmc *w¯ıx-/*w¯ıg- (see 19. Eichstetten, above). Nedoma (2004a:212) argues against this etymology that it involves graphic omission or apocope of /-h/ (§ 7.1.3.1); and the omission or deletion of the compositional vowel /-a-/ after a short stem.
122
The back vocalics
35. Hitsum-A bracteate [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la Complex I is interpreted as either the ethnonym Fosii (Tacitus, Germania XXXVI) or as a (possibly related) pers.n. (Clavadetscher et al. 1984– 1989:1,2:140; Looijenga 2003a:208). Düwel (1970:285) cites Much’s (1967:414) etymology of Fosii < PGmc *f¯oz¯oz/*f¯os¯oz, nom.pl. to a cognate of Gk «, Doric «, Lat. parus “relative”. Hitsum fozo M F¯ozo would be a hypocoristic derivative with a weak inflection. Düwel is noncommittal on the gender of the name (see Findell 2010). Krause (1971:150) favours an interpretation as a feminine F¯oz¯o, on the grounds that the object is probably to be associated with the area of the earliest runic inscriptions, i.e., southern Scandinavia (see catalogue entry). Looijenga (2003a:208) suggests that complex I could be (i) a NGmc nom. o¯ -stem FN F¯oz¯o (no etymology is offered); (ii) a form or derivative of the ethnonym Fosii, as Düwel suggests; or (iii) a weakly inflected WGmc (Frankish) nom. MN Fozo. See further § 7.1.2.1. Düwel (1970:286–287) reads complex II as glola, representing an n-stem FN with a stem < PGmc *gl¯oo¯ janan (see 23. Freilaubersheim golida, above) and the dim. suffix */-il-/ ~ */-ul-/ (i.e., Gl¯ola < *Gl¯ow-ula). Looijenga (2003a:208), on the other hand, reads groba, which she interprets as a WGmc nom./acc.sg. o¯ -stem noun < PGmc *gr¯ob¯o f. (> Go groba “dugout, hole”; ON gróf, OHG gruoba “pit”). Seebold (1996) offers two interpretations: groba may be a noun groba “inscription”, derived from the verb PGmc *grabanan (> Go graban, ON grafa, OE grafan, OFris gr¯eva ~ griova, OS gravan, OHG graban “to dig, carve”, with a presumed extended sense “inscribe”). Alternatively (and this is the interpretation which Seebold seems to prefer), it might be a vriddhi-derivative of PGmc *graban n./*grab¯o f.(> Go graba “trench, ditch”; ON grof “hole, pit”; OE grf “grave, trench”; OS graf, OHG grab “grave”); compare modG Muhme “maternal aunt” (OHG muoma < *m¯oma, derived by vriddhi from *mame, a hypocoristic word for “mother” (Kluge 2002)). Morphologically, it could be a nom.sg.fem. n-stem, a nom./ acc.sg. o¯ -stem, or a nom./acc.pl. o¯ - or a-stem. Seebold proposes that groba here means “that which belongs to the grave or to burial”5 (1996:196).
5 “das zum Grab oder zum Begräbnis Gehörige”.
Data
123
36. Hohenstadt fibula (…)(i)galu The only available interpretation is that of Pieper (2010): a is treated as a haplograph, and the text is expanded to I(n)ga alu. Inga is a FN with unrepresented nasal (compare 28. Gomadingen iglug/n M I(n)glun/I(n)glu(n)g. See further § 5.1; § 6.1), followed by the “formula-word” alu “ale/magic/protection” (see 33. Heide). As an alternative, it is possible (if unlikely) that we might be dealing with a FN Igalu/Ingalu, with -u perhaps representing an o¯ -stem inflectional suffix (§ 4.4.1). 37. Hoogebeintum comb [I] ?nlu [II] (ded) Complex I contains a u-rune, but is not clearly interpretable. Düwel suggests that the complex may be a pers.n., and mentions several potential parallels, but no further conclusions can be drawn (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:368). 38. Hüfingen I Kleinbrakteat [I] VVIT (????) [II] alu This is another inscription containing the “formula-word” alu (see 33. Heide). Given its appearance on an imitation coin influenced by the Scandinavian bracteate tradition, and the presence of an unintelligible sequence of Roman letters in complex I, it seems likely that we are dealing here with script-imitation rather than the intentional carving of the word. 39. Hüfingen II Kleinbrakteat (??? ?) ota The sequence ota appears on a number of Scandinavian bracteates (Fjärestad-C (IK 55); Gadegård-C (IK 578.1–2); Skåne III-C (IK 152); Tjurkö II-C (IK 185)). The most credible interpretation is that of Düwel, who connects it with ON ótti m. “fear, dread” (< PGmc *¯oxt¯on) (Düwel 2008:54; Fingerlin et al. 1998:818; Heizmann 2004:375–376; see also § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1). As with 38. Hüfingen I, we may be dealing with a straightforward imitation of models from Denmark or elsewhere in the PNorse linguistic area, in which case it is of little use to us as evidence for the Continental dialects (but see § 7.1.3.2.3). Schwab (1999a:18–19) suggests that the Hüfingen example may have been reinterpreted by an Alamannic designer as the adjective OHG o¯ tag
124
The back vocalics
“wealthy, prosperous” (< *¯odag; see 48. Lauchheim II ?dag, which Schwab reads odag). In order to do this, she invokes both the Second Consonant Shift and monophthongisation of PGmc */au/ (for which there is no corroborating evidence in the corpus – § 3.3.3). Even if Schwab’s interpretation is linguistically plausible, there is no way to test whether the present text involves reinterpretation of a sequence which otherwise would be incomprehensible to an Alamannic reader, or whether it was simply copied from some Scandinavian model without concern for its linguistic meaning. 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag The first part of the inscription appears to be a dat. form of the theonym W¯odan < PGmc (nom.) *w¯odanaz (see § 3.2.2). This interpretation is not controversial, though the doubtful authenticity of the inscription makes it an unreliable witness. 43. “Kent” fibula ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa (my transliteration). The only interpretation available in the literature is that of Looijenga (2003a:244), who suggests that gadu represents a nom. or dat.sg. o¯ -stem *gadu < PGmc *gad¯o, which would be a feminised form of PGmc *gad¯on m. (> OE gada, MHG gate “companion”; Du gade, modG Gatte “husband”). The only attested feminine cognate is Du gade “wife”. Given the partial and speculative nature of Looijenga’s reading, this can be considered at best an uncertain case. I would add that, since *gad¯on is an n-stem, we would expect a feminised form to belong to the same class, not to the o¯ -declension (see § 4.4.1). If my reading of complex I as gam(:)u is correct, it might represent a word connected with PGmc *gamanan n. (> ON gaman “game, sport”; OE gamen, OFris game ~ gome, OS gaman “joy, game, pleasure”; OHG gaman “joke, joy”). For such an interpretation to work, we would have to account for the missing /n/: the sequence could perhaps represent a nom./acc.pl. *gamnu with the /-a-/ elided as in, e.g., OE h¯eafod M nom./acc.pl. h¯eafdu (Campbell 1959 § 574); OHG zeihhan “sign” M *zeihnu ~ -o (BR § 196). The /n/ might be omitted either by error, by nasalisation as in the OFris cognates, or by assimilation to the preceding /m/( ? ). This is pure speculation on my part, and cannot be taken any further at this point.
Data
125
In my reading, the large u of complex II (which might form a bind-rune au/ua with the a of complex III) follows on from ik. I have no suggestions for an interpretation. Looijenga does not offer any interpretation of the sequence which I have designated complex III. If my reading w?fa is correct, OE OFris OS w¯ıf “woman” (gen.pl. w¯ıfa?) springs to mind (§ 5.1); but, again, this is no more than speculation. 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali Here, as in 6. Bad Ems, we have a sequence which Looijenga (2003a:245) interprets as a FN Bada < PGmc *badw¯o, with a deleted medial */w/. See the entry on Bad Ems for further discussion of this interpretation. 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula arugis This sequence is treated throughout the literature as a dithematic MN equivalent to 67. Schretzheim I arogis (qv). Two etymologies have been proposed for the prototheme: 1. Aro- < PGmc *ar¯on m. (> Go ara, ON ari, OS OHG aro “eagle”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:338; Düwel 1984:325; Haubrichs 2004:77; Krause 1966:299; Looijenga 2003a:255). In this case, u and Schretzheim o represent a compositional vowel (though not a regular reflex of the PGmc stemformant */-¯on-/. Compare 89. Wremen lgu-). 2. Aru- < *arwa- < PGmc *arwaz adj. (see 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi) (Nedoma 2004a:199). If this is correct, u and Schretzheim o represent reflexes of PGmc */w/, which regularly becomes syllabic in syllablefinal position (§ 2.3.2.4). Both of these are attested name-elements in OHG. According to Nedoma (loc.cit.), dithematic names with a prototheme derived from *ar¯on normally have a compositional vowel /-a-/ (e.g., OHG Arafrid, Arag¯er, Arag¯ıs, Aralind), while those in *arwaz have /-u-/ or /-o-/ (e.g., OHG Arogoz, WFrk Arohildis, Langob Aruchis); in Nedoma’s view, therefore, arugis/arogis should be associated with *arwaz. On the other hand, it is at least conceivable that this variation in the compositional vowels reflects the levelling in the unstressed vowels of OHG, which might make names in *arwa- indistinguish-
126
The back vocalics
able from those in *ar¯o-. Förstemann (1900:136–137) places forms like Aragis together with Arigis, Aregis etc. 47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada One of Nedoma’s criticisms of the interpretation of this inscription as a dithematic FN Aonofada (§ 3.2.2; § 3.3.1) is that a dithematic name with a longstemmed prototheme would normally lack a compositional vowel between the elements (compare 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d M Aun-Ø-r¯ad). For the element Aun- (< *aunaz/*aunuz “prosperous”, in Nedoma’s view), the compositional vowel should in any case be /-a-/ or /-u-/; /-o-/ would be anomalous (Nedoma 2004a:194). An apparent counter-example (not mentioned by Nedoma) is Aunobert (bishop of Sagiensis, a.689) (Förstemann 1900:208). Braune notes that the thematic vowel of the u-stems appears as in nom./acc.sg. from the end of the 9th century (and occasionally in earlier sources), as part of the general lowering of OHG /i u/ in final position (BR § 220c Anm. 2). Förstemann also cites a variety of other forms for this name-element with the shapes Auni-, Aune-, Aun-Ø-. It appears from these forms that we cannot afford to be too dogmatic about the presence and quality of compositional vowels in dithematic names. If, as Nedoma argues, aono represents a weakly inflected MN Aono, the terminal -o represents the nom. inflectional suffix. 48. Lauchheim II comb ?dag Alternative reading: odag (Schwab 1999a:20) Schwab interprets the sequence as an adjective *¯odag “wealthy”, with o representing a monophthongal reflex of */au/ – an analysis about which I am sceptical (see § 3.3.2). 49. Liebenau bronze disc ra … Alternative reading: ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138). Düwel interprets this sequence as a dithematic MN Ra(u)zw¯ı with a deuterotheme < PGmc *w¯ıxaz “consecrated one” (to *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan “consecrate”). Looijenga (2003a:246) suggests that it might alternatively be derived from *w¯ıganan “to fight” or a derived noun “warrior” (see 19. Eichstetten
Data
127
wiwo? for more on these etyma; compare also Düwel’s interpretation of 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi). On the prototheme, see § 3.3.2. 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? The reading of complex I is uncertain, but if udim is correct, then it probably represents a reversed form of the same word as complex II. Two interpretations have been proposed: 1. *mid(d)u < PGmc *medjaz adj. (> Go midjis, ON miðr, OE midd, OFris midde, OS middi, OHG mitti “middle”); or a derived noun, PGmc *medj¯on f. (> ON miðja, OE midde, OS middia, MHG mitte “middle”) (Düwel 1990:8; Fingerlin and Düwel 2002:110; Nedoma 2004a:244). In this case, -u would represent an inflectional ending; see § 4.4.1 for further discussion. 2. *midu < PGmc *mizd¯o(n)/*m¯e2d¯o f. (> Go mizdo, OE meord, m¯ed “reward” (compare also Undley bracteate (IK 374) medu); OFris m¯ede “rent”; OS m¯eda “payment”; OHG mieta “price”) (Düwel 1990:8; Looijenga 2003a:247). In this case, -u might represent a nom. or dat.sg. o¯ -stem suffix /-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/ (again, see § 4.4.1). 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna All the sources (except Schwab, who emends imuba to leuba – see § 3.1.1) interpret imuba as a pers.n. Imba with an anaptyctic vowel (on the etymology of the name, see § 5.1). The phonemic sequence /-mb-/ does not seem a likely context for the development of an anaptyctic vowel, and it may be preferable to seek another explanation (see § 4.2.2). That bliÂgu is a nom. dithematic FN Bl¯ıÂgu(n) with an unrepresented nasal is undisputed in the literature. The deuterotheme is a reflex of PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o (> OHG gund- (in compounds), *gundea (Prokosch 1939:73), g¯udea (Schützeichel 2006), OS g¯uthea, ON gunnr, guðr, OE g¯uð “battle”). This name-element appears several times in the corpus (67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ; 83. Weingarten I ali/erguÂ), with possible (but more doubtful) witnesses in 19. Eichstetten fiaginÂ; 76. Stetten amelkud. Again, the sequence uraitruna stirs no controversy, being interpreted as wrait r¯unł “wrote a rune/runes”. urait is in this case 3.sg.pret. to *wr¯ıtan
128
The back vocalics
“write” (see 23. Freilaubersheim; 62. Pforzen II), with u representing a reflex of */w/. The u of runa clearly represents the root-vowel < PGmc */¯u/. 55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? The only part of this inscription which can be read and interpreted with any confidence is liub (§ 3.1.1). Jänichen (1967a:46; 1967b:235–236) reads idun in complex II (see 81. Weimar III), while Looijenga suggests that the complex might contain dedun M dedun 3.pl.pret. “made” (see 67. Schretzheim I). Still more speculative is Opitz’ proposal that ws might represent OHG (h)wa() “something” with Second Consonant Shift (1987:234; see further § 7.1.2.1). None of these interpretations is sufficiently reliable to be useful for our present purposes. 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The etymology of complex A.I logaÂore is uncertain, but log- probably represents one of the following: 1. a reflex of the zero-grade of the PGmc verbal root *leug- “to lie” (inf. *leuganan > Go liugan, ON ljúga, OE l¯eogan, OFris li¯aga, OS liogan). A related nomen agentis is attested as OE loga < *luga- (attested in compounds, e.g., word-loga “one who is false to his word” (BT)). 2. a reflex of PGmc *lug¯on/*lux¯on m. (> ON logi, OFris loga, MHG lohe “flame”). A third possibility, found in the literature on the Bergakker scabbard mount (loge/uns) but not that on Nordendorf, is that log- might be derived from the root *l¯og- (> ON lóg, OE l¯og, OFris l¯och “place”; OHG luog “den, pit”) (Vennemann 1999:154). What this might imply for the whole complex logaÂore depends on the interpretation of the remainder of the sequence. According to the most popular interpretation, logaÂore is connected with OE logeÂer ~ logÂer ~ logÂor subst. (m.) “intriguer, sorcerer” (Stanton Cawley 1939:325; Krause 1966:293) and/or adj. “crafty, wily” (BT; Clark Hall 1960). The etymology is uncertain: both the zero-grade of the verbal root *leug- “lie” and the “flame”-word < *lug¯on/*lux¯on have been invoked, the presumed sense of OE logeÂer etc. being either “liar” or “inflamer”. -Âore is likewise ambiguous. If the whole complex is a compound, -Âormay be connected with PGmc *Âurisaz m. (> ON Âurs, OE Âyrs “giant”; OHG duris “devil, evil spirit”); or perhaps with *Âurzuz adj. (> Go Âaursus,
Data
129
ON Âurr, OE Âyrre, MLG dorre, OHG durri “dry”). In both of these cases, the terminal -e causes problems (§ 3.2.2). Düwel analyses the sequence into a root (either *lug- “lie” or *lug- “flame”) with an agentive suffix -Âra(possibly connected with PIE *tor- “loud, audible” (Düwel 1982:82–83; Grønvik 1987:117; Pokorny 1959–1969)). This fits into the overall interpretation of inscription A as logaÂore Wodan Wigi/uÂonar “Wodan and Wigi/uÂonar (are) liars [or: mendacious, if logaÂore is an adjective]”, taken to be an abnegation of heathen deities. The troublesome -e is accounted for as a nom.pl. inflectional suffix (§ 3.2.2), but the analysis leaves us with a stray -o- (perhaps an anaptyctic vowel, comparable to that in 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild). Another suggestion (Wagner 1995:111–112) is that -Âor- is a nomen agentis formed from a cognate of ON Âora “to dare” (< PGmc *Âur¯enan), which (so Wagner) is attested in, among other things, the ethnonym Thuringi. Wagner analyses the whole text as LogaÂore [dat.] W¯odan [nom.] WigiÂonar [nom.] “W¯odan and Battle-Áonar oppose the one who dares (tell) a lie” (1995:112). Departing from the literature, we might be able to combine the *lo¯ g- root with any of the interpretations of -Âore to construct yet another set of etymologies. If -Âore represents the “giant/demon”-word, then perhaps *lo¯ gaÂor- could carry a sense “place-demon” or “lodging-demon” (referring to some sort of genius loci?). If it is the agentive *-Âra-, then it ought to be attached to a verbal base. *lo¯ g- is a nominal root, but it produces a denominal verb which appears as OE lo¯ gian “to lodge, place, arrange”. If this were the basis of a nomen agentis “lodger; arranger” or agentive adjective “lodger-like, arranger-like”( ? ), we would expect a form *logeÂore or *logiÂore. The identification of complex A.II as the theonym W¯odan (< PGmc *w¯odanaz) is the least contentious aspect of the Nordendorf inscription. See 42. †Kärlich for the etymology. In complex III, wig- is usually taken to represent a root derived from one of the following: 1. PGmc *w¯ıxjanan/*w¯ıgjanan “consecrate” (see 19. Eichstetten). 2. PGmc *w¯ıxanan/*w¯ıganan > “fight” (again, see Eichstetten entry) 3. PGmc *wing- as in ON Ving-Âórr (a by-name of Áórr), itself of uncertain etymology, but possibly derived from one of the above with a sense “holy” or “battle”; or (less likely) connected with ON vingull “horse’s penis” (Kabell 1970:4–6; de Vries 1961).
130
The back vocalics
The first of these etymologies is generally preferred in the literature (to a large extent influenced by Krause (1966:293)). In all of them, w clearly represents consonantal /w/. Interpretations of complex II tend to focus on the following sequence -Âonar (see below), to which wigi/u- is attached as an attribute. Little attention is given to the compositional vowel -i/u-. A reading i is generally preferred, and is easily accounted for if the sequence is etymologically connected with *w¯ıxjanan/*w¯ıgjanan (etymology 1) (see, inter alios, Grønvik 1987:118–119). A compositional vowel */-u-/ would require further explanation, a point which does not appear to have been addressed in the copious literature on the Nordendorf fibula. If there is any merit to Kabell’s suggestion of a connection with ON vingull (etymology 3), this might provide us with a medial /-u-/. Although the interpretation of wigi/u- is uncertain, there seems to be general agreement that Âonar represents the theonym identified with PGmc *Âunraz (> ON Âórr, OE Âunor, OFris thuner, OS thunar, OHG donar m. “thunder”). If this is correct, then o clearly represents a reflex of PGmc */u/. In inscription B, awa is normally interpreted as a pers.n. in Awi- (aw- representing a reflex of PGmc */au/; see § 3.3.1). An alternative suggestion is that it represents a noun derived from PGmc *aw¯on m.( ? ) (> Go aw¯o f.“grandmother”; ON ái m. “great-grandfather”) (Klingenberg 1976d:181; Steinhauser 1968b:27); Nedoma disputes this etymology, arguing that there are no known parallels and that it is semantically unmotivated (Nedoma 2004a:227). A third possibility, awa M w “always” (< PGmc *aiwai) has been discussed and rejected in § 3.2.2. leubwini is variously treated as a dithematic pers.n. or other compound, or as two words (§ 3.1.1). In either case, wini is a reflex of PGmc *weniz (> ON vinr, OE OFris wine, OS OHG wini “friend”), probably functioning here as a name-element. On the termination -i?, see § 5.1. 57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? While this inscription is widely regarded as uninterpretable, attempts have been made to extract some sense from it (§ 3.1.1). Looijenga (2003a:251) proposes that io is a conjunction *j¯o(h) < PGmc *j¯o xw¯e (> Go jah, OE ge, OS ja, OHG jÕh ~ j¯a “and”). If we accept this speculation, o represents a reflex of */¯o/.
Data
131
58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd The interpretation of dul as a reflex of PGmc *dulÂiz f. (> Go dulÂs, OHG tuld ~ tult ~ dult “festival”) has gained general acceptance. For further discussion of the consonants, see § 7.1.2.1. 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? All commentators accept a reading of the first sequence as god. Krause (1966:285) interprets this as “God” (< PGmc *gudz/*gudaz) in the specifically Christian sense (compare the interpretation of deofile as “Devil” (§ 3.1.1)). It may alternatively be a form of the adjective < PGmc *g¯odaz “good”, or a pers.n. with a stem based on either of these roots (compare 3. Arlon godun). In Krause’s much-repeated interpretation, fura is a preposition, PGmc *fura (> Go faur, ON for-, OE f¯or, OFris OS OHG fora “before, in front of ”). If this is correct, the allophony of PGmc */u/ would regularly give us a surface *fora. This does not necessarily undermine Krause’s interpretation, but the form would be historically irregular (as are many attested forms in OHG and OS – see § 2.3.2.1). Arntz offers two alternative (and speculative) interpretations (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:318–319): 1. furad? represents a reflex of PGmc *fraÂaz (> OHG frad(i) “strong, vigorous”) or *fra¯ın (> OHG frad¯ı “vigour, strength”) with an anaptyctic vowel (and Spirantenschwächung – § 2.5.1.3; § 7.1.2.1). 2. furad might represent the beginning of the fuÂark in a scrambled form (compare 9. Beuchte fuÂar), with the substitution of d for  motivated by Spirantenschwächung. Quite apart from the question of whether or not this sound change has taken place, this interpretation requires us to accept a reordering of the fuÂark for which there is no corroborating evidence. 61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun?(…) [II] ltahu·gasokun? One of the few uncontested features of this inscription is that aï/llrun represents a dithematic FN in -r¯un < PGmc *r¯un¯o (see 23. Freilaubersheim). Here, as with Freilaubersheim runa, we can be reasonably confident that u represents a reflex of PGmc */¯u/.
132
The back vocalics
On the identity of the prototheme, opinion is for the most part divided between those who read aïl- M Ail- (§ 3.2.1) and those who read all- M All(§ 6.1). A third option is discussed by Marold (2004:220–223): Pieper’s examination of the item revealed traces of a u-rune, a mark apparently made at the planning or preparatory stage of the carving process (Pieper 1999:30–32). Pieper regards this mark as an error, while Nedoma (2004a:158) identifies it as an unintentional scratch. Marold, on the other hand, argues that since it was present at the planning stage, the designer of the inscription intended it to read allurun (Marold 2004:221). In this case, the prototheme of the name may be connected with the name-element *alu-, for which there are several possible interpretations: 1. a reflex of PGmc *alu “ale( ? ); protection( ? )” (see 33. Heide alu). 2. a variant of an underlying *alb- < PIE *albh- “white” (from which the “elf ”-word, ON alfr, OE lf, MLG alf, OHG alb, may also be derived (Kaufmann 1968:28–29; Orel 2003)). See further § 7.1.1.1. 3. a variant of PGmc *alis- “alder” (see 30. Hailfingen I in § 5.1), in a pattern comparable to Sigu- ~ Sigis < PGmc *segez/*segaz (s-stem) > OHG sigu (u-stem) “victory” (see 51. München-Aubing I in § 5.1) (Kaufmann 1968:29). The sequence ltahu/elahu is one of the most contentious aspects of the inscription, and the interpretation of the terminal -u remains uncertain. The following proposals appear in the literature: 1. elahu M elahu(n), acc.pl. to a weakly inflected *elaho = OHG elahho “elk, deer” (PGmc *elxaz/*elx¯on – see 89. Wremen); or possibly an oblique form of a related pers.n. (masc. Elahun / fem. Elah¯un) (Düwel 1993:10–11; 1994b:291; 1999b:47–49; Marold 2004:225–226; McKinnell et al. 2004:57). If we are dealing with an oblique n-stem, the u-rune represents the vowel of the inflectional suffix (acc.sg./pl. masc. /-un/ or acc./gen./dat.sg. fem. /-¯un/), with the final /-n/ unrepresented (compare 8. Balingen amilu). 2. elahu M elahu, inst.sg. to an underlying a-stem (PGmc *elxaz) with a sociative function “together with the deer (M Christ?)” (Grønvik 2003:181–182). u M /Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/ (see interpretation 3, below). 3. ltahu/elahu is a compound with the second element -ahu < PGmc *axw¯o (> Go aa, ON á “river”; OE e¯ a, OFris a¯ ~ e¯ , OS OHG aha “running water, stream”) (Nedoma 1999b:106–108; 2004a:161; 2004b:347; Schwab 1999b:64–68). Nedoma identifies the suffix /-u/ as formally inst.sg. (< PGmc */-¯o/ (Ringe 2007:269)) with a locative function; Schwab analyses it as dat.sg. (and syntactically the dat. object of gas¯okun), which amounts to the same thing: in the o¯ -declension of OHG and
Data
4.
5.
6.
7.
133
OS, the inst. case-ending (/-u/ < */-¯u/ < */-¯o/) was transferred to the dat., replacing the reflexes of PGmc */-¯oi/ and making the cases indistinguishable (Prokosch 1939:234–236). Nedoma’s interpretation of lt- and Schwab’s of el- will discussed in § 5.1; § 6.1. ahu M ahus, inst.sg. to a u-stem noun < PGmc *axuz : Lat. acumen “point; sharpness of understanding; trickery” (< PIE *ak-): ahu gas¯okun = “rejected/condemned with caution” (Seebold 1999:89).6 No such noun is attested anywhere in the Gmc languages. We do have reflexes of *ak- in, for example OE awel n. “awl” (< PGmc *axwalaz m.), but none – so far as I can tell – with a meaning analogous to Lat. acumen. “With caution” seems to be the most appropriate approach to Seebold’s analysis. aŋiltahu is a dat. FN Angil-tahu, with a deuterotheme < PGmc *tanxuz (> OE t¯oh, MLG ta ~ teie “tough”; OHG z¯ah “hard, firm”) (Wagner 1995:105; 1999a:93–95). The cross-hatched marks which Wagner treats as a triple bind-rune aŋi are generally regarded as decorative or other paratextual marks (see § 5.1). tahu is a deadjectival adverb “vigorously” < PGmc *tanxu- (see interpretation 5) (Looijenga 2003a:254–255), with the termination /-u/ a plausible precursor to the /-o/ which is normal for adverbs of this type in OHG (BR § 267). I see no formal reason to object to this, though Looijenga does not offer any justification for the semantic shift “toughly, firmly” M “vigorously”. hu·ga M huga, acc.sg. to PGmc *xugiz/*xuguz (> OHG hugu (u-stem); Go hugs, OIc hugr, OE hyge, OFris hei, OS hugi (i-stem) “mind, thought, sense, spirit”). No-one has seriously advanced this interpretation; it is briefly mentioned and rejected by Düwel (1999b:46).
There are no objections to the interpretation of gasokun as ga-s¯okun (: OHG *gi-suohun, OS *ga-s¯okun), a 3.pl.pret. form of a verb cognate with Go gasakan “to scold, rebuke”; OHG gi-sahhan “to condemn, quarrel( ? ); fight( ? )” < PGmc *ga-sakanan (class VI). The semantic and syntactic properties of this verb are much debated in the literature (see catalogue entry for references). The 3.pl.pret.ind. suffix /-un/ (< PGmc */-un/) is regularly spelled in OHG and OS. In OS it alternates with a (relatively uncommon) spelling (Gallée 1910 § 382; Holthausen 1921 § 415); in OHG, Notker has where other sources have (BR § 304, § 320). 6 Seebold reads the preceding signs lt, and treats them as Begriffsrunen *lagu- “water, sea, lake”; *t¯ıwa- “god”. These are supposed to stand for a compound *lagu-t¯ıwa“lake-god” (1999:89).
134
The back vocalics
62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa We have no interpretations of the initial part of complex I except for a tentative suggestion of Düwel’s (1999c:130), that it might be a palindromic *luaul representing alu (see 33. Heide). I know of no parallel palindromic representations of alu, though I suspect Düwel has in mind sueus (Kylver stone, KJ 1), the meaning of which is not clear (Krause 1966:14). One of the arrow-shafts from Nydam (KJ 19) has an inscription lua, which Krause (1966:51) unhesitatingly identifies as alu. As far as I am aware, no direct parallel for aul is attested. The sequence urait:runa is reliably interpretable as wrait r¯unł “wrote a rune/an inscription/runes” (see 23. Freilaubersheim; 54. Neudingen-Baar II). Apart from the word-divider, the forms here are identical to those of the Neudingen-Baar witness. 64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] (?)riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) In Steinhauser’s (1968a:5) interpretation, do? = doï M d¯oe¯ 3.sg.pres.opt. to PGmc *d¯onan (> OE d¯on, OFris dwa, OS d¯oan, OHG tuon “to do, make”). On the termination -ï, see § 3.2.2. As indicated in the earlier discussion, I do not believe this interpretation to be reliable. Steinhauser reads complex III w and interprets it as an abbreviated formula *w¯ıhi Áonar “Consecrate, Áonar” (1968a:8; 1968b:1). This is evidently taken to be parallel to 56. Nordendorf I wigi/uÂonar (see above). 65. †Rügen stone piece fgiu Arntz (1937:7–8) expands giu M gi(b)u 1.sg.pres.ind. “I give” (§ 3.1.1). In this interpretation (which I do not consider to be phonologically plausible – see entry on 27. Geltorf II in § 7.1.1.1), -u represents the inflectional suffix /-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/.
Data
135
66. Saint-Dizier sword pommel alu In spite of its unusual context (on a sword pommel of Continental (or Kentish?) manufacture; see § 4.2.1.2), I see no reason to distinguish this inscription from the numerous other witnesses to the “formulaic” sequence alu. (see 33. Heide; 38. Hüfingen I). Fischer (2007:107), following Elmevik (1999) favours the treatment of alu as a verb-form (see Heide entry). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd The treatment of alagu as a dithematic FN in -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/ *gunÂij¯o “battle” (see 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ), with an unrepresented nasal (§ 2.6.2) is uncontroversial. Likewise, there are no objections or alternatives in the literature to the interpretation of dedun as dÀdun 3.pl.pret. “made” (to a reflex of PGmc *d¯onan; for a list of reflexes, see 64. †Rubring), with u representing the vowel of the suffix, /u/ < PGmc */u/. On the preterite stem of the “do”-verb, see § 5.1. In complex II, there is general agreement that arogis is a MN equivalent to 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis. If this is correct, the alternation o ~ u for etymologically the same element in the same context requires further discussion (see § 4.2.5). 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo The interpretation of complex I as either a two-word phrase si(n) wag(j)a(n)dÃn, or a compound with very similar meanings, is generally accepted (Krause 1966:298; Looijenga 2003a:256; Nedoma 2004a:359, 411; Opitz 1987:39). On siÂ, see § 5.1. Wag(j)a(n)din is interpreted as some form or derivative of the present participle from PGmc *wagjanan (> Go wagjan “to shake”; OE wecgan “to wag, move, shake”; OS weggian, OHG weggen “to move”). Krause interprets the complex as a masc. dative of dedication, sin wagjandin = “to the one [masc.] undertaking the journey”7 (1966:298; also Koch 1977:164). Looijenga treats wagjandin as “a compound of a pres. part.:
7 “dem die Reise Betreibenden”
136
The back vocalics
‘travelling’, and the fem. ending -in < *-inj¯o” (2003a:256). She translates this compound as “female travelling companion”, possibly in the sense “spouse”. In another variation of the theme, Nedoma interprets complex I as si(n)Âwag(g)a(n)d¯ın “because of the undertaking of a journey”8 (2004a:359, 411). Here the element -waggand¯ın is a dat.sg.fem. (dat. of cause) deverbal ¯ın-stem noun (compare OHG dauff¯ın : Go daupeins “baptism”, from toufen : daupjan “to dip, immerse, baptise” (< PGmc *daupjanan)) (BR §§ 228–231). The underlying verb, argues Nedoma, is not a regular reflex of *wagjanan (we would expect a form retaining the semivowel /j/). This is a causative verb derived from *weganan (> Go ga-wigan “to move, shake”; ON vega “to move, carry, lift, weigh”; OE wegan “to move, bear, carry”; OFris wegan “to weigh, bring”; OHG wegan “to move, weigh”), and Nedoma suggests that the elision of /-j-/ in waggand¯ın is a result of analogy from the base form wegan. 69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r Among the diverse interpretations of the “rune-cross” is a suggestion that it should be read uaba, representing a weakly inflected pers.n. Wa(m)ba < PGmc *wamb¯o (> Go wamba, ON vomb, OE wamb, OFris MLG wamme, OHG wambo “belly, womb” M “mother”) (Nedoma 2004a:198). If this is correct, u represents a reflex of */w/ (compare 54. Neudingen-Baar II, 62. Pforzen II urait). 71. Sievern-A bracteate rwrilu This text is universally interpreted as PNorse r(¯un¯oz) wr¯ıtu “I write runes”: wr¯ıtu 1.sg.pres.ind. to *wr¯ıtan (< PGmc *wr¯ıtanan; see 23. Freilaubersheim), with the suffix /-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/. On the emendation of l M t, see § 7.1.2.1. The classification of the inscription as PNorse is typological: the bracteates in general are associated with Denmark; and this item is an A-type bracteate, believed to be relatively early (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,1:21–22; Munksgaard 1978:341). A hypothetical Continental imitation with a WGmc inscription would be more likely to belong to the more common B- or C-types. On purely linguistic grounds, there is nothing in the text which is distinctly non-WGmc; but it is only with caution that we can consider it admissible into the present study.
8 “Wegen der Reisebetreibung”
Data
137
72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid That alawin is a dithematic MN in -win < PGmc *weniz “friend” (see 56. Nordendorf I) is undisputed in the literature. The absence of an overt inflectional suffix for alawin and alawid is taken by Antonsen (1975:76) as evidence that the inscription is WGmc (although for the former we would expect an overt suffix /-i/ even in WGmc – OE OFris wine, OHG OS wini). It is elsewhere explained as a voc. form (Krause 1971:48–49; Stiles 1984:27–28) or perhaps an indication of late PNorse apocope (Syrett 1994:66–67). alawid appears to be another MN with a deuterotheme -w¯ıd, the etymology of which is unclear. Krause identifies it as a voc. form of PNorse *-w¯ıdaz (no etymology given, but presumably to PGmc *w¯ıdaz “wide”. On the zero suffix, see above) (Krause 1966:241; 1971:163; Stiles 1984:30), while Antonsen (1975:76–77) identifies it as a WGmc reflex of a PGmc *wediz > Go ga-wadj¯on “to pledge, betroth”; MHG wetten, OE weddian, OIc veðja “to pledge”. I find Antonsen’s proto-form slightly puzzling in this case: he treats */-e-/ as the root vowel in PGmc, and the Go reflex as a form with ablaut, rather than reconstructing a PGmc */-a-/ and deriving the MHG, OE and OIc cognates via i-umlaut, which seems to me a more straightforward way of accounting for the surface forms. Orel (2003) reconstructs for all of these verbs a proto-form *wadj¯ojanan, derived from the noun *wadjan n. (> Go wadi, ON veð, OE wedd, OFris wed, OS weddi, OHG wetti “pledge”). Aside from the lack of corroborating evidence for “primary” i-umlaut of /a/ in the runic inscriptions (§ 6.2), an umlaut-reflex of /a/ would give us an open or mid vowel which could plausibly be represented as e, but not i. According to Förstemann (1900:1562), the name-element wid- may have any one of several etyma, and it is often not possible to distinguish which underlies a particular case. These etyma are: (i) PGmc *wedanan (> Go gawidan, OHG wetan “to bind”); (ii) PGmc *widuz (> Go widus, OHG witu, OE wudu “wood”); (iii) PGmc *w¯ıdaz (> ON víðr, OE OFris OS w¯ıd, OHG w¯ıt “wide”); (iv) Winid-, Wind- (extension of *weni- “friend”, or connected to the ethnonym Wend < PGmc *wenedaz, and/or perhaps to the verb *wendanan (> Go us-windan “to plait”; ON vinda, OE OS windan, OFris winda, OHG wintan “to twist”)) (Förstemann 1900:1617; Kaufmann 1968:406–408). As another alternative, I would suggest that jalawi might be simply a fourth, abbreviated, repetition of auja Alawin, with the final symbol a paratextual marker, rather than a d-rune. It would make little sense to have a special sym-
138
The back vocalics
bol to mark the beginning and end of an inscription which consists simply of two words repeated; on the other hand, I note that the d is situated directly below the hanger of the bracteate and directly above the head of the figure depicted on it. All of this is circumstantial and speculative, but given the repetitive nature of the text and the suspicious similarity between the two names, it is a possibility worth taking into consideration. For the more widely accepted interpretations of j, see § 5.1. 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu The consensus in the literature is that complex II contains an abbreviated form of the “formula-word” laÂu (< PGmc *la¯o > Go laÂons, ON loð, OE laÂu, MHG lat “invitation”) (Antonsen 1975:61; Krause 1966:253). If this is correct, -u represents the nom.sg. inflectional suffix < PGmc */-¯o/. As has been mentioned in earlier discussion (§ 3.1.1), the majority view is that this inscription is PNorse; there is, however, nothing in the content which excludes the possibility that a Continental dialect is present: PGmc *la¯o would regularly produce OHG *lada, OS *latha. 75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) That the legible part of the inscription consists of a dithematic MN HŒsibald or HŒsiwald is widely accepted, though it is not well supported (see below). The sequence husi may represent a name-element either derived from PGmc *x¯usan (> Go hus, ON hús, OE OFris OS OHG h¯us “house”); or cognate with OE hyse “young man, warrior” (the etymology of which is not clear – it has no known cognates in any of the other Gmc languages). Nedoma (2004a:336) favours the latter (for which he posits a proto-form *xusiz) because the presence of a compositional vowel /-i-/ indicates that the preceding stem is short; if it were long, the expected form would be *H¯us-Ø-b/wald (Nedoma 2004a:336; compare Nedoma’s comments on 47. Lauchheim I). Bammesberger (1969:8–9) also raises the objection that the “house”-word is an a-stem, and a compound of this element with a compositional vowel /-i-/ would be unlikely. If the first element is a reflex of *xusiz, the further etymology of this proto-form is not clear. Bammesberger (1969:9) suggests a connection with OHG hosa f. “trousers” (< PGmc *xus¯on), though he does not seem convinced. Noting that OE hyse declines like an a-stem rather than an i-stem, and that its oblique forms have a geminate /-ss-/ (gen.sg. hysses, dat.sg. hysse,
Data
139
nom.pl. hyssas are attested), Bammesberger prefers to interpret it as a ja-stem (PGmc *xusjaz). He does, however, acknowledge that in this case the nom.sg. hyse (vs. regular *hyss) would be problematic (1969:10). I would add that the paradigm of the masc. i-stems is strongly influenced by that of the a-stems (compare OE giest, gen.sg. giestes, nom./acc.pl. giestas ~ gieste (Campbell 1959 § 600)). The alternation between short /-s-/ in the nom.sg. and geminate /-ss-/ in the oblique forms remains a problem whether we assign the word to the i- or the ja-declension. The OE material is quite consistent: a search of the DOE corpus produces only one instance of nom.pl. hysas (Maldon 123), and none of a nom.sg. *hyss(e). Looijenga, reading huisi, suggests a link with OHG (Bav.) Huosi, the name of a noble family mentioned in the Lex Baiuvariorum. She does not explain how ui relates to the OHG diphthong /uo/ < /¯o/. In the OHG sources, diphthongal reflexes of */¯o/ appear as , but not *. The second part of the sequence is variously read as -bald or -wald, though neither reading is reliable (see catalogue). It is true that both -bald (PGmc *balÂaz/*baldaz > Go balÂaba adv. “boldly, openly”; ON ballr “hard, stubborn”; OE beald, OS OHG bald “bold, brave”) and -wald (PGmc *waldanan > Go waldan, ON valda, OE wealdan, OFris walda, OS waldan, OHG waltan “to rule, govern, control, wield”) are common name-elements, but given the doubtfulness of the reading and the presence of further (illegible) material after d, I cannot support the assumption that one or the other is present here. 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f The reading of this tiny inscription, if it is an intentional inscription at all rather than just a collection of incidental scratches (see catalogue), remains uncertain. Pieper (1990a:7; 1993:81–82; Weis et al. 1991:313) interprets amelkud as a FN Amelku(n)d (compare OHG Amalgundis, Amalgunda, Amalgudis (Förstemann 1900:93; Nedoma 2006a:137)), with a deuterotheme -ku(n)d < gun < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o (see 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ). This interpretation invokes two sound changes in the consonant system: /g/ > /k/ via Second Consonant Shift (§ 7.1.3.1); and despirantisation of /θ/ > /d/ (§ 7.1.2.1). On the prototheme Amel-/Amal-, see § 5.1.
140
The back vocalics
78. †Trier serpentine object [I] wilsa [II] wairwai This item is regarded as a forgery by the runological community, with the exception of Schneider (1980) (see Appendix 2). While I wholeheartedly reject Schneider’s interpretation (§ 3.2.1), we may nevertheless be able to salvage some linguistic sense from the text as he reads it. Schneider identifies complex I as a 2.sg.imp. form of a denominal verb (OHG?) *willis¯on (structurally parallel to OHG lustis¯on “to desire, enjoy”, grimmis¯on “to rage” – see further § 7.1.2.1), for which he proposes a meaning “to want with great intensity, to desire greatly, to long for” (1980:197).9 This form has two unusual features: firstly, Schneider explains the terminal -a (where we would expect -o for 2.sg.imp. *williso) by suggesting that the carver analysed it as an open o ([ɔ, ɒ]?) which would be confusible with a back a˛ ([ɑ]) and might therefore be transliterated -a. Whether this ad hoc explanation is correct or not, it is true that unstressed /o/ can appear as in both OHG and OS (with respect to the class 2 weak verbs, see BR § 312; Gallée 1910 § 379 Anm. 9; Holthausen 1921 §§ 463–464. I am not, though, aware of any 2.sg.imp. forms in ). There is no supporting evidence for this conjecture (§ 4.2.3.2). Secondly, Schneider explains the syncope of /-i-/ as a natural process in rapid speech. Again, this is not unreasonable in itself: *williso does not fit any of the conditions for the syncope of medial vowels in OHG (BR §§ 62–68), but deletion of an unstressed medial vowel following a long stem-syllable appears to be more widespread in OS (Gallée 1910 § 138; Holthausen 1921 § 137). Schneider does not, however, offer any linguistic evidence to support his hypothesis; he simply alludes in vague and general fashion to the “naturalness” of syncope. An alternative, and more straightforward, interpretation might be derivable from a slightly different reading. The symbol which Schneider transliterates s is an unusual form N, which he sees as an asymmetrical variant of 2 (a form of s common in Scandinavian inscriptions, although – according to Parsons (1999:31) – the vertical version is a relatively late variant. The only known witness to this form of s on the Continent is 62. Pforzen II). On the other hand, this sign is also similar to a known variant of j (e.g., in the fuÂark on 15. Charnay) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:182; Arntz 1944:68). The Charnay j is symmetrical, and formally a mirror-image of 2; if the Trier rune is j, it is still 9 My translation is not exact – Schneider’s German reads “wiederholt intensiv wollen, heftig verlangen, begehren”.
Data
141
a peculiar form. Nevertheless, I maintain that this reading is no less plausible than Schneider’s. If a reading wilja is allowable, this could represent a weakly inflected FN Wil(l)ja, which appears quite frequently as OHG Wilia, Wila, Willa (Förstemann 1900:1592). Förstemann connects this and similar pers.ns. with Go wilja m.“will, desire” (: ON vili, OE OFris willa, OS willio, OHG willo < PGmc *welj¯on). Schneider divides complex II into two words, wair wai, which are discussed in § 3.2.1. In both of them, w is taken to be a reflex of PGmc */w/. 79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· Complex II is normally interpreted as a pers.n. HÃba, possibly an abbreviated form of a dithematic name (§ 5.1). Looijenga (2003a:261) suggests that we might be dealing with a reflex of PGmc *x¯ıwan “spouse” (see 88. Wijnaldum B in § 3.1.1), but this is not plausible. Looijenga appears to be following Schwerdt’s (incorrect) identification of a Verner’s Law alternation between /b/ and /w/ (see 27. Geltorf II and 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I in § 7.1.1.1) (Looijenga 2003a:269; Schwerdt 2000:213). 80. Weimar II fibula [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: Complex II is interpreted throughout the literature as a weakly inflected MN equivalent to OHG Bubo, Pupo. Förstemann (1900:318; also Kaufmann 1968:64) identifies this with OHG B¯obo ~ Buobo, a name-element attested in two other inscriptions (7. Bad Krozingen A boba f.; 13. Borgharen bobo). Förstemann’s account is widely accepted (e.g., by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:369; Krause 1966:289). Nedoma, however, argues that u here cannot plausibly represent /¯o/, or any stage in the diphthongisation process /¯o/ > OHG /uo/ (§ 2.3.2.3). Instead, he suggests that BŒbo is a lall-name, either abbreviated from a name with a stem in BŒ°, or perhaps an imitative or meaningless sequence of sound (Nedoma 2004a:259–260). 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: In complex I, hahwar is interpreted uncontroversially as a dithematic MN. The identity of the prototheme is uncertain (see § 3.3.2; § 6.1). The deutero-
142
The back vocalics
theme is thought to be associated with PGmc *waraz (> Go wars, ON varr, OE wr, OS war, OHG gi-war “wary, aware, careful”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:373; Krause 1966:289; Looijenga 2003a:261). Nedoma, however, notes (2004a:317–321) that for names in -war, it is difficult to distinguish between a short stem < *waraz and a long stem < PGmc *w¯eraz (> Burg. *wers, OFris w¯er, OS OHG w¯ar “true”) (see also Förstemann 1900:1531–1537). In either case, w represents a reflex of PGmc */w/. All commentators interpret awimund as another dithematic MN, with a prototheme Awi- < PGmc *aujan “luck( ? )” (§ 3.3.1), and a deuterotheme -mund < PGmc *mund¯o (see 3. Arlon rasuwamud). Complex III is believed to contain an oblique form of the FN Ida (see § 5.1). Formally speaking, Id¯un could have any oblique case; in the context of what has gone before, it is usually interpreted as dative, although Arntz offers a genitive interpretation (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:375). For further discussion, see Findell (2010:9–11). 82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w Several interpretations of the sequence Â/wiuÂ/w are available (§ 3.1.1). Judging from the available photographs, I consider wiu to be the most likely transliteration. Arntz’ interpretation (as a 3.du. verb-form w¯ıhju “they (two) consecrate”) cannot be correct, however: the dual is not preserved in the verbal systems of any Gmc language other than Gothic, and here only for 1st and 2nd person (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8; Prokosch 1939:210–212; Wright 1954 § 284). There are, as far as I am aware, no parallels in the runic corpus either on the Continent or elsewhere. There is, moreover, no evidence for the preservation of the 3.du. in PGmc (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8; Ringe 2006:171). Looijenga’s interpretation, Âiuw M Âiuw “servant”, is plausible; however, the text as a whole is too poorly preserved for a complete interpretation to be possible. If Looijenga is correct, then iu here represents a diphthong /iu/ arising from contraction of *Âeww- < *Âegw- (§ 7.1.3.1), while w represents a simple reflex of PGmc */w/.
Data
143
83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la Complex I is interpreted throughout the literature (with one exception – see below) as a dithematic nom. FN with the second element -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (see 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ). On the prototheme, see § 3.2.1; § 5.1. Jänichen (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:127) sees a direct parallel between alirgu (as he reads it) and 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ. He interprets the second element of the name not as -gu(n) but as “god”, by reference to Go guÂ, which is a reflex of PGmc *gudz/*gudaz (> OE OFris OS god, OHG got). Unless the inscription is EGmc, this is implausible: the final /-θ/ of gu results from a devoicing process peculiar to Gothic (Wright 1954 § 172) and dependent on the preservation of a fricative reflex of PGmc */d/. In all of the WGmc dialects, this phoneme consistently develops into a plosive /d/, and there is no evidence in the runic corpus to support the notion that the inscriptions predate this development. Jänichen’s claim that “magical formulae, once they have been fixed in writing, could remain preserved in an unchanged form for centuries”10 (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:127) is therefore irrelevant, since gu is not a possible archaism. writ? … i/la in complex II appears to contain the present stem of the verb “to write/carve” (< PGmc *wr¯ıtanan; see 23. Freilaubersheim; 71. Sievern). Unfortunately, the following runes which would give us the inflectional ending are not clear. Opitz (1987:200) reads writxla, which Schwab (1998a:418; 1999a:14) and Beck (2001:315–316) interpret as wr¯ıt(u) al(u) “I write/carve alu (protection)” (see 33. Heide). Bammesberger (2002:120) proposes a similar reading writ[i]la representing a fem. nomen agentis “(female) carver”; compare Nedoma’s interpretations of 14. Bülach fridil and 61. Pforzen I aigil (both masc.), in § 5.1. I note that OHG r¯ızil m. “circle” appears to have a similar structure (but a very different sense development). Nedoma (2004a:177) speculates that the correct reading might be writi[d] M wr¯ıtid 3.sg.pres. “carves” (OS r¯ıtid, OHG r¯ızit < PGmc *wr¯ıtidi (Ringe 2006:237)/*wr¯ıte (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8)). A further possibility mentioned by Nedoma (ibid.) is that the rune transliterated as i/l might actually be r, in which case we should perhaps read ra M r(¯un)¯a acc.pl. “runes” (compare 71. Sievern rwrilu). The formula “NN
10 “magische Formeln, wenn sie einmal schriftlich fixiert waren, jahrhundertelang unverändert erhalten bleiben konnten”
144
The back vocalics
carved runes”, with a pret. form of the verb, is attested several times (Freilaubersheim, Neudingen-Baar II, Pforzen II, as mentioned above). Nedoma freely admits that this is pure speculation. 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal The sequence kunni at the beginning of complex II is accepted throughout the literature (leaving aside Schneider’s interpretation as a reference to the genitals of a sacrificial bull (Schneider 1969)) as nom./acc.sg. kunni < PGmc *kunjan n. (> Go kuni “clan, tribe, race, generation”; ON kyn, OE cyn(n), OFris kinn ~ kenn, OS OHG kunni “kin, kind”). This is a common nameelement (Förstemann 1900:378–383). The penultimate sign in this complex, which most sources (Antonsen 2002:318; Looijenga 2003a:267; Opitz 1987:55; Pieper 1987; 1989 passim; 1991; Seebold 1991:501) transliterate as w, resembles a Roman Y. Nedoma (2004a:326) states categorically that the sign cannot be either w or, as was suggested in some of the early literature, k. There are no known parallels: similar forms appear on the Denmark VII-C bracteate (IK 197), but these cannot be transliterated satisfactorily (Nowak 2003:558). The possibility that it is a z-rune cannot be ruled out on formal grounds – Pieper (1989:79) notes that there are indications of a full stave in the “pre-carving” stage of production, though not in the final carving – but a z reading would make no linguistic sense. If this sign is to be transliterated w, it is subject to several interpretations: (i) part of a pers.n. or theonym Ingwe (in gen. case?) (Pieper 1987:238; 1989:156–158; 1991:356–357); (ii) the interjection w¯e “woe” or the related noun (Holthausen 1931:304; Pieper 1987:235–236) (see § 3.2.2); (iii) an enclitic particle “and” < PGmc *xwe (Orel gives the proto-form *uxwe > Go -uh : Lat. -que) (Seebold 1991:502). 86. †Weser II bone lokom : her Pieper (1987:236; 1989:182) follows the interpretation proposed by earlier commentators (inter alios, Holthausen 1931:305), and treats lokom as l¯okÕm, 1.sg.pres.ind. or 1.pl.pres.ind./opt. to a verb “look” (PGmc *l¯ok¯ojanan > OE l¯ocian, OS l¯okon “to look”). The interpretation of this form as 1.pl.pres.opt. might be vulnerable to the same objection as in the case of 85. Weser I latam (§ 3.2.2); on the other hand, the later Continental sources
Data
145
have in the second class of weak verbs a variant suffix OHG /-¯om/, OS /-on/, alongside the more regular OHG /-¯oe¯ m/, OS /-oian/ (< PGmc */-¯o-aima/) (BR § 304; Gallée 1910 §§ 375–376; Holthausen 1921 §§ 463–464). Another possibility (Ellmers 1994:127–128) is that the verb underlying lokom is PGmc *lukk¯ojanan (> ON lokka OHG lock¯on “to entice”; OE geloccian “to stroke gently”). Nedoma (2004a:326) argues against this: given that a geminate consonant is represented by a double rune in kunni, we would expect *lokk- here. I am not sure that we can rely on the carver to be so consistent; Nedoma’s criticism is valid, but not compelling. 87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede Pieper (1987:240; 1989:182–183) regards ulu:hari as a dithematic MN Uluhari. A sequence hariuha on the Sjlland II bracteate (IK 98; KJ 127) may represent a MN Hari¯uha with the same elements in reverse order. Pieper suggests that Ulu- might be connected with OHG u¯ la ~ u¯ wila “owl” (PGmc *uwwal¯on f. > ON úgla, OE u¯ le, OHG u¯ wila), referring to the similar interpretation of Sjlland hariuha. Müller (1970:74–75), cited by Pieper (1987:240) in support of this interpretation, does not in fact regard it as credible. Nedoma, too, objects on the grounds that Uluhari is phonologically irregular: PGmc *uwwala-xarja- would regularly produce pre-OS *U¯walahari. Even if the contraction *uwwala- > *¯uwala- >*¯ula- is acceptable in a 5th century text (which Nedoma does not believe to be the case), the compositional vowel would be /-a-/, not /-u-/ (Nedoma 2004a:329). He speculates (tentatively) that ulu: could be the end of a word, the earlier part having been obscured by wear; and that hari M hari “army” (§ 5.1). As another possibility, Pieper (1989:182) proposes a connection between Ulu- and the theonym ON Ullr < PGmc *wulÂuz (> Go wulÂus “splendour”; possibly also OE wuldor “glory” (de Vries 1961; Holthausen 1931:305) – Orel (2003) does not accept the connection). This again is phonologically problematic: ON Ullr has undergone deletion of initial /w-/ before a rounded vowel, and assimilation in the consonant cluster /-lÂ-/, both of which are distinctively ON developments (Noreen 1923 § 275; Prokosch 1939:89, 91). A regular OS reflex of *wulÂuz would be *wulÂ-Ø (: OHG *wuld-Ø), and the Weser text ought therefore to be *wulÂ:hari (or *wulÂu:hari, if the thematic vowel is preserved after a long stem at this early date). Pieper comments that the name-form *Inghari has attested parallels with an overt compositional vowel, e.g., Inguheri (1989:183). This argument
146
The back vocalics
seems to me to rely on circular reasoning through its reference to 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari, and is only plausible if the â-like mark is a ŋ-rune (see § 5.1). 88. Wijnaldum B pendant hiwi Düwel interprets hiwi as a FN H¯ıwi (§ 3.1.1). If this is correct, w represents a reflex of PGmc */w/. On the interpretation of the terminal -i, see § 3.2.2. 89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi Most commentators transcribe lgu as (a)lgu < PGmc *algiz/*elxaz/*elx¯on (> ON elgr, OE eolh, OHG elah(h)o “elk”). Düwel proposes a meaning “deer” rather than “elk”, in order to link the inscription to the hunting scene depicted on the stool (Düwel 1994d:15. See also Looijenga 2003a:240–241; Marold in Schön et al. 2006:324–325). If this is correct, the presence of a compositional -u- demands explanation. All of the attested WGmc forms belong to the a- or n-declensions, and the ON form to the i-declension. Marold offers several possible solutions (while acknowledging that none of them is satisfactory): -u- could represent (i) a nom.sg.masc. n-stem suffix /-u/( ? ) (compare OHG OS /-o/); (ii) an irregular variant perhaps motivated by the process of compounding (if the whole complex is a compound alguskaÂi); or (iii) a secondary epenthetic glide (presumably added to a base *alg-Ø-) (Schön et al. 2006:325–326). Nedoma suggests that -u- represents a reflex of thematic */-i-/ which has undergone reduction in unstressed position to a close-mid central vowel [ə] (Nedoma transcribes this Ú) (Theune-Großkopf and Nedoma 2006:57–58). Several pers.ns. or nouns with an anomalous medial or final u appear in Frisian runic inscriptions, e.g., adujislu, jisuhidu (Westeremden weaving-slay, AZ 37; L IX.12). It has been proposed that these runes represent a “murmur”-vowel (Murmelvokal), a phonetically reduced reflex of thematic */-a-/ (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:363–368; Insley in Blackburn 1991:172–174; Nielsen 1991a:300–302). Nedoma argues that these and Wremen lguare conservative forms preserved in a period when compositional vowels are regularly deleted after long syllables – compare, e.g., 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild M *Âur¯uÂ-Ø- < *Âr¯uÂ-i-. Marold (Schön et al. 2006:326) makes a similar suggestion; for further comments, see § 5.2.1.2. Another possibility is that lgu might represent a reflex of PGmc *laguz (> ON logr “sea, lake”; OE lagu “sea, water”; OS lagu-str¯om “sea current” (: Lat
Data
147
lacus, OIr loch “lake”)). This is mentioned by Looijenga (2003a:240), but she does not explore it further. If it is correct, u represents the thematic vowel, regularly preserved after a short stem-syllable. On the other hand, the possible meanings of a compound “lake-harmer”, “lake-harming”, or an imperative “harm the lake”, are obscure. Lagu- could be a name-element (compare Illerup shield-grip III (L V.3) laguÂewa), although in this case it is probably connected with ON log (neut.pl.) “law” (< PGmc *lagan) (Förstemann 1900:995; see also Pons Sanz 2007:50, 69). Of the various Lag- names listed by Förstemann, none has a compositional vowel /-u-/. 90. Wurmlingen spearhead ?:dorih dorih is generally interpreted as a dithematic MN D¯orr¯ıh, with a deuterotheme -r¯ıh < -r¯ık via Second Consonant Shift (or possibly “pseudo-Consonant Shift” – see § 7.1.3.2.1). On the etymology of -r¯ık, see 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike in § 5.1. A name-element Dor- ~ Tor- is well attested in OHG sources, but its etymology remains uncertain (Düwel 1981b:157–158 n.214). It cannot be cognate with the ON theonym Áórr, as this is a product of a nasal assimilation which does not occur in the WGmc dialects (PGmc *Âunraz > ON Áórr : OHG Donar, OE Áunor). The element Dor- is discussed further in § 7.1.2.1. Nedoma infers from the absence of a compositional vowel that the element must have a long stem, i.e., D¯or-Ø-r¯ıh. As parallels he cites OHG Toro, Dorolf, OS Torolf; but no forms with OHG diphthongal /-uo-/, an observation which would appear to indicate a short vowel. Looking further afield, Nedoma suggests a parallel in ON Dóri (Voluspá 15), which is probably related to Ic dór “gimlet; aglet”; Norw dor “short steel bolt, sinker” (de Vries 1961). Nedoma notes that a modG noun in the same semantic field, Stift m. “pin, peg, pen”, has in colloquial usage a transferred meaning “small boy” (Nedoma 2004a:283–284). According to Kluge (2002), this usage is not attested before the 17th century. Steinhauser (1968b:18–19) sees in dorih a phrase d¯o r¯ıh “make rich/powerful”; d¯o is 2.sg.imp. < PGmc *d¯o (> OHG tuo), to *d¯onan (see 64. †Rubring do?); see further § 7.1.2.1. For our present purposes, none of the proposed interpretations is entirely satisfactory. If dorih is a pers.n., the later forms in Dor- ~ Tor- suggest an underlying */dur-/ or */d¯or-/. If the stem-vowel is short, then we have an anomaly in the absence of a compositional vowel; but if it is long, then the element appears to be distinct from Dor-, which does not produce diphthon-
148
The back vocalics
gised forms *Duor- ~ *Tuor-. These uncertainties lead me to wonder whether the interpretation of rih as -r¯ıh < -r¯ık can be considered reliable (see § 5.1).
4.2 Summary 4.2.1 Reflexes of */u/ 4.2.1.1 Stressed/stem syllables Several of the pers.ns. in the corpus contain elements for which we have plausible etymologies both with long and with short back stem-vowels: 3. Arlon godun (PGmc *gud(a)- / *g¯oda-); 9. Beuchte buirso (PGmc *b¯ura- / *buri-); 10. Bezenye I goda- (PGmc *gud(a)- / *g¯oda-); 60. Osthofen go? (if read as god) (PGmc *gud(a)- / *g¯oda-); 75. Steindorf husi- (PGmc *x¯usa- / *xusi-/ *xusja-); 80. Weimar II bubo (PGmc *b¯ob¯on (§ 4.2.3.1) / lall-name *bŒ-); 90. Wurmlingen dorih (etymologies uncertain – see entry in § 4.1). There are 9 cases where we can be reasonably sure that we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc short */u/: Item
Sequence
PGmc etymon (Orel 2003)
Regular (expected) allophone
Transliteration
3. Arlon
rasuwamud
*munduz( ? )
[u]
u
11. Bezenye II
arsiboda
*bud¯on
[o]
o
54. Neudingen-Baar II
bliÂguÂ
*gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o
[u]
u
56. Nordendorf I
wigi/
*Âunraz
[o]
o
58. Oberflacht
dulÂ
*dulÂiz
[u]
u
67. Schretzheim I
alaguÂ
*gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o
[u]
u
81. Weimar III
awimund
*mund¯o
[u]
u
83. Weingarten I
aerguÂ
*gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o
[u]
u
kunni
*kunjan
[u]
u
85.
†Weser
I
uÂonar
None of these forms is unexpected, and all of them conform with the reflexes in OHG and OS (munt, mund; boto, bodo; gund-, g¯uth-; donar, thunar; tuld ~ tult ~ dult (unattested in OS); kunni, kunni). Given the limited amount of data and the tendency for OHG and OS to preserve the inherited forms /u o/ after phonologisation (§ 2.3.2.1), we should not infer that the reflexes of PGmc *[u o] are still allophones rather than fully developed phonemes.
Summary
149
Arlon godun (perhaps also ( ? )ulo) and Weimar II bubo might be counterexamples, if their stem-vowels are short (regular forms would be *gudun, *bobo). If godun represents an oblique G˘od¯un, the appearance of o might be a result of analogy from the nom. G˘oda (compare OHG OS inst.sg. goldu (≠ *guldu) : nom. gold). We cannot account for bubo in the same way: it might simply be an erroneous form of an underlying B˘obo. Several more sequences which may contain reflexes of */u/ (although their interpretation is less reliable than those listed above) are: Bad Ems ubada M u(m)b(i/a)-; Bezenye I unja M (w)un(n)ja; Eichstetten muni; Griesheim kolo M Kolo. All of these show the expected forms. One further phenomenon to consider is the interpretation of ui in Beuchte buirso as an i-umlaut reflex of */u/ or */¯u/. While I am inclined to be more cautious than Nedoma about rejecting it, I would like to raise two points against the umlaut interpretation: firstly, the digraph ui is unique in the corpus. Syrett cites “sparse but clear evidence … for the use of digraphs of this nature to represent vowels to whose value no rune corresponded” (1994:183); but none of the examples he adduces involves an umlaut allophone of /u/ or /¯u/.11 Secondly, reflexes of */u/ and */¯u/ followed by a potentially umlaut-triggering /i ¯ı j/ are invariably represented as u elsewhere in the corpus: 10. Bezenye I unja; 19. Eichstetten muni; 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; 29. Griesheim agilaÂru (M -Âr¯uÂ-Ø < *-Âr¯uÂiz/*-Âr¯uÂi j¯o); 75. Steindorf husi?ald; 85. †Weser I kunni.
4.2.1.2 Unstressed syllables One significant group within this category consists of the alu-inscriptions (33. Heide; (possibly) 36. Hohenstadt; 38. Hüfingen I; 66. Saint-Dizier).12 The “formula-word” alu presents us with a problem: its frequency in Scandinavian inscriptions suggests northern cultural influence. One of the examples
11 Syrett’s own discussion of these examples – primarily of the 3.sg.pret.ind. suffix attested on the Nøvling fibula (KJ 13a) talgidai in comparison to talgida on the Udby fibula (Stoklund 1990; 1991) – indicates that the evidence is not quite as clear as he would have us believe (Syrett 1994:246–255). 12 I have omitted 61. Pforzen I from this commentary. If we accept the reading allu(which is contentious), then we are dealing with an element in a dithematic pers.n., not with the “formula-word” alu.
150
The back vocalics
in our study area is an import from Scandinavia (Heide), and another is probably inspired by the Scandinavian tradition (Hüfingen). There are no such obvious connections in respect of the other two items. The Saint-Dizier sword pommel belongs to the “Bifrons-Gilton” type; there is some disagreement about whether this type originates in Kent or Gaul, but it it is certainly not Scandinavian (Fischer 2007:15–21; Fischer and Soulat 2009:75; Hawkes and Page 1967:19). This need not imply that the inscription belongs to the Continental rather than the Scandinavian tradition, but the object at least is not an import. The same applies to the Hohenstadt fibula – there are no indications that it is an import or an imitation of a Scandinavian style (Veeck 1931:35). From a linguistic point of view, if alu is the “ale”-word, then an OHG/OS cognate of PNorse alu, OE ealu ought regularly to have the shape *alu. OS alu-/alo- and OHG elo- are attested in compounds, e.g., OS alo-fat, OHG elofaz “ale-vat” (Köbler 1993; 2000). Aside from the alu-inscriptions, in only two cases can we be confident that we are dealing with a reflex of unstressed */u/: Pforzen I gasokun and Schretzheim I dedun. Both of these involve the 3.pl.pret. verbal suffix < PGmc */-un/. Neither example is without its difficulties: while there is general agreement about the identity and morphology of the verb represented by gasokun, its syntactic properties and its meaning in the Pforzen inscription are disputed. If the accepted interpretation of Schretzheim dedun as dedun (: OS dedun, vs. OHG t¯atun < *d¯edun) is correct, then the irregular stemvowel requires some explanation (see § 5.2.2.2). Three inscriptions may contain short back vowels as compositional elements: Lauchheim I aonofada; Nordendorf I wigi/uÂonar; Wremen lguskaÂi. Nordendorf -u- is an uncertain reading (the alternative i being more widely accepted), with several possible interpretations; and Lauchheim -o- can be interpreted as a weak inflectional suffix. Wremen -u- has several competing interpretations (§ 5.2.1.2), but it may plausibly represent the thematic vowel of an underlying u-stem.
4.2.2 Anaptyctic vowels We have 5 plausible examples of an anaptyctic back vowel: 3. Arlon rasuwamud; 11. Bezenye II segun; 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; 54. NeudingenBaar II imuba; and 56. Nordendorf I logaÂore (if we accept the derivation from a proto-form *luga-Âra-). 4 of them appear as u (the exception being logaÂore). logaÂore involves a context appropriate for anaptyxis 1 (CR >
Summary
151
CVR, the common WGmc type). ÂuruÂhild involves the same segmental environment, /θ_r/, but it is in an initial syllable, while all the examples cited for the WGmc anaptyxis are in second or subsequent syllables (§ 2.3.5). Anaptyxis in reflexes of PGmc initial */θr-/ is not normal in OHG (compare, e.g., drud- “strength” (cognate with ÂuruÂ-); dr¯ı “three”; drucken “to press”; dr¯uh “fetter”). Arlon rasuwamud is the only case which meets the criteria for type 2 (/-sw-/), while imuba does not conform to any of the contexts for anaptyxis described in § 2.3.5; no parallels for anaptyxis in the context /mb/ (or /mp/) are recorded by Reutercrona (1920). Nedoma’s attempt to explain the anaptyctic vowel of imuba by suggesting that /m/ is realised as labiodental [ ] is unconvincing (§ 7.2.2.1). We might find an alternative solution, if we treat the name as an abbreviation of a dithematic name with a prototheme < PGmc *ermenaz/*ermunaz “great, tall( ? )” > OS OHG irmin-, and a deuterotheme in */b-/ (§ 5.1). Names with the Irminstem are known to develop short forms in Imm-/Emm-, with assimilation of */irm-/ > */im:-/ and syncopation of */-in-/: Irm-in-a > Imm-Ø-a. Perhaps – and I offer this only as conjecture – the -u- of imuba represents a reduced form of the underlying */-in-/ > *[-ə-]; this Murmelvokal explanation is similar to Nedoma’s own account of the -u- in 89. Wremen lguskaÂi. segun is a special case, since it represents a Latin loanword. The epenthetic vowel here does not harmonise with the stem-vowel. However, OHG segan does appear to show anaptyxis of type 1 (CR > CVR), and has parallels with Gmc etyma (e.g., degan “warrior” < PGmc Âegnaz; regan “rain” < *regnan/*regnaz); so we are probably safe in assuming that this interpretation of segun is correct (at least in respect of the phonology).
4.2.3 Reflexes of */¯o/ 4.2.3.1 Stressed syllables The first observation we can make about reflexes of PGmc */¯o/ is that the corpus contains no digraphs which might indicate incipient diphthongisation. It is conceivable that the lowering of the second mora ([¯o] > [oɔ] > [oɑ]) is underway (see § 2.3.2.3), but that carvers did not feel that the phonetic difference was sufficient to require orthographic representation as anything other than a single o. Our reliable examples for this phoneme are 1. Aalen noru; 7. Bad Krozingen A boba; 15. Borgharen bobo; 23. Freilaubersheim boso; 56. Nordendorf I wodan (and its parallel, 42. †Kärlich wodani, if genuine); 61. Pforzen I
152
The back vocalics
gasokun (notwithstanding the semantic difficulties it presents); 86. †Weser II lokom. To this list we may cautiously add Freilaubersheim golida, although its interpretation is by no means certain. The pers.ns. N¯oru, B¯oba / B¯obo, and B¯oso are considered reliable because they have OHG parallels with a diphthong /-uo-/. If, in spite of Nedoma’s reservations, Weimar II bubo does represent the same name as bobo, then it would be unique in representing a reflex of PGmc stressed */¯o/ as u. This could be an idiosyncratic or erroneous spelling, but its explanation as a representation of /Œ/ looks more promising in the light of its uniqueness.
4.2.3.2 Unstressed syllables The corpus contains a number of sequences with terminal -u interpreted as one or another of several inflectional suffixes /-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/. Some of these are believed to be nom.sg. or dat.sg. o¯ -stem nouns or pers.ns. (1. Aalen noru; 8. Balingen amilu; 21. Erpfting gabu; possibly 53. Neudingen-Baar I udim, midu; possibly 73. Skonager III lÊu). These are dealt with in the discussion of the o¯ -stems in § 4.4.1. A gen.sg. o¯ -stem suffix (/-ł/ < PGmc */-¯oz/) may be present in 11. Bezenye II arsiboda, if Nedoma’s interpretation is correct. The 1.sg.pres.ind. strong verbal suffix < */-¯o/ may be present in 71. Sievern wrilu and in the alu-inscriptions (§ 4.2.1.2). Another possible case is 65. †Rügen giu, if the inscription is genuine, and if Arntz’ interpretation is valid (which I do not believe to be the case). Given that this suffix appears as /-u/ in both OHG and OS, a spelling -u in the runic inscriptions is unsurprising. Unfortunately, though, we cannot be certain that any of our witnesses is WGmc: the Sievern bracteate is probably an import from Scandinavia, and the alu-inscriptions are likely to be either imports or imitations of Scandinavian models. If we are dealing with a 1.sg.pres.ind. verbal suffix, it is likely that these data are witnesses to PNorse /-u/ < */-¯o/ (§ 2.3.2.3; Krause 1971:88; Syrett 1994:237–238). The medial u of 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis and 89. Wremen lguskaÂi, and the o of 67. Schretzheim I arogis, might represent the stem-formant of a weak masc. (< PGmc */-an-/ or */-¯on-/).13 On Nedoma’s interpretation of 13 The origins of the gender distinction in the Gmc n-stems are not clear: Bammesberger (1990:167) traces surface forms in /-a/ (OHG zunga f. “tongue”; Go. guma m. “man”) to PGmc */-¯o´ /, and those in /-Õ/ (OHG gomo m.; Go. tugg¯o f.) to a trimoric */¯o¯ / (see also Lane 1963:157; Prokosch 1939:251; Ringe 2006:274–275). Ringe (2006:280) has mas. *gum¯o¯ with a trimoric ending, and regards the nom. of the feminines as un-
Summary
153
Wremen -u- as representing a reflex of PGmc */i/, see § 5.2.1.2. For arugis/ arogis, I consider *arwaz “ready” a more plausible etymon than *ar¯on “eagle”; if this is the case, u and o represent reflexes of */w/ (§ 4.2.5). Further examples of u representing a reflex of unstressed PGmc */¯o/ are in the sequences interpreted as oblique forms of weak feminines: 3. Arlon godun; 81. Weimar III idun (§ 7.2.2.2).
4.2.4 Reflexes of */¯u/ 4.2.4.1 Stressed syllables The corpus contains two readily identifiable words or name-elements in */-¯u-/, both attested more than once: PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/*Âr¯uÂij¯o (25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ); PGmc *r¯un¯o (23. Freilaubersheim runa; 54. Neudingen-Baar II runa; 61. Pforzen I aïlrun; 62. Pforzen II runa). In every case, the reflex of */¯u/ is written u, as we would expect (§ 2.3.2.2). Several of the pers.ns. which may have short or long stem-vowels belong in this category, if they are in fact long: Beuchte buirso M BŒriso; Steindorf husi?ald M HŒsi …; Weimar II bubo M BŒbo (unless it is a variant of B¯obo – § 4.2.3.1). Again, in all of these examples the spelling is u.
4.2.4.2 Unstressed syllables The corpus contains no reflexes of PGmc unstressed */¯u/.
4.2.5 Reflexes of */w/ Probably our most useful evidence for the development of PGmc */w/ is the group of inscriptions containing forms of the verb *wr¯ıtanan: 23. Freilaubersheim wraet; 54. Neudingen-Baar II urait; 62. Pforzen II urait; 71. Sievern wrilu (if l is an error for t); 83. Weingarten I writ?i/la. The Sievern example may be PNorse, but there is nothing internal to the text which excludes the reconstructible. Antonsen (2003) argues that pers.ns. in -o in the earliest runic inscriptions may be of either gender, and that at least before c.400 the gender differentiation (with inherited */-¯o/ used only for feminines and an innovative */-a/ for masculines) had not been fully established.
154
The back vocalics
possibility that it is WGmc. Here and on Weingarten I we can be reasonably confident that we have the present stem wr¯ıt-, even though the ending is illegible in the latter case. These data suggest that the OHG deletion of /w-/ in the cluster /wr-/ (and perhaps, therefore, also in /wl-/) has not taken place (or at least, that it has not spread to this lexical item, though it may be underway elsewhere) (§ 2.3.2.4). Düwel regards the alternation w ~ u here as an unsolved problem, but suggests that the u-spellings are a later variant (Düwel 1999c:135–136; likewise Looijenga 2003a:268–269). I am not convinced that the available datings support this hypothesis: on the one hand, a date of c.520–560 seems to be widely accepted for Freilaubersheim, while Pforzen II is conventionally dated to c.600. Düwel’s suggestion assumes Neudingen-Baar II to be relatively late; but later dendrochronological analysis of wood remains from the burial chamber (not from the inscribed object itself) yield a date of 532–535; this makes Freilaubersheim wraet and Neudingen-Baar urait roughly contemporary (see catalogue entries for details and references). The datings for Weingarten I vary so widely that we cannot draw any conclusions from it (see catalogue for references). The variation between u- and w- spellings in the reflexes of *wr¯ıtanan might be a feature of local dialects and/or orthographic traditions. Although Neudingen-Baar and Pforzen are not especially close to one another, they stand apart from Freilaubersheim, which is considerably further north. As mentioned in § 3.2.1.1, this geographical distribution might account for the variant spellings of the diphthong ai ~ ae. For /w-/, however, the pattern is complicated by the Weingarten example, with a w- spelling in (broadly speaking) the same region as the two u- spellings (Map 3). A more promising explanation is that the spelling reflects a real contrast between syllabic /u/ and non-syllabic /w/, conditioned by the phonological environment. The conditioning factor might be phonotactic: in the Neudingen-Baar and Pforzen examples, urait follows a word with a final consonant (respectively bliÂguÂ, aodliÂ), while the Freilaubersheim and Weingarten examples follow word-final vowels (boso:wraet; feha:writ-). In continuous speech, it might be natural for a semivowel to be syllabicated (/w/ > /u/) between two consonants, even where those consonants belong to separate words. Here, as in the distribution of */eu/-spellings (§ 3.1.2.1), we may have evidence for phonotactically-conditioned variation not constrained by wordboundaries. Alternatively, we might look to prosodic rather than phonotactic considerations for an explanation of the w/u alternation. Not only do the u-spellings follow a consonant, but this consonant belongs to the coda of a heavy syllable (/-gunθ/, /-linθ/), whereas the w-spellings follow a light syllable (/-o/, /-a/).
Summary
155
We might hypothesise that it is the weight of the preceding syllable which triggers resyllabication, i.e., a reanalysis of the sequence as three light syllables: /CVnθ.wrait/ > */CVn.θu.rait/. Another essentially phonotactic explanation is that /w/ in this context is reanalysed as an anaptyctic vowel: we have parallels for anaptyxis in the environment /θ_r/ (§ 4.2.2). If /w/ is reanalysed in this way (which is possible wherever the cluster /wr/ follows a consonant – § 2.3.5), it can be considered optional where it is not required to resolve hiatus; this in turn might promote its eventual deletion (/-so.wrait/ > */-so.Ørait/, by analogy with /-gunθ.wrait/ > */-gunθ.u.rait/ or */-gun.θu.rait/( ? )). Whatever the motivation for the u/w alternation, it is a pattern apparently peculiar to the Continental material: reflexes of *wr¯ıtanan appear in the Scandinavian corpus of Older FuÂark inscriptions, but they are consistently spelled with w- (e.g., Eikeland fibula (KJ 17a; SUR 18) wiwio writu i runo; Järsberg stone (KJ 70; SUR 42) ek erilaz runoz waritu (with anaptyxis); Reistad stone (KJ 74; SUR 72) ek wakraz : unnam wraita). Initial /w-/ before /Ã/ is sometimes written u or uu, but these spellings can follow open or closed syllables: e.g., farauisa M F¯ara-w¯ısa (by-name “one who knows dangerous things”) (Sjlland II bracteate, IK 98; KJ 127; SUR 81); glïaugizuïu M Gl¯ıaugiz w¯ı(h)u “I, Gl¯ıaugiz, consecrate” (Nebenstedt I-B bracteate, IK 128; KJ 133) (examples and interpretations from Krause 1971:95. In both of these cases the preceding syllable is light). The u- spellings in the Continental reflexes of *wr¯ıtanan might, then, indicate syllabication of interconsonantal /w/ (/C.wC/ > /C.u.C/). Unfortunately, we do not have any further data with /wC/ against which to test this hypothesis, and we have no evidence for a parallel development in the reflexes of */j/ (§ 5.2.3). Every other reliable consonantal reflex of PGmc */w/ in the corpus is followed by a vowel (or original semivowel), and almost all are written w (except perhaps for Bopfingen mauo – see below): 3. Arlon rasuwamud M PGmc *r¯eswa-; 17. Dischingen I wig/nka M PGmc *weniz; 34. HeilbronnBöckingen I arwi M PGmc *arwaz; 56. Nordendorf I wodan (also 42. †Kärlich wodani, if genuine) M PGmc *w¯odanaz, wigi/uÂonar M PGmc *w¯ıgjanan or *w¯ıganan, wini M PGmc *weniz; 72. Skodborg alawin (ter) M PGmc *weniz, alawid (etymology uncertain); 81–82. Weimar III, IV hahwar M PGmc *-waraz or *-w¯eraz. Reflexes of */w/ written with a vowel-rune may appear in 45. Kirchheim/ Teck II arugis and 67. Schretzheim I arogis, if the prototheme is derived from PGmc *arwaz “ready” (see Kirchheim/Teck II entry in § 4.1). While I find Nedoma’s etymology more plausible, the alternative identification with
156
The back vocalics
the “eagle”-word (PGmc *ar¯on) is more popular (and if this is correct, u and o here appear to be reflexes of */-¯on/ or */-an/ (§ 4.2.3.2). The vowel-spellings are easily accounted for if root-final */w/ here is syllabicated following the deletion of the thematic vowel (*ar.wa- > *ar.u-). This still leaves us with the question of the variation between u and o. If we are dealing with an inherited /-u-/ < */-w-/, we might expect a spelling u; on the other hand, if the thematic */-a-/ has influenced this vowel (compare § 4.2.1), a surface /-o-/ is plausible. Where reflexes of */w/ become syllabic, they are normally spelled in OHG and OS, with a variant possibly reflecting phonological levelling, or else simply free orthographic variation (§ 2.3.2.4). Note that this pattern in the later dialects is consistent with Braune’s proposed three-member system of unstressed vowels for OHG (§ 2.3.2.1; for my own conclusions on this point, see § 8.1.1.2). We have one example of an unrepresented initial */w-/ in 10. Bezenye I unja, if this sequence represents a reflex of PGmc *wunj¯o. Given that initial /w-/ is preserved in all the attested reflexes and that this word does not meet any of the criteria for /w/-deletion in OHG or OS, it is probable that this is a purely orthographic phenomenon (perhaps comparable to the practice in OHG of writing /wu/ as ~ ~ ); or perhaps the interpretation is faulty. One possible case of consonantal /w/ written u is 12. Bopfingen mauo. In all of the proposed etymologies, u represents /w/ (either inherited from PGmc */w/ or resulting from the vocalisation or deletion of a medial */g/). However, given the uncertain identification of the stem, we should not give too much weight to this example.
4.3 Conclusions The corpus shows a remarkable consistency in the graphemic representation of the back vowels: • The reflexes of the PGmc short back vowel are consistently represented as u M /u/, o M /o/. There is no satisfactory evidence for the kind of analogical disruption in the distribution of the PGmc allophones that we see in OHG and OS sources. • Every example of an anaptyctic back vowel is spelled u. • Reflexes of PGmc */¯o/ are consistently represented as o in stressed position and u in unstressed final position. • Every reflex of PGmc */¯u/ is spelled u.
The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology
157
For the semivowel, it seems that the the use of w for non-syllabic (i.e., consonantal) reflexes of */w/ is quite consistent. The only credible example of u for consonantal /w/ is Bopfingen mauo, which is a questionable case. Although we have an alternation between u and w in the reflexes of *wr¯ıtanan, this alternation (which I have suggested indicates resyllabication) is not to be found elsewhere in the dataset.
4.4 The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology The corpus contains various sequences terminating in -u, -a, -o and -Ø which some authors have interpreted as nom.sg. o¯ -stem nominals (including FNs). These present a problem which deserves special treatment, as it proceeds from differing opinions about the historical development of the nom. o¯ -stem ending. It is generally agreed thatPGmc word-final */-¯o/ regularly develops into NWGmc */-¯u/ > pre-OHG( ? ) */-u/ (see § 2.3.2.3). A suffix /-u/ appears occasionally in early OHG sources after a short stem, while long stems normally have a zero suffix (i.e., the inherited */-u/ is apocopated). The norm in OHG, however, is a nom. suffix /-a/, analogically derived from acc.sg. /-a/ < */-¯a/ < PGmc */-¯on/. Analogical /-a/ forms predominate after both short and long stems (*gebu M geba; *r¯unu > r¯un-Ø M r¯una), although zero-suffixed forms survive in some words – especially in FNs (e.g., -liub, -r¯un, -w¯ıh, alongside -berga, -geba) (BR § 207 Anm. 2). The same type of analogy is found in OS, with only occasional traces of the older /-u/ and -Ø endings (Gallée 1910 § 307 Anm. 1; Holthausen 1921 § 283 Anm. 2). Because the analogical spread of acc.sg. /-a/ appears to be underway even in early OHG, we cannot be sure what stage the process has reached in CRun. We might reasonably expect a nom.sg. o¯ -stem to have a termination -u (short stem; perhaps also long stem) (§ 4.4.1) or -Ø (long stem) (§ 4.4.2); but we cannot rule out the possibility that analogical -a may co-exist with these forms (§ 4.4.3). On this point I am allowing for a greater degree of irregularity than does Nedoma (2004a, passim), who infers from the forms in -u that the analogical spread of /-a/ has not begun in the dialect(s) of the Continental inscriptions. An additional consideration is that a reflex of */-¯o/ might be represented as -o. Several of the pers.ns. in -o have been interpreted as nom. o¯ -stems (§ 4.4.4).
158
The back vocalics
4.4.1 Sequences in -u The following are identifiable as nominals in /-Œ/ M -u: 1. Aalen noru; 8. Balingen amilu; 21. Erpfting gabu; 43. “Kent” gad/mu; 53. Neudingen-Baar I midu; 73. Skonager III lÊu (all of these have been discussed in § 4.1). A further possible, but doubtful, example is 36. Hohenstadt (i)galu. On the hypothesis that amilu and/or (i)galu are weak FNs in /-¯un/, see § 7.2.2.2. Nedoma regards amilu and noru as o¯ -stem FNs Amilu, N¯oru (1999a:12–13; 2004a:188, 392). He allows that noru could be either nom. (/-Œ/ < PGmc */-¯o/) or dat. (/-Œ/ < PGmc inst.sg. */-¯o/ (see entry in § 4.1)), with a preserved suffix after a long stem. In dealing with amilu, he takes the contrary position and assigns it dat. case, rather than nom., on the grounds that the disyllabic stem ought to have a zero-suffix in nom. (*amil). The reason for this apparent contradiction is chronological: the Aalen witness is comparatively early (5th c.), whereas in the 6th century we have some evidence that apocope has taken place after a long stem (61. Pforzen I aï/llrun M Ailr¯un-Ø – see § 4.4.2). Given that both of these case endings derive from an identical proto-form */-¯o/, we might wonder why only the nom. should be subject to prosodicallyconditioned apocope. Nedoma (2000:27) argues that in the dat., the overt suffix of the short stems is analogically generalised; but this begs the question of why the same analogy should not affect the nominative. Both of these sequences have alternative interpretations: noru could be a nom. u-stem (in /-u/ < */-uz/); or perhaps a weakly inflected nom., with -u a variant of the more common -o (Düwel 2000b:22). As parallels, Düwel notes OHG forms in where is regular (e.g., do for the personal pronoun du); and ~ in final syllables created by syllabication of */w/ (e.g., OHG horo ~ horu n. “mud, dirt” < PGmc *xurxwan (§ 2.3.2.4)). I am not aware of any comparable forms for OHG nom.sg.masc. n-stems, however; and we do not appear to have any parallels in the runic corpus. As noted in § 4.1, a problem for the u-stem analysis is that nom.sg. /-u/ is apocopated after a long stem in OHG and OS, a process which Braune ascribes to the common WGmc stage (BR § 220b). We do not, as far as I am aware, have any parallels in the runic corpus against which to test the hypothesis that this apocope has taken place. Düwel (2003c:13–16) interprets Erpfting gabu as dat.sg., with the sense “as a gift” (§ 4.1; § 5.1). This form could be nom.sg., if the apocope described above has not been carried through; the available datings suggest that the Erpfting inscription is somewhat earlier than Balingen amilu and Pforzen I aï/llrun (see catalogue).
The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology
159
Looijenga’s (2003a:244) interpretation of “Kent” gadu as a nom./dat. o¯ -stem noun “wife” is morphologically questionable, even if the reading is correct (§ 4.1). The identity of the suffix of Neudingen-Baar I midu is left rather vague in the literature. Nedoma (2004a:244) mentions (without further comment) Meineke’s suggestion that the sequence represents abl.( ! )sg. (in locative function) mid(d)u “in the middle”. The attested “middle”-words all seem to support a proto-form in */-j-/ (PGmc *medj- > WGmc *middj-), which is not represented here. If we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc *m¯e2d¯o “reward” (§ 4.1; § 5.1), then the termination -u could be dat.sg. or nom.sg. with retention of the suffix after a long stem, as discussed above. Skonager lÊu is implicitly treated as nominative (and is normally assumed to be PNorse), although its syntactic relationship to the accompanying pers.n. niuwila is not clear: in principle, a dat. interpretation (“as an invocation”?) cannot be ruled out. We have reasonable grounds for accepting the identification of noru, amilu, gabu and lÊu (if the latter is accepted as WGmc) as o¯ -stems (the first two being FNs), while gad/mu and midu are more uncertain cases. We have no co-textual clues to help us with case-assignment: formally, all four reliable examples can plausibly be datives. Whether or not they can be nominative depends on whether or not we believe /u/-apocope not only to have taken place (a hypothesis supported by the presence of zero-suffixed forms – § 4.4.2), but to be sufficiently well-established that forms with archaic -u can be excluded. In my view, we simply do not have sufficient evidence to form a firm conclusion on this point, and I maintain that any or all of our examples may plausibly be nominative.
4.4.2 Sequences in -Ø The only reliable example of a “pure” o¯ -stem with a nom. zero-suffix is 61. Pforzen I aï/llrun. In the view of Nedoma (2004a:188) and Wagner (1995:106), this example demonstrates that apocope of nom. /-u/ < */-¯o/ has taken place in the period of the inscriptions, and that the analogical spread of acc.sg. /-a/ has not. On the other hand, OHG ms. sources show variation between -r¯una and -r¯un-Ø (Förstemann 1900:1284). According to Düwel (1997c:283), the zero-suffixed forms tend to be later (this is not apparent from Förstemann’s list of witnesses), and he concludes that for a 6th-century inscription /-a/ would be expected. On this point, I would suggest that early o¯ -stem names recorded with a final in Latin sources may well reflect the
160
The back vocalics
application of Lat. a¯ -stem suffixes, just as a-stem MNs often appear with Lat. and Gk. o-stem suffixes, e.g., PGmc *-baldaz “bold” : Baldus, Ô « (Förstemann 1900:235, 1417). To strengthen the case for apocope, we can refer to the substantial number of plausible j¯o-stem FNs with zero-suffixes: 10. Bezenye I godahid; 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ; 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ; 59. Oettingen a?ijabrg; 62. Pforzen II aodliÂ; 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ; 79. Weimar I haribrig; 83. Weingarten I ali/erguÂ. In OHG from the 9th century on, the majority of j¯o-stem nouns have nom.sg. /-a/, analogically taken from the “pure” o¯ -stems; but in early sources we find spellings . On the other hand, it appears to be the norm for FNs belonging to this declension (e.g., names in -hilt, -gund, -lind) to have a zero-suffix in nom. (BR §§ 209–210). Forms without an overt nom. suffix also appear occasionally in OS (Gallée 1910 § 309 Anm. 2).
4.4.3 Sequences in -a 4.4.3.1 Co-textual evidence for the assignment of oblique case Where sequences in -a are interpreted as o¯ -stem nouns or FNs, they are for the most part assigned acc. case, often solely on the strength of the -a termination (note, however, Nedoma’s interpretation of 11. Bezenye II arsiboda as gen. (§ 4.1)). In a few inscriptions the assignment of case has some co-textual support: the three wrait r¯unł inscriptions (23. Freilaubersheim; 54. Neudingen-Baar II; 62. Pforzen II) are the only clear-cut examples (though here we may be dealing with acc.pl. /-¯a/ < PGmc */-¯oz/, rather than acc.sg. /-a/ < */-¯on/),14 but several others are worthy of consideration. 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ Opitz expands ubada to a prepositional phrase u(m)(bi/ba) bada “for the sake of consolation” (§ 4.1). In both OHG and OS, umbi consistently governs the accusative (Holthausen 1921 § 507; Schrodt 2004:45–46; Schützeichel 2006). The co-textual support for the assignment of acc. case is therefore dependent on Opitz’ hypothetical expansion of the text. This interpretation is 14 Krause (1966:284) observes that in PNorse parallels for the formula “NN writes/ wrote runes”, there is variation between the use of sg. r¯un¯o and pl. r¯un¯oz ~ r¯unaz (> ON rúnaR).
The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology
161
peculiar to Opitz, the majority opinion favouring the treatment of u(mba/ mbi)- as a prefix. 22. Ferwerd comb case ?( ? )ura Looijenga reads the beginning of the inscription as me M m¯e (§ 5.1), and suggests that ura may represent an o¯ -stem FN syntactically parallel with the pronoun (i.e., dat.; see § 4.1). Here, the co-text supporting the assignment of case is based on a questionable reading of the text. 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). Arntz interprets laÂawihu as laÂa w¯ıhu “I consecrate the invitation” (§ 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1). The “formula-word” laÂa is identifiable as an o¯ -stem, here interpreted as the object of w¯ıhu (i.e., as acc.). As I have noted in the earlier discussions, Arntz’ reading is highly speculative and cannot be considered reliable. 50. Mertingen fibula ieok aun Among the interpretations suggested by Düwel (§ 3.1.1) is that ieok + a could be an o¯ -stem noun jeoka < PGmc *jeuk¯o “fight”; he does not comment explicitly on case, but implies that it is nominative. Düwel acknowledges that his interpretations are speculative. 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd The most common interpretation is Alagu(n) (andi) Leuba dÀdun “Alagun and Leuba made (the capsule? the inscription?)” (Krause 1966:299; Nedoma 2004a:172). leuba is here interpreted as a weak nom. FN (or by-name “dear one”) (§ 3.1.1). An alternative is to treat leuba as the object of dÀdun, an acc.sg.fem. adjective referring to the owner, or to the object (Arog¯ıs (andi) Alagu(n) leuba dÀdun “Arog¯ıs and Alagun made something lovely/made (the owner of the capsule) a fortunate woman”); or a nom.sg.fem. modifier to alagu (Arog¯ıs (andi) Alagu(n) leuba dÀdun “Arog¯ıs and dear Alagun made (the capsule?)” (see Schwab 1998a:417; I have slightly adapted Schwab’s translations).
162
The back vocalics
83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la In Schwab’s interpretation, feha is a substantivised acc.sg.fem. adjective f¯eha “the colourful thing (i.e., rune)”, with acc. case being assigned on the assumption that it is the object of wr¯ıt- (§ 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1). The majority opinion, however, is that it represents a weakly inflected nom. FN.
4.4.3.2 Summary of co-textual evidence All of the case-assignments discussed above are based on uncertain readings and/or uncertain interpretations. In the Ferwerd and Hailfingen examples, the transliteration of the co-text is speculative. For Bad Ems, the reading itself is not disputed, and the expansion of the text ubada M u(mbi/mba)-bada is widely accepted; but the case assignment depends on Opitz’ treatment of the sequence as two words (preposition + object) rather than a single word (prefix + base). The interpretation of Weingarten I feha as the object of wr¯ıt- is plausible, but no more so than its interpretation as the subject of the same verb. The closest parallel in the corpus is 71. Sievern rwrilu M r(¯unł) wr¯ıtu “I write runes”, with a preverbal object, and the subject supplied by the verbal inflection. If the dialect of the Sievern bracteate inscription is PNorse, as seems likely, its usefulness as supporting evidence is diminished. 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ:leuba:dedun appears to have a finite verb, but its relationship to the nominals is ambiguous. While Schwab’s variations cannot be ruled out, the separation of the co-ordinate subjects Alagu(n)Â, Arog¯ıs strikes me as odd, in contrast to Krause’s interpretation, which makes of complex I a subject-verb clause with a covert object.
4.4.3.3 Putative nom.sg. o¯ -stems in -a Nom. o¯ -stem interpretations have been proposed for the following sequences in -a: 6. Bad Ems ubada M U{}bada (Looijenga 2003a:228) or bada “consolation”; 35. Hitsum g?ob/la M groba M gr¯oba “grave” or “that which belongs to the grave” (Looijenga 2003a:208; Seebold 1996:196); 44. Kirchheim/ Teck I bada M Bada FN (Looijenga 2003a:245) or bada “consolation”; 47. Lauchheim I aonofada M Aonofada FN (Bammesberger 1999c:203; Düwel 1997b:19; Haubrichs 2004:78); 58. Oberflacht gba M g(e)ba “gift” (Düwel 2002e:479; Looijenga 2003a:252); 83. Weingarten I writ? … i/la M writila M Wr¯ıtila FN (Bammesberger 2002:120).
The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology
163
For none of these sequences do we have clear co-textual indicators of case. In the Weingarten example, the material immediately following writ is illegible, so the reading writila must be treated with caution (§ 4.1). Even if it is correct, Wr¯ıtila could be weakly inflected. The same applies to Kirchheim/Teck I bada – if it is a pers.n., it could just as easily be a weakly inflected name in /-a/ as an o¯ -stem. If it is an o¯ -stem (whether a pers.n. or common noun), we cannot assign it a case with any confidence, as the co-text is illegible (§ 5.1). Perhaps our most promising candidate is Lauchheim I aonofada: if this represents a dithematic o¯ -stem name, it constitutes the whole text, and the absence of co-text might be taken to support the assignment of nom. case; although it is also possible that we might be dealing with a genitive Aonofad¯a “(This is) Aonofada’s (fibula)”. On the other hand, the sequence can plausibly be divided into two words, with fada possibly an abbreviated verb-form fa(ihi)da “made” (§ 3.2.2). None of the sequences under consideration here can be identified with certainty as an o¯ -stem nominal. Where an o¯ -stem interpretation is the preferred one (as is the case for Kirchheim/Teck bada and Oberflacht gba, and perhaps also Lauchheim aonofada), we have no strong grounds for assigning nominative case. In consideration of the available data, the possibility that o¯ -stems in the dialects of the inscriptions can have analogical nom.sg. /-a/ alongside the historically regular /-u/ and -Ø cannot be ruled out; but we have no satisfactory positive evidence for it.
4.4.4 Sequences in -o Three sequences in -o have been identified as possible nom. o¯ -stem FNs: 9. Beuchte buirso; 18. Donzdorf eho; 35. Hitsum fozo. The o¯ -stem interpretations of buirso and fozo are unique to Looijenga (see entries in § 4.1), and she offers them only as an alternative to the majority view that these names are weakly inflected. In the case of eho, Peterson and Meli share Looijenga’s view (§ 5.1). Nedoma, however, argues that Eho cannot be an o¯ -stem, as the method of feminising a PIE o-stem by transfer to the a¯ -declension (e.g., Lat equus m. M equa f. “mare”) is not productive in Gmc (2004a:290). There are no known reflexes of a PGmc *exw¯o “mare” in any of the Gmc dialects. Looijenga identifies eho and fozo as Scandinavian, although in PNorse – as in the WGmc dialects – the nom.sg. o¯ -stem suffix is regularly /-u/ (apocopated in OIc) (Krause 1971:124; Syrett 1994:60–61). Syrett acknowledges that the epigraphical evidence is far from conclusive, but where we can plausibly identify a PNorse nom.sg. o¯ -stem (notably in adjectives: Opedal liubu,
164
The back vocalics
minu), the suffix is represented as -u. There are, as far as I am aware, no parallels for the representation of this suffix as -o. All of the sequences under consideration here can be interpreted unproblematically as weak nom. pers.ns. in /-Õ/, and I see no reason to accept their interpretation as eccentric o¯ -stems.
4.4.5 Conclusions on the nom.sg. o¯ -stem suffix(es) Given the limited evidence available, we can be reasonably confident that long-syllable o¯ -stems can have a zero-suffix in the nominative. The presence of zero-suffixed forms does not in itself rule out the possibility of contemporary forms with an archaic /-u/ or innovative, analogical /-a/: the zero ending appears stable for OHG FNs even after /-a/ becomes ubiquitous in the o¯ - and j¯o-stem common nouns; and archaic forms in /-u/ also appear in OHG mss. If it is possible for /-u/, -Ø and /-a/ to co-exist in early OHG, then we must allow for the possibility that the same may be true in the runic inscriptions. Although we have three credible examples of o¯ -stems in -u, all three can plausibly be interpreted as dat., rather than nom. It is worth noting that noru, gabu and amilu all have long stems (a disyllabic stem in the latter case), and so are suitable candidates for apocope. In the case of noru, a chronological argument can be employed to explain the retention of nom. /-u/; but this is not so for the other two. It seems reasonable to infer that either (i) gabu and amilu represent datives, in which apocope does not occur; or (ii) apocopated and unapocopated (orthographic, if not phonological) forms of the nominative co-exist in the “runic” period. There is no evidence for a chronological or geographical distinction between the two, and the alternation cannot be explained simply in terms of syllable length. The case for or against the analogical extension of acc.sg. /-a/ to the nominative remains unproven. We do not have convincing evidence for analogical forms, and in none of the cases discussed in § 4.4.3.3 can we be sure that we are dealing with an o¯ -stem at all. On the other hand, in none of these cases can a nom. o¯ -stem interpretation with the analogous /-a/ suffix be ruled out. I note that in three of the five -a sequences (Kirchheim/Teck I bada; Lauchheim -fada; Oberflacht gba), if the interpretations are valid, the /-a/ suffix follows a short stem. It might be worth hypothesising that in CRun, the analogical suffix appears after short syllables (displacing /-u/), while the zero-suffix (and/or /-u/) persists after long stem-syllables. Then again, all of our zero-suffixed and /-u/ suffixed o¯ -stems are pers.ns., which appear to be
The nom. o¯ -stems: a problem in morphophonology
165
conservative in their morphology, while three of the five -a sequences (g?ob/la, bada, gba) can be interpreted as o¯ -stem common nouns. If we were to dispose of the other -a sequences (fada, writ? … i/la) by interpreting them as weak pers.ns. (or, in the case of Weingarten, by rejecting the questionable reading writila), then we could speculate that the analogy has taken place in the common nouns but not in pers.ns. In the absence of any sequences which we can positively identify as nom.sg. o¯ -stem common nouns, however, these comments can be no more than hypothetical. Even for the pers.ns., only the zero-suffixed forms can positively be assigned nom. case.
166
The back vocalics
Data
167
5. The front vocalics Given the considerable variation between /i/ and /e/ in the reflexes of PGmc */i e/, it would not be surprising to find corresponding variations in the inscriptions: we might expect to see a pattern reflecting umlaut, with i appearing before high and e before non-high vowels; i for reflexes of */e/ before a syllable-final nasal or N+C cluster; and/or other (irregular?) alternations similar to those described in § 2.3.3.1; § 2.3.3.2. The long vowels are likely to have consistent spellings, */¯ı/ M i § 2.3.3.3); */¯e1/ M a or e (the latter either an “archaic” spelling, or representing a preserved phonological form /¯e/) (§ 2.3.3.4). For */¯e2/, we would expect e, and if the diphthongisation process is underway, digraphs such as ea, ia, ie may be present (§ 2.3.3.5). There may be some variation in the mappings between j and consonantal /j/ on the one hand, and i and syllabic /i/ or /¯ı/ on the other. A further issue to consider is the role of the “yew-rune” .. Although Grønvik (1981) contends that the original value of this rune was [ç], the majority view is that it originally represented a front vowel. If Antonsen’s proposal that its original value was */æ/ ¯ (= */¯e1/) is valid, we might expect to see it in use for reflexes of */¯e1/ (see § 5.2.4 for references). On the other hand, Antonsen argues plausibly that . is obsolete by the period of the earliest (Scandinavian) runic inscriptions: the sound */æ/ ¯ which this rune originally represented has shifted to /¯a/ in stressed position (where it lends itself to the spelling I) (§ 2.3.3.4); and unstressed /æ/ ¯ only appears as a reflex of PGmc */ai/, meaning that an archaic spelling I( is available (§ 2.3.1.2; § 3.2.2). Early in the runic period, NWGmc */æ/ ¯ > */¯e/, which can be spelled Ç (Antonsen 1970:318–319).
5.1 Data The following are excluded from this survey: • Instances of i or e which are reliably (or at least consistently) interpreted as the off-glide of a diphthong < PGmc */ai/, or as a monophthongal reflex of */ai/. I have discussed these in § 3.2.
168
The front vocalics
2. Aquincum fibula [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia The various interpretations of complex II are outlined in § 3.2.1. As mentioned in that section, it is uncertain whether the sequence is meaningful at all. The sequence kŋia has been interpreted as: 1. k[unni]ngia : ON kunningi “friend” (a derivative of PGmc *kuningaz/*kunungaz > ON konungr, OE cyning, OFris kining ~ koning ~ kening, OS OHG kuning “king”) (Krause 1966:24–25). 2. Expanded via “Grønvik’s law” (§ 2.6.2) (or by the assumption that the ŋ-rune should be read /ing/ rather than simply /ng/ (see also § 7.2.2.2) to k(i)ngia : Ic kingja < ON kinga “breast decoration, brooch( ? )”(< kengr “bend, hook, bow” (Grønvik 1985:178–179; de Vries 1961)) (Krause 1966:24). Grønvik (1985:179) states that the ending /-ia/ is normal for fem. j¯on-stems in early OHG. According to Braune (BR § 226), the nom.sg. suffix of these nouns usually appears as in the earliest sources, although does appear in winia “(female) friend, loved one”. 3. A metathetic form of kinga = ON kinga (see (2), above) (Looijenga 2003a:227). In interpretations 1–2, i represents /j/ in the stem-formant of kunningja or kingja. The formation of kingja is not made clear in the literature: de Vries (1961) cites the modern Icelandic form as a reflex of ON kinga, but does not discuss the relationship between the two forms. Presumably kinga is a fem. n-stem, with kingja a j¯on-stem derivative( ? ). In interpretation 3, i is the root vowel of kinga. Given the variety of interpretations, and the doubts about whether the sequence is meaningful at all, we must treat this item with caution. 3. Arlon capsule godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…) In the view of Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:435), Êes is the gen.sg.masc./ neut. demonstrative < PGmc *Âeza < PIE *te-so (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.4.2) or *Âas < PIE *to-so/*to-sjo (Ringe 2006:208). An */-e-/ antecedent appears to be prevalent in the Gmc dialects (compare Go Âis, ON Âess, OS thes, OHG des < *Âe-; OE Âs < *Âa-) (Prokosch 1939:267–269). Although we can be sure that forms like OS thes, OHG des contain an inherited /e/, it remains unclear whether this is a PGmc */e/ < PIE */e/; from Ringe’s recon-
Data
169
struction of a PIE *to-sjo, it might be possible to derive this */e/ as an i-umlaut allophone, */o/ = (?*[œ] ~) *[e], conditioned by */-j-/ in the suffix. Given the uncertainty of the reading, I hesitate to accept Arntz’ interpretation of Êes. It is accepted by Krause (1966:286) and Opitz (1987:8), while Looijenga (2003a:227–228) regards the sequence as illegible. The sequence rasuwamud is treated throughout the literature as a dithematic MN R¯asuwamund, with a prototheme < PGmc *r¯eswa- (§ 4.1). If this is correct, then we have here a reliable example of */¯a/ ( *agiz?); or */j/ in PGmc *agj¯o). Alternatively, we could be dealing with an abbreviated form of a dithematic name with the suffix */-ija-/ (see 34. HeilbronnBöckingen I arwi). 5. Aschheim III fibula dado miado (Bauer 2010:1). The reading of this inscription is not certain, although both Düwel (2003c:12) and Nedoma (2004a:271) consider it reliable, representing a MN D˘ado, D¯ado or Da(n)do. The same sequence of runes is found on 84. Weingarten II, and it is presumed that both inscriptions represent one of these names (though not necessarily the same one). The alternatives are discussed in more detail in the
170
The front vocalics
Weingarten II entry, below. The name is relevant to this chapter only if it can reliably be identified as D¯ado with /¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/. Bauer offers no interpretation for miado, but she cites an email from Nedoma in which he advises her (rightly, in my view – see § 5.2.2.3) that ia cannot be a diphthongised reflex of */¯e2/, implying that she had earlier been considering a connection with PGmc *m¯e2 d¯o “reward” (see discussion of 53. Neudingen-Baar I midu). Because we have no plausible linguistic interpretations based on this reading, it will not be pursued further. 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ There is general agreement that madali represents a pers.n., but the etymology and the morphology are disputed. Krause (1966:282; Krause and Werner 1935:332) identifies it as a nom.masc. connected with PGmc *maÂlan (> Go maÂl “assembly, market-place”, ON mál “speech, suit, case”, OE mðel “assembly, council, speech”, OS OHG mahal (and OS mathal) “lawcourt, assembly” (see further § 2.5.1.4.3)). Arntz, on the other hand, identifies it as fem. (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:196). He also cites v. Grienberger, who attaches the initial u of complex II to the name and analyses it as a dat.fem. u-stem Madaliu (the etymology of the stem is the same) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:197). Here v. Grienberger has ignored the paratextual mark( ? ) between i and u (compare Marstrander’s interpretation, mentioned in § 3.1.1). Nedoma (2004a:371–372) interprets madali as an abbreviated form of a dithematic MN with the prototheme a Verner’s Law alternant of *MaÂla(PGmc *madl- vs. *maÂl-) (§ 7.1.2.1). If Nedoma’s analysis is correct, then the terminal -i represents /-i/ as a reduced form of an inherited */-ija-/ suffix, with the final */-a/ deleted as in the nom.sg. a-stems (e.g., PGmc *wulf-a-z > OHG wolf-Ø) and the remaining */-ij/ > */-¯ı/, subsequently shortened > /-i/, as is regular for an unstressed third syllable (Antonsen 2002:241). We have no direct evidence that shortening has taken place in the present case. 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike Complex II is uncontroversially interpreted as a dat. dithematic MN Agir¯ıke. The first element is well attested in Gmc names and is probably a reflex of PGmc *ag- “fear, horror” (Fingerlin et al. 2004:240; Nedoma 2004a:153). The development of the PGmc word is in doubt: Orel (2003) reconstructs a neut. es-stem *agez; Nedoma offers an alternative *agan (neut. a-stem). Either of both of these may have been reanalysed as an i-stem to give the
Data
171
name-element Agi- (as well as Go agis, OE ege “horror, fear”). If this etymology is correct, i here represents a stem-formant derived either from PGmc */-ez/, or from a substituted */-i-z/. The other possible etymology for Agi- is Ag(g)i- < WGmc *aggj- < PGmc *agj¯o f “edge” (Haubrichs 2004:76). In this case, the i in the first element of Agir¯ıke represents a syllabicated reflex of PGmc */j/. Nedoma (2004a:153) comments that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the name-elements Aggi- < *agj¯o and Agis- ~ Agi< *agez/*agan in literary sources. Hence, especially given that doubling of consonants is rare in runic orthography, it must remain an open question which of them is represented here. The same name-element may be present in 4. Aschheim II ahi and 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ. The second element is connected with PGmc *r¯ıkz (> Go. reiks “ruler”), or the derived adjective *r¯ıkjaz (Go reikeis “noble, princely”; ON ríkr, OE r¯ıc, OS r¯ıki “mighty, powerful”; OHG r¯ıhhi “rich, mighty”) (Förstemann 1900:1254). The form of agirike does not itself reveal whether the noun or the adjective is the etymon, but Nedoma prefers the former since names in *-r¯ıkz/*-r¯ıkaz are much more common in general (Nedoma 2004a:157). 8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? dnlo is regarded throughout the literature as a pers.n., expanded by Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:130), v. Grienberger (1908:258, 267–270) and Krause (1966:303) to D(a)n(i)lo, a weakly inflected MN < PGmc *daniz m. (> Go. Danus, ON (pl.) Danir, OE (pl.) Dene, OHG (pl.) Teni “Dane(s)”) with the dim. suffix */-il-/ (cf. Go Danila, 7th c., cited by Nedoma 2004a:274. See also Neumann 1982:174). Other possible expansions are D(¯u)n(i)lo (possibly related to OIc dúni “fire” and/or d´yja “to shake” < PGmc *deu-( ? )); and D(¯o)n(i)lo, with an element *D¯on- indicated in names like OHG Tuoni, Tuonger (9th c.) but with unknown etymology (Nedoma 2004a:276). Opitz (1987:112–121), following an idea of Klingenberg’s, sees in this sequence a “Germanised” form of the name of the prophet Daniel, and incorporates it into his attempt to draw links between a number of runic inscriptions (this item, 15. Charnay and 31. Hailfingen II) and the Daniel motif found on late migration-period belt buckles (Kühn 1942; Tischler 1982). This interpretation is firmly rejected by Nedoma on several grounds, chiefly semantic (Nedoma 2004a:273). For the present purpose, if this sequence is a name with unrepresented vowels, it is of limited value: there does not appear to be any suggestion that
172
The front vocalics
the vowels are omitted according to any orthographic rule (“Grønvik’s law” does not apply here). Unless we can find some regular pattern, we cannot be confident that we are dealing with an unrepresented reflex of */i/. The interpretations of amilu? as a patronymic Amilu(n)k ~ Amilu(n)g and as a FN Amilu have already been discussed in § 4.1. The etymology is uncertain, but Nedoma (2004a:188) constructs Amilu from a stem *ama- (possibly connected with ON ama “to trouble, annoy, vex”, OHG emiz “persistent, constant” (v. Grienberger 1908:265; Haubrichs 2004:77)), with -u representing a dat.sg. o¯ -stem suffix. This leaves us with the problem of how to interpret -il-; one possibility is that we are dealing with a dim. suffix < PGmc */-il-/. If this is the case, then the name should decline as an n-stem and we would expect to read nom. *amila, acc./gen./dat. *amilun (§ 4.1). For further discussion of the o¯ -stem analysis, see § 4.4.1. 9. Beuchte fibula [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso The j in complex I is not amenable to any overt linguistic interpretation; Krause (1966:27–28) treats it as a Begriffsrune *j(¯era)/*j(¯ara) “year” M “good harvest”. If, as is the general view in the literature (see § 4.1), buirso represents a pers.n. BŒriso, the element /-is-/ is taken to be a hypocoristic suffix, with i representing medial unstressed /i/ < PGmc */i/. Nedoma (2004a:264) rejects Antonsen’s analysis of the name as B¯uris¯o “little daughter” (1975:78), as it assumes a feminised form of *b¯uri- “son”, for which there is no supporting evidence; and because Antonsen assigns it fem. gender, while Nedoma is adamant that weakly inflected names on the Continent in the “runic” period follow the pattern of OHG (masc. /-o/, fem. /-a/). On the latter point at least, it is possible that both the OHG and Go. patterns co-exist in 6th-century naming practices (Findell 2010:3–5, 11–13). On the alternative interpretation of ui as an umlaut allophone of /Œ/, see § 4.1; § 4.2.1.1. 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid If complex I represents (w)unja “joy” < PGmc *wunj¯o (§ 4.1), j represents the /j/ of the stem-formant.
Data
173
godahid is believed to represent a dithematic FN GÕdahi(l)d, with a deuterotheme -hild < *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o f.( > ON hildr, OE hild, OS hild(i), OHG hilt(i)a “battle”) (on the prototheme, see § 4.1). This element is common in Gmc FNs and is also found elsewhere in the Continental runic corpus (25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild). On the non-representation of /l/, see § 2.6.2; § 7.2.1. 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun The sign preceding arsiboda may be a k-rune in the “roof ”-form ^ (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:326; Krause 1966:308; Opitz 1987:11). The authors who accept this reading interpret the k as the 1.sg.nom. pronoun (i)k (see 4. Aschheim II). Nedoma views the sign as a paratextual symbol marking the beginning of the text, rather than a rune (2004a:203–204). That complex I represents a dithematic FN Arsiboda is generally accepted. However, the etymology of the element Arsi- is uncertain (on -boda, see § 4.1). According to Nedoma (ibid.), it is only attested in three MNs (all Langobardic): Arsio (a.810), Arseramus (a.873), Arsu (c.1000). If the connection to PGmc *urz¯on (: Gk ’ , Av arsan- “man”; PCelt *erset “hero; brave”), suggested by Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:329), we would have to devise a way of explaining the alternation */a-/ ~ */u-/. Attested Gmc reflexes of *urz¯on are OIc orri “moor-fowl, capercaillie”, Norw orre “aurochs” (Orel 2003). The compositional vowel /-i-/ suggests that Arsi- is derived from a jaor j¯o-stem (or possibly an i-stem, if the deletion of thematic /-i-/ after a long stem has not taken place), but what that might be is unclear. Complex II segun is widely believed to represent a loanword based on Lat. signum (see § 4.1). The OHG form segan indicates that Lat. /i/ could be borrowed as /e/, at least in this context. This may reflect the relatively open quality of Lat. short /i/ = [i], and/or its merger with /e:/ > Romance /e:/ (Lat. signum > It segno, Sp seña, Fr signe) following the loss of length distinctions (Allen 1965:47–48; Kent 1945:46; Rohlfs 1960:41–44). 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? There is general agreement that complex I (the only readily interpretable part of the inscription) contains a MN FrÃdil. Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:171) treats the whole complex as a dithematic name *Fr¯ı-fridil, noting comparable
174
The front vocalics
names like OHG Fr¯ı-liub, Fr¯ıo-win(e). The second element is here taken to be equivalent to OHG fridil ~ friudil “friend, beloved, husband”. This etymology is widely accepted, although it is problematic (see § 7.1.2.1). Nedoma (2004a:303) analyses fridil as a deverbal nomen agentis (with suffix /-il-Ø/ < PGmc */-il-az/; see also 61. Pforzen I aigil) comparable to OHG zuntil “instigator” (< zunten “to ignite”). It cannot be a construction with a hypocoristic */-il-/ suffix, because names with this structure are weakly inflected. The stem may be derived from PGmc *fr¯ıdjanan (> Go freidjan, OHG fr¯ıten “to take care of ”) (Nedoma 2004a:301–303). If so, Fr¯ıdil might originally have meant something like “carer, protector, nurturer”. For our purposes, the first i of this sequence could be either short /i/ or long /¯ı/, depending on which of the etymologies we favour. The second probably represents a short /i/ belonging to the nominalising suffix */-il-/. The “prefix” fri is explained by Krause (1966:307) as hypocoristic reduplication of the base *fr¯ıd- (Krause 1966:307), perhaps alluding to the adjective “free” (PGmc *frijaz > Go freis, OE fr¯eo, OFris OHG fr¯ı). Nedoma allows that the sequence probably has an “iterative character” (compare OHG wiwint “whirlwind”), but he notes that such a construction is hypothetical, with no known onomastic parallels (2004a:300). Two alternative interpretations are offered by Haubrichs (1998:27; see also Nedoma 2004a:300): frifridil could be a compound “dearly beloved” (fri- M fr¯ı < *frijaz, as above); or a clause “love me, beloved!”. In the latter case the initial fri is 2.sg.imp. to the deadjectival verb PGmc *frij¯ojanan (> Go frij¯on, OFris friaia, OS friohon “to love”; ON fría “to deliver”; OE fr¯eogan “to free, to respect, to love”). In both of these interpretations, i represents a reflex of PGmc */-ij-/, with the semivowel being syllabicated after the deletion of the suffix. However, the presumed deletion of /-¯o-/ in the 2.sg.imp. of a class 2 weak verb is at odds with the evidence of OHG and OS (BR § 304; Gallée 1910 § 376; Holthausen 1921 § 409); compare OHG OS salbo “anoint”. Krause (1966:307; also Klingenberg 1976b:314; Opitz 1987:14, 196–197) sees in complex III mik (as Krause reads it) the 1.sg.acc. personal pronoun mik. Microscopic analysis of the fibula in 2001, however, supports a reading mu or mi (Nedoma 2004a:298). Nedoma offers no interpretation of complexes II–III. The putative i here is not a reliable reading, and no interpretation can be assigned to it with any confidence.
175
Data
15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) ï/ ia [V] k r l
[II] :uÂfnÂai:id
[III] dan:liano
[IV]
In Krause’s interpretation of uÂfnÂai as 3.sg.opt. to an EGmc verb < PGmc *unÂfenÂanan (PGmc *fenÂanan > Go finÂan “to find out, recognise, learn”; ON finna, OE OS OHG findan, OFris finda “to find”), the root vowel is not represented orthographically. The context is appropriate for “Grønvik’s law” (§ 2.6.2). Since this rule as formulated by Grønvik applies only to high vowels, the omitted vowel is taken to be /i/. The raising of PGmc */e/ > */i/ is regular before a tautosyllabic nasal (§ 2.2.1), so we are dealing with /i/ < an inherited */i/. On Antonsen’s alternative reading faÂai, see § 3.2.1. The end of complex II and the beginning of complex III are usually treated as a single word, id dan M Iddan, taken to be an oblique form of a weakly inflected EGmc MN Idda (acc. if it is the object of u(n)f(i)nÂai, as the majority see it; or dat., syntactically parallel to faÂai, if Antonsen’s reading and interpretation are correct. For further discussion, see Findell 2010:10). On this name, its parallels and its etymology, see 81. Weimar III. liano is generally interpreted as a weakly inflected nom. pers.n. Liano (EGmc fem.?), of unknown etymology (Antonsen 1975:77; Düwel 1981a:374; Krause 1966:22). On the suggestions that liano is a metathetic form of a pers.n. *Laino, or of *laion “lion”, see § 3.2.1. Opitz (1987:115–116) objects to the reading of id dan as a single word because it involves reading across lines, and because it contains a double rune, which is not normal in runic orthography. Instead, he interprets complex II id as Go i “but” – here, as elsewhere, Opitz explains writing d for /θ/ not in terms of Spirantenschwächung, but as a convention influenced by Latin orthography (Latin sources often write or for reflexes of PGmc */θ/). Complex III dan:liano Opitz emends and expands to Danila laion “Daniel, lion” (see § 3.2.1). While the interpretation of liano as a weakly inflected pers.n. seems reasonable, the lack of a reliable etymology makes it impossible to analyse. ia could conceivably represent a diphthongal reflex of */¯e2/, but no plausible etymon presents itself.
176
The front vocalics
Complex IV contains i and a rune that may be ï. However, no-one has attempted to interpret this complex. Düwel remarks that if the first rune is read l, the sequence lia might have some connection with liano (Düwel 1981a:373). 16. Chéhéry fibula [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E (or E : ditan) [III] sum(Óik) Düwel offers no interpretation for the runic portion of the inscription. Fischer sees in ditan a dat. form of a weakly inflected FN *Dita, for which he cites as parallels 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna; 74. Soest daÂa; 84. Weingarten II dado (Fischer 1999:13; Fischer and Lémant 2003:251). No discussion of etymology is offered, beyond the tentative suggestion of a connection with the name-element Theuda- (< PGmc *Âeud-; see 82. Weimar IV in § 3.1.1). I do not consider this plausible – see § 7.1.2.1. Nedoma (2004a:280) is doubtful about Fischer’s suggestion: there is a possible parallel in OHG Titza f. (one instance only, 10th/11th c.), but the termination -an is in his view anomalous. In OHG and OS – and, Nedoma infers, in their 6th-century precursors – feminine n-stems end in /-Œn/ in the oblique cases. The possibility that ditan could be an oblique form of a masc. *Dito is not mentioned (compare 15. Charnay iddan; Findell 2010:9–10). Fischer and Lémant (2003:251–252) reject Düwel’s reading htid (with a double-barred " where they read I% or I(). If their alternative reading ditai is correct, this could represent a 3.sg.pres.opt. verb-form (compare 15. Charnay uÂfnÂai), though “we find it difficult to imagine what a verb ditai could possibly represent” (2003:252). No interpretations are available for complex III. The portion which Düwel reads as a runic sequence Óik is dismissed by Fischer and Lémant (2003:253) as worn traces of a decorative design. 17. Dischingen I fibula wig/nka This inscription is most commonly read winka and interpreted as a FN Win(i)ka with a stem < PGmc *weniz “friend”, and a dim. suffix /-ka/ (< PGmc */-k¯on/). As parallels, Krause (1966:297) cites MLG Winika (11th c.) and OHG Winicho m. (8th c.). “Grønvik’s law” (§ 2.6.2) is not applicable as an explanation for the non-representation of medial /-i-/. Alternatively, the stem may be Wink- (etymology uncertain); or, if wigka is the correct reading, W¯ıg- < PGmc *w¯ıga- “fight; warrior” (see 19. Eichstetten wiwo in § 4.1).
Data
177
The i of this inscription may therefore represent a reflex of PGmc */e/ (attributable to PGmc umlaut and/or raising conditioned by the nasal – see § 2.2.1), if the sequence represents a name in *weni-; or of */¯ı/, if *w¯ıga- is involved. We may also be dealing with a case of an unrepresented /i/ before the suffix -ka. 18. Donzdorf fibula eho Opitz (1987:17) suggests that eho could be a corrupt form of the PNorse “formula-word” *ehwaz (PGmc *exwaz > ON jór “stallion”; OE eoh “warhorse”; OS ehu-skalk “groom, ostler”), or a weakly inflected WGmc MN in /-o/. Jänichen (1967b:234) favours the former interpretation, while Düwel (Düwel and Roth 1977:413) supports the latter. Alternatively, the sequence could represent a PNorse o¯ -stem FN (still etymologically connected with *exwaz) (Peterson 1994:144–145; also Looijenga 2003a:237) (§ 4.4.4). With regard to the “formula-word” explanation, Nedoma points out that there is actually only one plausible occurrence of the “horse”-word in the Older FuÂark inscriptions, ehwu (inst.sg.?) on the Tirup Heide-C/Skåne V-C bracteate (KJ 106; IK 352). The only possible parallel to eho in the Continental corpus is 63. Pleidelsheim iiha, if we accept Nedoma’s tentative suggestion that it should be read eha. 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ( ? )?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) Fischer (2007:133) reads the first part of the inscription as danil, which he interprets as the MN Danil (compare 8. Balingen dnlo). Since the reading is very uncertain (see catalogue entry), I am not inclined to accept this suggestion. The interpretations of muni have been discussed in § 4.1. If the reading -i (rather than t) is correct, then in the interpretations of Looijenga (2003a:238) and Fischer (2007:133) it represents a 3.sg.pres.opt. verbal suffix < PGmc */-ai/ (§ 3.2.2). If, as I suggest in § 4.1, we are dealing with an i-stem nominal, then -i represents the thematic vowel < */-i/. In § 4.1 I discussed several interpretations of wiwo?(??), in all of which i represents a reflex of PGmc long */¯ı/ (as the adverb w¯ı “how”; a name-element W¯ı-; or *w¯ıwo “harrier”( ? )).
178
The front vocalics
21. Erpfting fibula lda·gabu Düwel tentatively suggests (2003c:15) that lda could be expanded to a FN Hilda, if we invoke “Grønvik’s law” (§ 2.6.2) to infer an unrepresented /-i-/ (compare 61. Pforzen I ltahu, interpreted by Nedoma as (I)ltahu). It would be further necessary to assume an unrepresented initial /h-/ (§ 7.1.3.1). As mentioned in § 4.1, Düwel (2003c:13–16) interprets gabu as a dat.sg. form of an o¯ -stem noun cognate with OHG g¯aba “gift” < PGmc *g¯eb¯o (vs. geba < *geb¯o). If this is correct, a here represents a reflex of PGmc */¯e1/. 22. Ferwerd comb case ?( ? )ura Looijenga (1996:93; 2003a:303) reads the material preceding ura as a bindrune me = 1.sg.dat. pronoun m¯e < PGmc *miz(a) (> Go mis, ON mér, OE OFris m¯e, OS m¯ı, OHG mir). Alternatively, the bind-rune could be read em M 1.sg.pres.ind. em “(I) am” (PGmc *immi (Ringe 2006:262) > Go im, ON em, OE eom; compare OFris bim ~ bem, OS bium, OHG bim) (Looijenga 1996:93). These readings are unique to Looijenga, and from my own examination of the available images, I do not consider them reliable. 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida The first sequence of complex II, Âk, is understood throughout the literature to represent the 2.acc.sg. personal pronoun *Â(i)k (PGmc *Âeke > ON Âik, OE Âec, OS thic, OHG dih). The only dissenting view that I am aware of is one advanced by Gutenbrunner and Klingenberg (1967:445), who identify these two runes as magical Begriffsrunen. All the sources treat daÊïna as a weakly inflected FN DłÂ¯ına. A name-element *Dłd- is well attested (and explained either as a lall-name or as a re¯ OFris d¯ede, OS d¯ad, flex of PGmc *d¯ediz > Go ga-d¯eÂs, ON dáð, OE dæd, OHG t¯at etc. “act, deed” – see 5. Aschheim III dado; 84. Weingarten II dado) (Förstemann 1900:387; Kaufmann 1968:88). Nedoma prefers to attribute daÊïna (and 74. Soest daÂa) to an independent element *dłÂ(i)-, of unknown etymology (2004a:279). On the alternative interpretation of the stem as *DaÂ- : MHG tadel “blame”, see § 6.1.
Data
179
That the termination -ïn- represents a name-forming suffix */-¯ın-/ < PGmc */-¯ın-/ is not disputed. The case of DłÂ¯ına is probably nominative, and it is generally understood to be the subject of g¯olida (see below). Though he favours this interpretation, Krause (1966:284) also suggests that the name could be construed as a vocative, syntactically parallel with Â(i)k. Opitz (1987:199), following Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:231) prefers this option. The most popular interpretation of golida is as 1./3.sg.pret. to a weak verb < PGmc *g¯oljanan “greet”, or possibly gl¯oo¯ janan “glow” (§ 4.1). If either of these is correct, i here represents a syllabic reflex of */j/. According to Jänichen (1951:227), ida is a FN parallel to 15. Charnay id dan; 81. Weimar III ida, idun; 82. Weimar IV ida. For more detailed discussion, see the entry on Weimar III, below. 24. Fréthun I sword pommel h?e?( ? ) Although the reading of this inscription is very uncertain, Fischer (2007:72) suggests that it may represent a pers.n. in *Hlem- < PGmc *xlammiz (> ON hlemmr “lid, cover”; OE hlem “sound, noise, crash”; OFris hlem “blow”). No such name-element is recorded in the onomastic literature (Förstemann 1900; Kaufmann 1968; Reichert 1987; Schönfeld 1911), and this interpretation involves “primary” i-umlaut of */a/, which is a doubtful postulate (see §§ 6.1–6.3). The umlaut problem could be avoided if we posit a connection with the related verb *xlemmanan (> ON hlam (pret.) “clinked”; OE hlimman “to sound, roar”; OHG (3.sg.pres.) limmit “makes a noise”). On the other hand, we could equally well connect it with any etymon in */xCe-/. Given the difficulties of reading and the lack of parallels for Fischer’s interpretation, this item is of limited use to the present project. 25. Friedberg fibula ÂuruÂhild This inscription is uncontroversially interpreted as a dithematic FN Áur¯uÂhild (§ 4.1), with the deuterotheme -hild < PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o (see 10. Bezenye I godahid).
180
The front vocalics
27. Geltorf II-A bracteate lalgwu In von Grienberger’s interpretation of gwu as g(i)bu (§ 4.1; § 7.1.1.1), the root vowel (assumed to be /i/ < PGmc */e/ on the basis of the following high vowel) is not represented. Since the interpretation is demonstrably implausible, I shall not pursue it any further. 28. Gomadingen fibula [I] (g) [II] iglug/n [III] ?… As discussed in § 4.1, complex II may represent a pers.n. Iglug/n or I(n)glug/ n/(n)g. If this is connected to the “hedgehog”-word (PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz), as Haubrichs (2004:87) suggests, then the initial i here represents a reflex of PGmc */i/, with the medial */i/ (or */u/) omitted orthographically (but probably present phonologically, if the attested WGmc reflexes – OE OS OHG igil – are a reliable guide). Formally similar names recorded by Förstemann (1900:947) are OHG Igil; Go Igila (both with overt medial /-i-/). Förstemann sees in both of these a stem Ig- (also appearing in forms like Igo, Igina), which he regards as a meaningless “secondary stem”. Kaufmann (1968:214) suggests that it may be connected to OHG ¯ıwa f./ ¯ıgo ~ ¯ıwo m. “yew” (< PGmc *¯ıgwaz/*¯ıxwaz m.). If, on the other hand, it should be read I(n)g-, then it is presumably to be associated with other names in Ing- (see 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari for further discussion). Nedoma (2004a:345) rejects Haubrichs’ etymology and doubts that a pers.n. is present at all. His principal objection to the “hedgehog”-word as an etymon is that there is no motivation for the elision of the second vowel. That this is simply an orthographic omission does not seem to me impossible, given the widespread acceptance by runologists (including Nedoma) of vowel-omission in, e.g., 8. Balingen dnlo M D(a)n(i)lo( ? ). 29. Griesheim fibula [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru That complex II represents a FN AgilaÂr¯u is not disputed in the literature. The name has direct parallels in Langob. Ageldrudis, Agildruda; WFrk Agledrudis (all 9th c., cited by Nedoma 2004a:149). Nedoma (2004a:149–150) analyses the first element as an extension of the base *agi- (see 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike) with a suffix */-la-/, which he regards as one of a set of meaningless extensions added to meaningful stems in name-formation. In support of this argument, he cites another variant in Alamannic Agena-ri-
Data
181
chum (4th c.). Nedoma rejects the notion that we are dealing with the dim. suffix */-il-/ (compare Peterson’s (2004:5) analysis of agilamudon (Rosseland stone, KJ 69)). The deuterotheme -Âr¯u has been discussed in § 4.1. 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). Arntz’ rather convoluted rendering of the inscription as Alisr¯ıh laÂa wihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248) is based on a speculative reading. Alisr¯ıh is supposed to be a name in PGmc *r¯ıkz or *r¯ıkjaz, with Second Consonant Shift (compare 90. Wurmlingen dorih; and see § 7.1.3.1). The element Alis~ Elis ~ Als(e/i)- is well attested (Förstemann 1900:77–79), though Förstemann is doubtful about the etymology: Alis- might be connected with OHG alles gen.sg.masc./neut. (< PGmc *al(l)as (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.5.1; Ringe 2006:281)), but he appears unconvinced. Perhaps more promising an etymon (not mentioned by Förstemann) is PGmc *aliz¯o/*alis¯o (> Go *aliso, OS elira ~ elis- (in compounds), OHG elira ~ erila “alder”) (see further § 7.1.2.1). This element may be present in 83. Weingarten I ali/erguÂ. Arntz interprets wihu as the verb-form w¯ıhu (1.sg.pres.) “I consecrate” < PGmc *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan (§ 4.1). 31. Hailfingen II fibula [I] (a)????( ? ) [II] ( ? )daan? Opitz (1987:113) reads complex II as daannl and interprets it as the name of the prophet Daniel in a “Germanised” form (compare 8. Balingen dnlo). If the final rune is a rather than nl – as Jänichen (1956:156) and Looijenga (2003a:266) suggest – then a reading daana M Dłna is at least possible (compare OHG Dan(n)o m., Danna f. (Förstemann 1900:401)). If correct, this could be a weakly inflected FN (on pers.ns. in Dan-, see Balingen) with a root vowel /a/ < PGmc */a/, or */¯a/ < */¯e1/. While I do not intend to advance such a reading and interpretation with any confidence, it cannot be ruled out (see also § 6.1). 32. †Hainspach pendant lÂsr (Krause 1935b:122–123). In Krause’s interpretation (1935b:124–125), sr is expanded to to *s(¯a)r “here” (: OS OHG s¯ar “at once” < PGmc *s¯er-). This is at best a speculative expansion; if correct, it would involve a reflex of */¯e1/, but since it is unrep-
182
The front vocalics
resented it tells us nothing about the development of the phoneme. On the interpretation of lÂ, see § 6.1. 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi Various readings of the disputed beginning (or rightmost part) of the inscription (ik, k, ïk) are interpreted as the 1.sg.nom. pronoun ik (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:124; Looijenga 2003a:243; Opitz 1987:26). The doubtful reading makes this an unreliable witness. According to the most credible etymology (§ 4.1), arwi is a MN with a stem < PGmc *arwaz “ready”. Nedoma (2004a:211–212) accounts for the final -i as a reflex of a suffix */-(i)ja-/, which is used in short forms of dithematic MNs, e.g., OHG Hari, Hildi (compare Bach 1952/1953:106; Nedoma 2004b:341; Wagner 1975:23–27). 36. Hohenstadt fibula (…)(i)galu Pieper (2010:3) sees in (i)ga a FN I(n)ga (with unrepresented nasal); compare 28. Gomadingen iglug/n. The name-element Ing- may also be present in 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari. We may alternatively be dealing with a name Iga (with a meaningless( ? ) stem Ig-, or I¯g- < PGmc *¯ıgwaz/*¯ıxwaz “yew”), or perhaps Igalu (feminised o¯ -stem related to PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz “hedgehog”?). These possibilities are discussed in more detail in the Gomadingen entry (above); on the “hedgehog” interpretation, see further § 4.4.1; § 6.1. 37. Hoogebeintum comb [I] ?nlu [II] (ded) Complex II may represent 3.sg.pret. dede “did, made” < PGmc *dÀd¯e/*dÀda, to *d¯onan (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8; Ringe 2006:251, 263). The later dialects show alternation in the length of the stem-vowel: OS deda, OHG teta (1./3.sg.pret.); OS d¯adi, OHG t¯ati (2.sg.pret.); OS dedun ~ d¯adun, OHG t¯atum (1./2./3.pl.pret.) (BR § 381; Gallée 1910 § 423 Anm. 5; Holthausen 1921 §§ 474–475). For the 3.sg.pret., we can probably reconstruct a protoform with a short vowel. A pl.pret. form is attested in 67. Schretzheim I. Although Düwel advances this reading and interpretation as a possibility (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:368; see also Looijenga 1996:93; 2003a:325), he earlier describes the complex as a group of non-runic signs (marks of this
Data
183
sort being common on early medieval combs and other bone implements) (1968/1970:355). We may be dealing with a geometric decoration, rather than a runic inscription. 40. Hüfingen III fibula bi If this inscription represents a word, it could be an adj./adv. : OHG bà “near”; or a prep. : OHG bà “by” (< PGmc *bi); or the (verbal or nominal) prefix bi(Düwel and Pieper 2004:11–12). What this might mean is unclear. 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula [I] aunr?d [II] d Nedoma (2004a:221–222) tentatively reads the uncertain sign in complex I as a, and the whole complex as a dithematic MN Aunr¯ad (on the prototheme, see § 3.3.1). The second element could be -r¯ad m. < PGmc *r¯edaz m./*r¯edan n. ¯ OFris r¯ed, OS r¯ad, OHG r¯at (> Burg. *reÂs “advice”; ON ráð, OE ræd, “counsel, advice”); or *-r¯ad f. < PGmc *r¯ed¯o, a fem. derivative of *r¯edaz. Whether the fem. form can genuinely be traced back to PGmc is uncertain; the early onomastic evidence for this element consists almost entirely of MNs, the earliest fem. witness being Langob. Walderada (6th c.) (Nedoma 2004a:222–223). The name-element may be more closely connected with the related adjective, PGmc *r¯edaz (> Go ga-redaba (adv.) “respectably, commendably”; ON harð-ráðr “hard in counsel, tyrannical”; OE ge-r¯ad “considered, instructed, learned”; OHG ein-r¯ati “secret, isolated” (Nedoma 2004a:224; Orel 2003)). If Nedoma’s reading is correct, then we have here a for /¯a/ < */¯e1/. The element -r¯ad also appears in 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade. 43. “Kent” fibula [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa In complex II, ik may represent the 1.sg.nom. personal pronoun ik (see 4. Aschheim II) (Looijenga 2003a:244); although, given the uncertainties in reading and interpreting the whole inscription, this should be treated with caution. Complex III remains uninterpreted. If the transliteration w?fa is valid, it is conceivable that some cognate of OE w¯ıf n. “woman” (PGmc *w¯ıban > ON víf, OE OFris OS w¯ıf, OHG w¯ıb) may be present. On the interpretation of the terminal -a, see § 6.1.
184
The front vocalics
44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali As noted in § 3.2.1, Looijenga (2003a:245) reads gihiali M gihaili, either a verb- or noun-form with the perfective prefix gi-. This is a questionable reading – the sign transliterated gi is a cross or swastika-like sign above the following h. Nedoma (2004a:375) mentions this sign, but does not regard it as a rune. If gihaili is a 2.sg.imp. verb-form (the first of Looijenga’s suggestions), then the terminal /-i/ is the stem-final /-j-/, syllabicated in final position (§ 2.3.3.6). If the word is a noun, it is a nom.sg. ¯ın-stem (compare PGmc *xail¯ın > OHG heilà “salvation”). In this case, we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc */¯ı/. Opitz (1979:366) suggests that -ali may represent the end of a MN, comparable to 6. Bad Ems madali (< PGmc *madl-ija-?) or 54. Neudingen-Baar II hamale (see further § 7.1.3.1). 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula arugis All interpreters regard this inscription as a dithematic MN Arugis, equivalent to 67. Schretzheim I arogis. The prototheme is discussed in § 4.1. The second element is generally identified with Langob. -g¯ıs(a)- “arrow, spear” (< PGmc *g¯ısa-, probably related to *gaizaz > ON geirr “spear”; OE g¯ar, OFris OS OHG g¯er “dart, javelin, spear”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:338; Haubrichs 2004:83; Krause 1966:299; Nedoma 1998a; 2004a:201). Nedoma notes that -g¯ıs(a)- alternates with -g¯ıs(a)la ~ -g¯ısila in versions of the same name, but he rejects the notion that the shorter form is an abbreviation of Langob. g¯ısil “arrow” (or some cognate), which in his view is derived from the base g¯ıs(a)in a pattern comparable to Agi- ~ Agila- ~ Agina- (compare 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike; 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ). The name-elements -g¯ısala, -g¯ısila can also be directly related to PGmc *g¯ıslaz m. (> ON gísl, OE gisel, OFris j¯esel ~ g¯ısel, OS OHG g¯ısal “hostage”); but -g¯ıs(a)- cannot be a contraction of these, as this type of clipping is a pattern not appearing until MHG and MLG (Nedoma, ibid.). If either of these etymologies is correct, then we appear to be dealing with i representing a reflex of PGmc */¯ı/.
Data
185
46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade Structurally, this text seems to be a direct parallel to that of 7. Bad Krozingen A, if birg is taken to represent a nom. FN (see below for an alternative interpretation). The element Birg- ~ Berg- (PGmc *berg¯o > ON bjorg “help, deliverance”; OE h¯eafod-beorg “head-shelter (i.e., helmet)”; OFris hereberge, OS heri-berga, OHG her-berga “inn”) is a common deuterotheme, but only rarely occurs as a prototheme. In OHG, the element appears in the forms -birg, -pirc, or with an anaptyctic vowel as -birig, -piric; metathetic forms -brig, -pric are also attested. Nedoma (2004a:139) traces all of these to a PGmc *bergij¯o < *berg¯o (see also Förstemann 1900:273, 346; Kaufmann 1968:58, 75–76). Elsewhere, *berg¯o appears to be the direct etymon (e.g., OGo Amalabergam acc. (6th c.)), although in OE the form -berg alternates with -burg (e.g., Ædilberga ~ Æðilburga in mss. of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica). The element may be present elsewhere in the runic corpus in 59. Oettingen a?ijabrg; 79. Weimar I haribrig. Birg is morphologically rather odd, however: normally a monothematic name of this type would be weakly inflected, i.e., *Birga ~ *Berga (Nedoma 2006b:351). The peculiar forms of the pers.ns. in the Kleines Schulerloch inscription lead Nedoma to suspect that the inscription is not genuine (see Appendix 2). Krause offers an alternative interpretation of birg as a verb, 2.sg.imp. birg! “help, aid!” to a reflex of PGmc *berganan (> Go bairgan, ON bjarga, OE beorgan, OS OHG bergan “to save, protect, keep”) (Krause 1966:291). If the inscription is genuine, and if either of these interpretations is correct, then i here represents a reflex of PGmc */e/. selbrade is interpretable as a dat. dithematic MN Selbr¯ade, which has parallels in OHG Selb(a)rat ~ Selbraat. The prototheme is derived from PGmc *selbaz/*selb¯on (> Go silba, ON sjálfr, OE OFris OS self, OHG selb “self ”) (Nedoma 2004a:408), the deuterotheme from PGmc *r¯edan/*r¯edaz (see 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d). We have here e representing /e/ < */e/; and a representing /¯a/ < */¯e1/. 47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada This inscription has been discussed in § 3.2.2; § 3.3.1; § 4.1. If Schwab’s suggestion (1998a:420) that fada M fa(ihi)da 3.sg.pret. “made” (to PGmc *faixjanan; see § 3.2.2) is valid, then we have a medial /i/ < PGmc */i/ in the
186
The front vocalics
weak pret. suffix, which is not represented in the abbreviated form fada. We have no parallels which might point us towards an orthographic rule governing such an omission. 49. Liebenau bronze disc ra … Alternative reading: ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138). In Düwel’s interpretation of the inscription as a dithematic MN Ra(u)zw¯ı, the deuterotheme is derived from PGmc *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan “consecrate” (see § 3.3.2; § 4.1). He translates the whole name “the spear-consecrated one” (1972:140–141). Like other pers.ns. with an element *w¯ı-, it could alternatively be connected with PGmc *w¯ıxanan/*w¯ıganan “fight” (Looijenga 2003a:246). For further discussion, see 19. Eichstetten in § 4.1. 50. Mertingen fibula ieok aun If Düwel’s speculative interpretation of ieok as a reflex of PGmc *jeuk“fight, quarrel” is correct (§ 3.1.1), then i here represents initial /j-/. In defence of this hypothesis, Düwel (Babucke and Düwel 2001:169–170) notes the use of for /j/ in OHG mss. (§ 2.6.1), and the epigraphical use of u for consonantal /w/ (§ 4.2.5). 51. München-Aubing I fibula [I] segalo [II] sigila Both complexes are thought to represent weakly inflected pers.ns., a masc. Segalo and a fem. Sigila, both with a root *sig- < PGmc *segez/*segaz (> Go sigis, ON sigr ~ sig, OE sige ~ sigor, OFris s¯ı, OS sigi-, OHG sigu (via a secondary u-stem variant) “victory”) (Düwel 1998b:76; Nedoma 2004a:399–407, 409–410; Opitz 1987:172–174). The /-e-/ of Segalo may be a product of Romance influence (but see below), which Opitz (1987:174) regards as evidence that the maker of the inscription was a West Frankish or Langobardic immigrant. Düwel (1998b:77) suggests that the forms of the names Segalo and Sigila might reflect different dialects, the former WFrk or Langob, the latter Bav or Alam. It occurs to me that the alternant Sig- can be accounted for as an umlaut variant conditioned by the /-i-/ of the following syllable (see § 2.3.3.2). Conversely, if the proto-form is *sig-, the root vowel may be lowered to /-e-/ by a-umlaut in segalo (though lowering of inherited /i/ before a non-high
Data
187
vowel is less consistent in OHG than is raising of /e/ before a high vowel – § 2.3.3.1). Segi- ~ Sigi- is a frequent prototheme in dithematic pers.ns., but there are no clear parallels for a form Sega-. Apparent examples are products of the Latin-influenced writing of Gmc */i/ as (Kaufmann 1968:311–312; see also comments on 11. Bezenye II segun, above). Nedoma (2004a:403) argues that the form Sega- was absorbed by the more frequent Segi-. On the other hand, he does not accept Opitz’ conjecture that Latin influence is responsible for the -e- of segalo; not least because it leaves unanswered the question of why one name should show e while the other has the same element spelled with i. The treatment of Segalo as a hypocoristic form (accepted by both Düwel and Opitz) is problematic: the hypocoristic suffix is normally */-il-/, not */-al-/ (Nedoma 2004a:406–407). Later OHG sources do contain names in / (Düwel cites a Segala as early as the 6th century); but according to Nedoma these are shortened forms of dithematic names (e.g., Dagalo m. (10th c.) is analysable as Dagal{}-o, i.e., a dithematic name with a deuterotheme in /l-/). Nedoma concludes that Segalo is a name of this type (compare, e.g., OHG Sigiliob (Förstemann 1900:1328)). sigila can be interpreted without difficulty as a hypocoristic FN Sig-il-a, with the stem discussed above. Looijenga offers an alternative treatment of the sequence as a noun related to OE sigle, sigel, sigil, sigl n. “brooch” (: Lat. sigillum “seal, sign”) (2003a:247). Nedoma rejects this, arguing that the Lat. neut. ending /-um/ is not likely to be borrowed as fem. -a; and that the meaning “brooch” is not known outside England (Nedoma 2004a:409). On the first point, I note that there is an OHG o¯ -stem insigila “seal”, probably based on sigillum and/or Lat. insigne n. “mark, token” (Köbler 1993). This implies that the transfer of gender is possible. Nedoma’s semantic criticism is not insuperable, but it is significant; and, as indicated above, the interpretation as a FN in Sigi- < *segez/*segaz suffers from no such problems. If both sequences represent pers.ns. with the element Sig- ~ Seg-, the alternation in representation of the root vowels may be triggered by the height of the following vowel, irrespective of whether we reconstruct a proto-form *sig- or *seg-. The root vowel appears as i before a syllable with -i-, and e before a syllable with -a-. The -i- of the second syllable of sigila belongs to a suffix < PGmc */-il-/.
188
The front vocalics
53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? If complexes I and II represent the same word (§ 4.1), i represents a stemvowel derived either from PGmc */e/ via umlaut, if the word is connected to *medjaz or *medj¯on “middle”; or from PGmc */¯e2/, if *m¯e2d¯o is the etymon (*mizd¯o would produce a form like *mirdu, so it cannot underlie the present form unless we are to assume that medial /-r-/ has been omitted; see § 7.1.2.1). If complex III is klefih (one alternative reading suggested by Düwel 1990:8), then the final ih might be a (pseudo-?) consonant-shifted 1.sg.nom. pronoun “I” (§ 7.1.3.2.1). Using the more plausible reading klefilÂ, Düwel (ibid.) proposes a haplographic interpretation *kl¯ef filÂ, with *fil possibly meaning “garment” (on the interpretation of klef, see § 3.2.2). Düwel does not give an etymology for filÂ, but I suspect he has in mind a connection with PGmc *faldiz m. (> ON feldr “cloak”; OE fyld “fold, volume”), and/or the related verb *falÂanan (> Go falÂan “to fold”; ON falda “to cover one’s head”; OE fealdan, OHG faldan ~ faltan, MLG volden “to fold up”). Nedoma (2004a:244) analyses fil as *fill-iÂ-, an unattested derivative of PGmc *fellan n. (> ON fjáll, OE OFris OS fell, OHG fel “skin”), again referring to the garment fastened by the fibula. He does not discuss the element */-iθ-/, but he seems to imply that it is an extension to the stem which is either meaningless or of obscure function. It might alternatively be the same suffix used to form deadjectival nouns like OHG f¯ulida “filth” < f¯ul “foul”; heilida “health” < heil “hale, healthy” (I am not aware of any examples where the base is a noun). In a similar vein, Looijenga reads filÂa M filÂa < *feltaz (> OE felt, OHG filz “felt”; modG Filz “woollen garment, cloak”) (Looijenga 2003a:247) (see further § 7.1.2.1). 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna Throughout the literature, the sequence lbi is taken to be a contraction of l(iub)¯ı “affection, love” < PGmc *leub¯ın (§ 3.1.1; compare also 79. Weimar I liubi). If this is correct – and, as I indicate in the earlier discussion, I am not confident that it is – then i here represents the stem-formant /¯ı/ < PGmc */-¯ın/. Scardigli (1986:353) suggests that bi could be treated as a haplogram, representing both the termination of liub¯ı and the preposition bi “by, near” (see 40. Hüfingen III). He does not develop the idea, and nowhere else in the literature is it commented on.
Data
189
There is likewise widespread agreement that imuba is a weakly inflected nom. FN Imuba < Imba with anaptyxis( ? ) (§ 4.1; § 4.2.2). Looijenga (2003a:248) suggests a connection with Irmin- (PGmc *ermenaz/*ermunaz > ON jormun-gandr “great monster”, Jormunr (by-name of Óðinn); OE eormen-cyn “mankind”; OS irmin-man “man”; OHG irmin-s¯ul “tall column”). Nedoma uses a similar etymology, Ermin- ~ Irmin- > Emen-, Em-, Im-; the connection between Irmin- names and short forms in Imm- is supported by doublets like OHG Immoni siue Irminfrido (8th c.) (Förstemann 1900:949; Morlet 1968:84; Nedoma 2004a:348). A connection with OHG Imma, Emma has been proposed (Düwel 1989a:45; 2002c:27; Opitz 1981:31; 1982:488), via a hypothetical dissimilation process /-mm-/ > /-mb-/. Nedoma (2004a:346) rejects this as an ad hoc postulate. He also rejects Scardigli’s notion (Scardigli 1986:353–354; 1994:288) that we are dealing with a strongly-inflected (gen.) theriophoric FN Imma = modG Imme “bee”; this modern word is a reflex of OHG imbi ~ impi : OE ymbe ~ imbe “swarm (of bees)” (the meaning “bee” is not attested until late MHG (Kluge 2002)). Haubrichs (2004:87) suggests WGmc *imbi(with the meaning “multitude”) (< PGmc *imbiz) as the etymon for Imuba. Nedoma instead analyses the name (together with similar forms recorded later, e.g., Langob. Impa (9th c.), OHG Ymbo m. (10th c.)) as an abbreviated dithematic name Imub{}-a from a full form like *Im-birg (or similar; compare 51. München-Aubing I segalo, which Nedoma identifies as an abbreviated dithematic MN with a similar structure). The element Im- is relatively rare (appearing in, e.g., Batavian Imerix m. (1st century); WGmc Immone m. abl. (4th c.)) and its etymology is uncertain. Possible related words include OIc ím “dust, dirt, darkness”; OIc ímr (poet.) “wolf, giant” (Müller 1970:10). If we are dealing with an etymon *ermenaz, then i- represents a reflex of PGmc */e/. In all the other etymologies, it represents a reflex of */i/. bliÂgu is uncontroversially interpreted as a dithematic FN Bl¯ıÂgu(n) (§ 4.1), with a prototheme derived from PGmc *bl¯ıÂ(j)az (> Go bleiÂs “kindhearted, merciful”; ON blíðr “gentle, mild”; OE bl¯ıðe “joyful, glad, merry”; OS bl¯ıthi “shining, light”; OHG bl¯ıdi “merry, glad”) (Düwel 2002c:28; Haubrichs 2004:79; Looijenga 2003a:248; Nedoma 2004a:242–243). The element is well attested in OHG sources, and Bl¯ıÂgun has a direct parallel Plidcund (Förstemann 1900:313–316). We can be fairly confident, therefore, that i here represents a reflex of PGmc */¯ı/.
190
The front vocalics
55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? The only part of the text which can be interpreted with any confidence is liub (§ 3.1.1). Opitz (1987:234) suggests that big might be an abbreviated form of the verb “begin” (OHG biginnan; see Klingenberg’s interpretation of 81. Weimar III bigina). 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The problematic termination of complex A.I has already been discussed (§ 3.2.2; § 4.1); the most popular (and in my view, the most plausible) interpretations treat it as an inflectional ending < PGmc */-ai/. Kabell (1970:6–8) suggests that the ending belongs to a nom.sg.masc. n-stem, and is derived from PIE */-¯en-/ > ON /-e/ (e.g., gume vs. OHG gomo, OE guma). Traces of the */-¯en-/ grade are found in parts of the masc. n-stem paradigm (Go gen.sg. /-ins/, dat.sg. /-in/; OHG gen.dat.sg. /-en/ ~ /-in/; OS gen.dat.sg. /-en/; OE gen.pl. /-ena/), as well as in the OE fem. n-stems (nom.sg. /-e/) (Prokosch 1939:249–254; see also Findell 2010). Kabell’s hypothesis lacks supporting evidence in the attested forms: the */-¯en-/ grade does not appear in the nom.sg.masc. in any of the WGmc dialects, nor in Gothic. ON /-e/ might seem to be a candidate, but according to Noreen (1923 § 399), this is a reflex of PNorse */-æ/ ¯ (< */-an/ – see Krause 1971:125). Complex III wigi/uÂonar was also discussed in § 4.1. The first i represents a reflex of */¯ı/, if we are dealing with a stem < PGmc *w¯ıganan/*w¯ıxanan or *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan; or of */i/ if the etymon is *wing-. If the generally preferred reading of i/u as i is correct, and if the underlying root is *w¯ıgj-/ *w¯ıxj-, then this rune represents a syllabic reflex of /-j-/. In complex IV, wini is believed to represent a reflex of PGmc *weniz “friend” (§ 4.1), with the root-vowel */e/ > /i/ via PGmc umlaut and/or nasal conditioning (§ 2.3.3.2). The second i may represent any of several suffixes: nom.sg. (PGmc */-iz/ > OS OHG /-i/), acc.sg. (PGmc */-in/ > OS OHG /-i/), or dat.sg. (PGmc */-ai/ or */-¯ı/ > OS OHG /-e/; see § 3.2.2).
Data
191
57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? If the beginning of the inscription is bir, Arntz suggests that a MN birtlio M Bir(h)tilo might be present, with /h/ elided and /-il-/ transposed (presumably in error); the etymology is not discussed, but it is probable that Arntz has in mind the common name-element Berht- < PGmc *berxtaz (Go bairhts, ON bjartr, OE beorht, OS berht, OHG beraht “bright”). He reads the remaining runes elŋ, possibly representing a MN Eling (though Arntz allows that this is speculative) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:305). Opitz (1987:236) suggests that birlni = dat.sg. fem. birilin (compare OS OHG biril “basket, pot”; OE byr(e)le “cupbearer, butler” < PGmc *berilaz m., the OE form apparently via an intermediate *burilaz > *buril¯on). *berilaz is itself derived from the verb *beranan (> Go bairan, ON bera, OE OS OHG beran, OFris bera “to bear, carry, give birth”) (Orel 2003). Opitz posits a meaning “giver [fem.]”. On the suffix */-il-az/, see 14. Bülach fridil. Looijenga (2003a:251) is more confident about her reading and interpretation, dividing the text into three words birln io elk. The first of these is taken to be a nom. n-stem MN Birl(i)n, a diminutive based on OHG bero “bear”. Looijenga refers to Gottschald (1982:100–101) but does not give any more detail on the construction of the name. Presumably it is composed of the stem bir- = ber- (PGmc *ber¯on m. > OS OHG bero) + the dim. suffix */-l¯ın/. Gottschald does cite an OHG Bierl(ein) and MHG Birling, which would seem to support Looijenga’s construction. The closest name recorded by Förstemann is OHG Berila f. (1900:261); Müller (1970:17) notes an ODan runic birla.1 In Looijenga’s interpretation, io is jo(h) “and” (§ 4.1). Her treatment of elk as “elk” is not plausible (§ 7.1.3.1). Given the uncertainties of the reading, none of the above interpretations can be upheld with much confidence. 58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd If the reading gba is valid, this suggests a word from the PGmc root *geb“give”. Klingenberg (1974:90–92; also Opitz 1987:123–126) treats g as a Begriffsrune “g(ift)”, while at the same time gba represents the noun < PGmc 1 We cannot read anything into the use of i in Müller’s parallel, as the Younger FuÂarks have no e.
192
The front vocalics
*geb¯o (> Go giba, ON gjóf, OE gi(e)fu, OFris jeve, OS OHG geba “gift”); or a 1.sg.pres. verb-form giba “I [sc. the spoon] give” (< PGmc *geb¯o).2 On the further interpretation of ba, see § 6.1. Düwel (2002e:479) and Looijenga (2003a:252) also interpret gba as a nom. noun g(e)ba “gift” (on the suffix, see § 4.4.3.3). If a connection with *geb- is valid, we are dealing with an unrepresented root vowel < PGmc */e/. 59. Oettingen fibula a?ijabrg That brg should be expanded to b(i)rg via “Grønvik’s law” (§ 2.6.2) seems to be generally accepted. There is a difference of opinion on whether this sequence represents a distinct word or the second element of a compound. Betz (1979:243–244) treats it as a 2.sg.imp. birg “protect!” (see 46. †Kleines Schulerloch birg). Looijenga (2003a:252) and Nedoma (2004a:138–140), on the other hand, interpret the whole inscription as a dithematic FN (Looijenga, like Betz, reads the initial sequence as auija and interprets it as a reflex of PGmc *aujan – § 3.3.1). On the name-element -birg, see 46. †Kleines Schulerloch birg, above. It may also be present in 79. Weimar I haribrig. The Schulerloch and Weimar examples both have a root-vowel represented -i-, which would seem to support the insertion of /-i-/ here. For this to be a regular development from PGmc */-e-/, we would have to infer a pre- or proto-form with a following syllable containing a high front vocalic (§ 2.3.3.2), such as *bergij¯o, posited by Nedoma. Although simplex j¯o-stem nouns in early OHG have a nom.sg. ending /-e/ ~ /-ea/ ~ /-ia/, dithematic FNs with j¯o-stem deuterothemes are normally zero-suffixed (see § 4.4.2). 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? Krause (1966:285) reads d?h as dih, which he identifies as the 2.sg.acc. pronoun dih < PGmc *Âeke (see 23. Freilaubersheim Âk). This interpretation is widely accepted, in spite of the questionable reading and the assertion of consonant changes at an early date (for more, see § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1).
2 Klingenberg is working on the assumptions that the dialect of the inscription is EGmc (compare Go giba 1.sg.pres., vs. OS OHG gebu); and that the function of the object is for dispensing the Eucharist (see Düwel 1994b:244).
Data
193
Krause’s interpretation of deofile as a borrowed form of Lat. diabolus “devil” is widely accepted. As noted in § 3.1.1, the rendering of Lat /ia/ as eo is (more or less) plausible, as is -i- in the second syllable (compare OHG tiufil, tiubil, diufil, diubil), although taken together they produce an irregular form. The ending -e poses further problems: Krause interprets it as a borrowing of the Latin voc. /-e/. To borrow the voc. rather than the nom. seems peculiar, however, and I am not aware of any OHG or OS parallels (Theophile in Tatian is not a satisfactory example – see below). If deofile is a genuine form, it ought on formal grounds to be dat.; but this would not be concordant with an acc. pronoun dih. An alternative suggestion (Jungandreas 1972; also Looijenga 2003a:253), is that this sequence represents a pers.n., voc. to Lat T(h)eophilus, as it appears in Tatian’s translation of Lk 1:3: visum est et mihi, … ex ordine tibi scribere optime Theophile (Vulg.).3 Tatian preserves the Latin voc. form: … th¯u bezzisto Theophile (Jungandreas 1972:84); on the substitution of d for
3 “It seemed good to me also, … to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus” (Rheims-Douay tr.).
194
The front vocalics
It is generally accepted that andi is the conjunction andi “and” (PGmc *andi > ON en(n), OE OFris and, OS endi, MDu enn, OHG anti ~ enti ~ inti “and”), coordinating the pers.ns. Aigil and Ailr¯un/Allr¯un/Alur¯un (see § 3.2.1; § 6.1). ltahu is the most problematic part of the inscription; its various interpretations have been discussed in § 4.1. If the reading elahu is correct then we are probably dealing with a cognate of OHG elahho “elk” (< PGmc *elx¯on; compare 89. Wremen lgu-). The only interpretation of this reading which does not employ the “elk”-word is that of Schwab (1999b:64–67), who suggests that it may be a compound el(i)-ahu dat.sg. “foreign water”. The element eli- is here a reflex of PGmc *aljaz “other”, with e representing an umlaut product of an underlying /a/ (§ 6.1). Alternatively, Schwab proposes that elahu could be a compound e¯ l-ahu “eel-water” (PGmc *¯elaz > ON áll, OE æl, ¯ OFris e¯ l, OS OHG a¯ l “eel”), where e represents a reflex of PGmc */¯e1/ prior to its development into /¯a/ (Schwab 1999b:67–68). In defence of this proposal, Schwab argues (incorrectly – see § 5.2.2.2) that the only runic inscription from the Continent which attests to this change is the Thorsberg sword chape (KJ 20) wajemariz, which Krause (1966:54; 1971:24) interprets as a compound with -m¯ariz < PGmc *m¯erjaz “famous” (see also 77. Szabadbattyán marŋ). Nedoma (2004a:162; 2004b:347–348) rejects Schwab’s conjecture as linguistically impossible. Wagner (1995:104–105; 1999a:93–95) reads the cross-hatching at the end of complex I as aŋi, which he takes together with ltahu to give a dat. dithematic FN Angilt¯ahu, with a prototheme Angil- “Angle” (= OHG Angil-, OE Engle < PGmc *ang(i)laz). Förstemann (1900:107–119) cites a large number of pers.ns. in Angil-, which have several possible etymologies: (i) Ang-il- as an extension of the name-element Ang- (: OHG ango “hook, hinge” < PGmc *ang¯on); (ii) the ethnonym “Angle” < PGmc *ang(i)laz; (iii) Lat. angelus “angel”; (iv) an extension of the name-element Ingvi- (see 85. †Weser I (ŋ)?e) (extensions of this type normally appear as Ingal-). Even if Wagner’s reading is correct (which is at best questionable), the etymology of the element *aŋilis uncertain (on the element -t¯ahu, see § 4.1). Nedoma (1999b:106–108, 2004a:161, 2004b:347), reads ltahu as a single word, which he interprets as a RN (I)ltahu, or perhaps (A)ltahu. The former is a compound of a known RN (modG Ilz, a Bavarian tributary of the Danube; there is also an Ilz-bach in Styria; see further § 7.1.2.1) with the second element -ahu “water” (§ 4.1). The initial /i-/ may be supplied by invocation of “Grønvik’s law” (§ 2.6.2); it is not necessary to postulate the presence of a bind-rune il, as proposed by Eichner (1999:112–113) and Grønvik (2003:175–176).
Data
195
For our present purposes, I conclude simply that the reading ltahu does not contain any rune which can represent a reflex of a PGmc front vocalic. If one is present, it must be inferred as an orthographically unrepresented element. Given the wide range of interpretations – none of which is altogether satisfactory – this cannot be considered a reliable example. 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa The legible portion of complex I, gisali, is interpreted as a MN derived from either PGmc *g¯ıslaz “hostage” or *g¯ıslaz/*g¯ızlaz “arrow, spear”, both of which involve a root-vowel < PGmc */-¯ı-/. As the proto-forms show, these two etyma are difficult to distinguish from one another (Düwel 1999c:130; Nedoma 2004a:304–306). A similar element g¯ıs- (probably related to *g¯ıslaz “arrow”, though not directly derivable from it) may be present in 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 67. Schretzheim I arogis. In the present case, Haubrichs (2004:83) favours the “arrow”-word as the etymon. The terminal -i may be the beginning of another word (in which case gisal is a zero-suffixed G¯ısal). Nedoma prefers to interpret it as a suffix: gisali M G¯ısal-i, a short form of a dithematic name with a hypocoristic suffix */-ija-/ (2004a:304, 2004b:341; likewise Düwel 1999c:130; Haubrichs loc.cit.). In complex II, aodli is generally believed to be a dithematic FN Aodli(n) (on the prototheme, see § 3.3.1). The deuterotheme is (so Düwel 1999c:131–132; 2002c:33; Nedoma 2004a:192–193) a fem. form of an adjective, to PGmc *lenÂaz/*linÂijaz (> OE l¯ıð “lithe, soft, gentle”; OS l¯ıthi “mild, merciful”; OHG lindi “mild, gentle, friendly”). Nedoma supports the reconstruction of a j¯o-stem by reference to WFrk names in -lend-is, -lind-is. Braune likewise states that FNs in OHG -lind behave like j¯o-stems (BR § 210 Anm. 5); see further § 4.4.2. According to Düwel (1999c:131), names with an adjective as a deuterotheme are normally feminine. 63. Pleidelsheim fibula iiha Düwel (1999a:15), reading inha, mentions a similar form INHANI (gen.) on a Latin inscription (CIL XIII 3579); but he asserts that there is no connection between the two. Reichert (1987:446) classifies INHANI as non-Gmc. A Gmc name-element In(n)- is attested (e.g., OHG Inno, Infrid, Inheri), which Förstemann (1900:955) connects the with OE inn “house, lodging” : in(n) adv. “within” < PGmc *end(À).
196
The front vocalics
Nedoma (2004a:349) tentatively suggests that a reading eha : iiha (Ç"I : (("I) might be possible, and that this might represent a fem. parallel to 18. Donzdorf eho. This idea is offered as nothing more than an attractive speculation. 64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] (?)riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) Steinhauser (1968a:5–9) reads the beginning of complex I as kïn M k¯en = OHG k¯en ~ kien “torch, pine” M “lightning”( ? ), with the “yew-rune” standing for a long /¯e/ < PGmc */¯e2/. Nedoma dismisses this as implausible (2003:486). In the few inscriptions in which this rune appears, it normally represents /i/ or /¯ı/ (see § 5.2.4). In complex II, Steinhauser reads iriŋ M Iring, a MN attested in OHG sources and in place-names (e.g., Iringesperg (1106) = modern-day Eibetsberg) (Steinhauser 1968a:7). The name Iring ~ Irinc is frequent in OHG sources, but the etymology of the stem Ir- is unclear (Förstemann 1900:967–968). The mark which Steinhauser reads as the initial i is a long vertical line covering the height of complexes I and II. Nedoma expresses doubt about whether this is a rune at all. If it is, there is no reason to assign it to complex II rather than complex I. Steinhauser’s claim that the double height of the sign is connected somehow with the allegedly mythical figure of Iring is unsubstantiated and has no parallels elsewhere in the runic tradition (Nedoma 2003:485). 65. †Rügen stone piece f/ giu/ a l Arntz (1973b:7–8) interprets giu as gi(b)u, which I do not consider to be phonologically plausible (see § 4.1). No other interpretations are available. 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd In complex I, dedun is invariably taken to represent dÀdun 3.pl.pret. “made” (§ 4.1; see also 37. Hoogebeintum ded, above). In the pl.pret. forms of the verb “do/make”, OHG regularly has t¯atun, with a stem-vowel /¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/, while OS sources vary between a parallel d¯adun and dedun with a short vowel < PGmc */e/. This alternation in the preterite stem (*/-e-/ ~ */-¯e1-/) may already have been present in PGmc (Ringe 2006:158, 263). The view expressed in BR (§ 381) is that Schretzheim e represents short /e/; we cannot at
Data
197
this stage rule out the possibility of an archaic spelling of a reflex of */¯e1/, however (for further discussion, see § 5.2.2.2). The general view is that complex II arogis represents a MN parallel to 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis (see above) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:338; Haubrichs 2004:77; Krause 1966:299; Nedoma 2004a:199). Accepting arogis as a pers.n. leaves us with the stray d at the end. The most common method of disposal is as a Begriffsrune or as an abbreviation for d(eda) 3.sg.pret. “did, made”, parallel to dedun in complex I (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:339; Krause 1966:299–300; Nedoma 2004a:172). Another possibility is that d belongs to the name, arogisd M Arogast (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:340; Looijenga 2003a:255). This strikes me as an ad hoc interpretation and not phonologically credible. Firstly and most importantly, the vowel alternation /i/ ~ /a/ is unmotivated and unsupported. Secondly, no explanation is given for the use of d for final /-t/ (although there is a possible parallel in 81. Weimar III isd, which may be 3.sg.pres.ind. ist “is”). I suspect that the suggestion is based on a presumed devoicing of final /-d/, which might lead a carver to confuse d and t in final position. If we allow this point to stand, it might license an interpretation of arogisd as *Arogist; but there is still no justification for treating -gist as a variant of -gast. Yet another possibility suggested by Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:343) is that d is an abbreviation for (an)d(i) “and”, co-ordinating Arog¯ıs and Alagun as the plural subject of dÀdun. Again, this has no parallels and cannot be substantiated. I note in passing that no attempt has been made to interpret isd here as ist 3.sg.pres. “is” (compare 81. Weimar III), presumably because there is no following material to act as a complement. On the other hand, the runological community seems quite happy to accept dedun and d as “made” without an overt object. An ist interpretation would leave us with the preceding arog to account for – not that this would necessarily present any difficulty; we could, for instance, invoke haplography and expand the text to Arog(¯ıs) ist. 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo Complex I is generally interpreted as either two words si(n) wag(j?)a(n)dÃn, or a compound of these two elements. In either case, si is connected to PGmc *senÂaz m. (> Go sinÂs “time, instance”; ON sinn n. “time”; OE s¯ıð “going, journey, travel”; OS s¯ıð “way”; OHG sind “direction, way”). If it is an independent word, it is taken to be acc.sg., the object of the participle or deverbal noun represented by wagadin (see § 4.1). The termination -in has
198
The front vocalics
already been discussed, as its interpretation is linked to that of the stem. If it is a weak dat.sg. adjectival ending (Krause 1966: 1966:298; Koch 1977:164), -i- represents the final /-i-/ of the participial stem-formant (PGmc */-and-ja-/ ~ */-j¯o-/). The declension of the present participles in the Gmc dialects varies, but in OHG and OS they are regularly declined as ja-/j¯o-stems (Prokosch 1939:264), with dat.pl. /-¯em/ < PGmc */-aim/ (BR §§ 250, 256–257). In OHG mss., dat.pl. suffixes in predominate in the 9th century, but only appears in the 8th (BR § 193 Anm. 7). In Nedoma’s interpretation (2004a:359, 411), the sequence represents a deverbal ¯ın-stem noun and -i- therefore represents a long /¯ı/ < */¯ı/. 70. Schwangau fibula aebi In Looijenga’s interpretation, this sequence may represent a ja-stem MN < PGmc *aibijaz, an adjectival derivative of *aib¯o “district” (§ 3.2.1). This interpretation is open to question, but no satisfactory alternatives have been offered. If it is correct, i represents the suffix /-Ã/ < PGmc */-ija-/ (see 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi). 71. Sievern-A bracteate rwrilu On the generally-accepted interpretation of wrilu as wr¯ıtu 1.sg.pres., see § 4.1. If this is correct, i here represents the vowel of the present stem, /¯ı/ < PGmc */¯ı/. 72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid That auja represents either PNorse auja “luck” or a WGmc cognate *auwja (§ 3.3.1) is not controversial. The identification of the dialect as WGmc is peculiar to Antonsen (1975:76–77). The sequences alawin and alawid are without exception interpreted as MNs, the first with a deuterotheme -win < PGmc *weniz (see 56. Nordendorf I leubwini, in § 4.1). The etymology of the deuterotheme represented by -wid is less clear: -i- in this case may represent a reflex of PGmc */i/, */e/ or */¯ı/ (§ 4.1). The j preceding alawid is usually regarded as either a Begriffsrune j(¯ara) “year” M “good year, good harvest” (Antonsen 1975:77; Krause 1966:242;
Data
199
1971:163; Looijenga 2003a:216; McKinnell et al. 2004:77; Nowak 2004:541); as a fourth auja in abbreviated form (Krause, ibid.); or as the particle ja(h) “and” (Stiles 1984:30; compare Looijenga’s interpretation of 57. Nordendorf II io). 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu Complex I is generally accepted as a MN < PGmc *neuja- with the hypocoristic suffix */-il-/ (§ 3.1.1; § 4.1). If Antonsen is correct in interpreting w not as an error or epenthetic glide from /u/ to /i/ but as a product of gemination, then -i- here might be seen as representing the reflex of not only the suffix vowel /-i-/ but also */-j-/ in the stem-formant (i.e., */-j-i-/ > */-¯ı-/ > */-i-/). 74. Soest fibula [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano rada is variously treated in the literature as either a weakly inflected nom. FN R¯ada (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:348; Holthausen 1931:304; Krause 1966:280; Nedoma 2004a:394–395); or as a formulaic “wish-word”cognate with OHG r¯at “counsel, advice, help” M “protection”( ? ) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:348; Klingenberg and Koch 1974:125; Opitz 1987:41). In either case, it is derived from PGmc *r¯edaz “counsel” (see 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d), with a representing a reflex of */¯e1/. In the “formula-word” interpretation, Opitz accounts for the terminal -a as a nom./acc.pl. a-stem inflectional suffix (compare OHG /-a/, OS /-os/ ~ /-as/ ~ /-a/ < PGmc nom.pl. */-¯oz/). Looijenga prefers to interpret rada as a verb-form, 3.sg.opt.pres. r¯ad¯e, to OHG r¯atan, OS r¯adan (< PGmc *r¯edanan), which she glosses not in the normal way “to advise, counsel” (compare Holthausen 1921; Orel 2003) but as “to guess, to read” (“Obviously, Datha should guess the name that was hidden in the rune-cross [sc. complex II]” (Looijenga 2003a:258)). These meanings are attested for OE rædan ¯ (BT), but not for the OHG or OS cognates (Köbler 1993; 2000). Looijenga’s explanation of the final -a as a result of either vowel-harmony with the root-vowel /-¯a-/ or end-rhyme with daÂa is speculative, and she offers no justification for her unusual gloss. All commentators agree that daÂa is a weak nom. FN DłÂa, with the same stem as 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna. If the stem-vowel is long, then a represents a reflex of */¯e1/.
200
The front vocalics
75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) On the interpretation of husi?ald as a pers.n. with a prototheme HŒsi-, see § 4.1. It is unclear whether i represents a reflex of thematic */-i-/, or */-j-/ in a stem-formant */-ja-/. 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f Pieper interprets amelkud as a dithematic FN Amelku(n)d (see § 4.1). The first element is taken to be equivalent to Amal-, the family name of the Ostrogothic kings, possibly attested in 8. Balingen amiluk; and/or 26. Gammertingen ad/mo (§ 6.1)). 77. Szabadbattyán buckle marŋs? marŋ is commonly interpreted as a WGmc MN M¯aring, with a stem m¯ari< PGmc *m¯erjaz (> Go waila-mereis “well-reputed, laudable”; ON mrr, OE mære, ¯ OS OHG m¯ari “famous, distinguished, great”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:359; Kiss 1980:113–114; Krause 1966:311). Nedoma (2004a:379, 381–383) also favours this etymology. ŋ is here interpreted as the patronymic suffix /-ing/. Grønvik (1985:181) suggests that the following s might also be part of this name, M¯arings being gen.sg. < M¯aring(a)s ~ -(e)s, with syncope of the suffix vowel; in Grønvik’s view, the /-es/ suffix of the OHG gen.sg. was later restored analogically through the influence of the demonstrative pronoun Âes > des. Nedoma (2004a:379) objects that in fact the OHG a-stem gen.sg. /-es/ is generally believed to be a regular reflex of PGmc */-eza/ < PIE */-éso/ (vs. */-oso/ > PGmc */-aza/ > ON /-ar/); there is no supporting evidence for the existence of a form with a syncopated vowel in the earlier stages of the language. A second possibility is that we are dealing with a name with a short stemvowel /a/ < */a/ (see § 6.1). 78. †Trier serpentine object [I] wilsa [II] wairwai [I] wilja [II] wairwai (my alternative reading – see § 4.1). On Schneider’s (1980) interpretation of complex I as a 2.sg.imp. verb-form wil(li)so “to long for” (or similar), with i M /i/ < PGmc */i/, see § 4.1.
Data
201
If my alternative reading wilja is plausible, we may be dealing with a weakly inflected pers.n. based on a ja- or j¯o-stem element. In this case, j represents the stem-formant /-j-/. 79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· Complex I haribrig is believed throughout the literature to be a metathetic form of a dithematic FN Haribirg (attested in OHG Heripirc (9th c.); Heripric (10th c.)) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:366; Nedoma 2004a:330). The etymology poses few difficulties: the first element is connected to PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz m. (> Go harjis, ON herr, OE OFris here, OS heri, OHG heri n. “army”) (see also 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari; 87. †Weser III ulu:hari); the second to *berg¯o f., possibly via a derived *bergij¯o, which would account for the representation of */e/ as i via umlaut (see 46. †Kleines Schulerloch birg). The first of the two i-runes represents a short /i/ < either PGmc */i/ or a syllabic reflex of */j/ (depending on which proto-form we posit for Hari-); the second is a reflex of PGmc */e/, the raising of which is regular if the proto-form is a j¯o-stem. Complex II hiba is generally identified as a weakly inflected monothematic FN Hiba, the nearest literary parallels to which are OHG Hibonis m.gen. (8th c.); OS Hibuko m. (c.1000) (Nedoma 2004a:332). Both Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:367) and Krause (1966:288) identify OHG Hibo m. as a hypocoristic form of dithematic MNs like Hildibert, Hildiberg, Hildibald (see also Förstemann 1900:814, 818). The name-element -hild (< PGmc *xeldiz/ *xeldj¯o “battle”) may be present in 10. Bezenye I godahid; and 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild. Nedoma supports the idea that hiba is an abbreviated form of a dithematic name, noting that there is no known Gmc name-element HÃb- (2004a:332– 333). Abbreviations of this sort are normally built on a base consisting of the prototheme and the beginning of the deuterotheme (often reduced or elided), with a weak inflection added (compare Nedoma’s analyses of 51. MünchenAubing I segalo; and 54. Neudingen-Baar II imuba). If Hiba is a name of this sort, it would be what Nedoma calls a “progressive type”, in which the base consists of clipped initial parts of both themes, i.e. Hi{}b{}-a : Hildiburg etc. (Nedoma 2004a:334). Nedoma rejects Opitz’ (1987:188–189) suggestion that Hiba is a hypocoristic form of Haribirg, on the grounds that the contraction of Hari- to H{}i, eliding the root-vowel and retaining the thematic vowel, is unparalleled (we would expect a form like *haba). Looijenga’s speculation that hiba might be “an alternative spelling for h¯ıwa ‘spouse’” (2003a:261) is groundless (§ 4.1).
202
The front vocalics
Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:366–367) suggests another alternative: no bottom stroke is visible on b, so a reading hira is plausible. This could be a 3.sg. gen. or dat.fem. pronoun hira (OS OHG ira : OFris hira, OE hire); see further § 7.1.3.1. If the majority reading hiba is correct, and if the sequence represents a pers.n., it is unclear what name-elements underlie it. A prototheme Hildi- is certainly plausible, but we cannot be confident that it is present here. If the end of complex III is correctly read as an i-rune, then we may be dealing with an ¯ın-stem noun liub¯ı “love, affection” (< PGmc *leub¯ın) (see 54. Neudingen-Baar II lbi); or a nom. ja-stem MN Liubi (§ 3.1.1). In the former case, -i represents a reflex of PGmc */-¯ı/, in the latter the stem-formant */-j-/. 80. Weimar II fibula [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: The dominant view is that complex I contains a pers.n. in Sig- (see 51. München-Aubing I segalo, sigila) or Sin(Â)- (see 68. Schretzheim II siÂ-); or, if read right to left, it could be a name ending with the element -g¯ıs (see 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 67. Schretzheim I arogis) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:369; Krause 1966:288; Nedoma 2004a:408–409; Opitz 1987:46). The reading is so uncertain, however, that we cannot consider either of these reliable. Looijenga’s (2003a:261) reading sigibl/ad M Sigibald (on the etymology of -bald, see 75. Steindorf husi?ald) does not find any support elsewhere. Complex III hiba is equivalent to 79. Weimar I hiba. Given that both witnesses are from the same grave, it is possible that if hiba represents a pers.n., both inscriptions refer to the same individual. 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: In complex I, ida is interpreted as a weakly inflected FN (or MN? (Looijenga 2003a:261)) Ida, with parallels in several other runic inscriptions: 15. Charnay id:dan (masc.); 82. Weimar IV ida; and (in Jänichen’s interpretation) 23. Freilaubersheim ida. Other possible witnesses are idons (Le¸tcani spindle-whorl (L V.38), excluded from my corpus on geographical and linguistic grounds); and IDIN (Meldorf fibula, if the inscription is in Roman capitals; see, inter alios, Düwel and Gebühr 1981; Odenstedt 1983. For criticism of the Latin interpretation, see Antonsen 1986:337–338).
Data
203
Nedoma analyses Ida as a short form of a dithematic name with the prototheme Id(a?)-, the etymology of which is not clear. He favours a connection with OIc iðja f. “activity, doing, business”, íð f. “deed, work” (< PGmc *idiz), iðinn adj. “diligent” (2004a:341–342). De Vries (1961) identifies OE idig “busy, active” with the same root. Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:373) identifies bigina as a FN with a stem BÃg-, attested in OE Biga, OHG Pigo, Bicco and various dithematic names (e.g., OHG Bighibert (8th c.)). The etymology of this stem is unknown. Nedoma rejects a connection with Alam. p¯ıga f. o¯ -stem, Bav. p¯ıgo m. n-stem “heap, something piled up”, on (unspecified) semantic grounds, notwithstanding its formal (i.e., phonological) plausibility (2004a:235). Nedoma analyses the termination -ina as the feminising suffix (< PGmc */-¯ın(a)-/), followed by a weak nom.fem. inflectional suffix (Nedoma 2004a:234–236); compare the analysis of 23. Freilaubersheim -ïna. Opitz briefly mentions Klingenberg’s interpretation of bigina as 2.sg.imp. to the verb “begin” (PGmc *bi-gennanan > OE OS bi-ginnan, OFris beginna, OHG bi-ginnan) (Klingenberg 1976c:370–371; Opitz 1987:110). That the sequence is connected with this verb I find plausible in itself, but the 2.sg.imp. is endingless throughout Gmc (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8; Prokosch 1939:215; Ringe 2006:237–238). If we are dealing with a verb-form here, it requires further explanation; we could, for example, speculate that following material (such as the /-nd-/ of a pres.part.) has been omitted. There is, of course, no principled way to test this unless the interpretation of the whole text requires such an explanation, and I see no reason to believe that this is the case. These interpretations leave us uncertain about whether the first i-rune represents a reflex of PGmc */-i-/ or */-¯ı-/; but -in- probably contains /¯ı/ < */¯ı/. hahwar is interpreted as a MN (on the prototheme, see § 3.3.2; § 6.1). Most commentators associate the deuterotheme with PGmc *waraz “wary”, but it could alternatively be a reflex of *w¯eraz “true”, with a M /¯a/ < */¯e1/ (§ 4.1). In complex II, awimund is understood to be a dithematic MN with the prototheme Awi- < PGmc *aujan (§ 3.3.1), with -i- representing a syllabic reflex of PGmc */j/ in the stem-formant. isd may be the 3.sg.pres. copula ist (PGmc *esti > Go ist, ON es, OE is, OFris OS is(t), OHG ist). This interpretation is favoured in much of the literature (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:374–375; Düwel 1994b:290; Looijenga 2003a:262;
204
The front vocalics
Nedoma 2004a:228). Arntz reads isdir, which he interprets as a haplographic ist dir “is to you” (the pronoun is 2.sg.dat. with Spirantenschwächung (§ 2.4.2); compare 60. Osthofen dih, interpreted by Krause as dih acc.). If the copula interpretation is correct, then i here represents a reflex of */e/, raised to */i/ by the final */-i/ of *esti prior to its apocopation. Krause (1966:290) suggests that the final d is a Begriffsrune and the sequence isd represents a dithematic MN I¯sdag. Klingenberg (1976c:369–371) and Opitz (1987:48, 192–194) develop this into a more elaborate mythological interpretation. Complex III is believed to contain an oblique form of the pers.n. Ida (see above, and § 4.1). Looijenga seems to be alone in preferring to read the sign after idun as an i-rune rather than a paratextual mark. She suggests that Iduni might be a FN, but she does not attempt any detailed analysis (Looijenga 2003a:262). 82. Weimar IV bead  wiu /w:ida:?e????a:hahwar:
Â/
ida and hahwar are generally interpreted as a FN Ida and a MN Hłhwłr, respectively. Both of these names appear on 81. Weimar III (see above). Since both inscriptions are from the same grave, they may refer to the same individuals. 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la Based on the majority reading alirgu (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:127; Kiel; Krause 1966:306; Nedoma 2004a:176–178; Opitz 1987:49, 200; Wagner 1994/95:164), complex I is interpreted as a dithematic FN with a prototheme Alir-, identified with the “alder”-word, PGmc *aliz¯o/*alis¯o (see 30. Hailfingen I alisrh (Arntz’ reading)). If this is correct, i here represents /i/ < */i/. If aergu is the correct reading, then the digraph ae represents a reflex of the diphthong */ai/ (§ 3.2.1). On the deuterotheme, see § 4.1. In complex II, feha has several possible interpretations (discussed in detail in § 3.2.2). The most popular is that e represents a monophthongal reflex of PGmc */ai/. Nedoma (2004a:296–297) discusses several alternatives in which e represents an underlying monophthong.
Data
205
writ? … i/la is believed to contain the present stem of the “write”-verb, in which case i represents a reflex of */¯ı/ (see also 71. Sievern wrilu). If the reading writila is valid, then we have a second i representing the vowel of the suffix */-il-/ (see § 4.1). 84. Weingarten II fibula dado There seems to be little doubt in the literature that this inscription contains a weakly inflected nom. MN Dado, D¯ado or Da(n)do (the latter with an unrepresented nasal (§ 2.6.2), or possibly with a bind-rune an (Opitz 1987:168; Schwerdt 2000:236)). The same sequence, presumably also representing one of these names, appears on 5. Aschheim III. The only dissenting voice is that of Schwab (1998a:396–397), who suggests that the d-runes might actually represent chi-crosses, and that a and o correspond to alpha and o¯ mega; in other words, the inscription is taken to be a Christian formula rather than a word in the vernacular (compare Schwab’s interpretation of 26. Gammertingen ado (§ 6.1)). The etymologies of these names remain uncertain. A short-stemmed D˘ado could be a “lall-name” abbreviated from a dithematic name in Daga- (< PGmc *dagaz > Go dags, ON dagr, OE dg, OFris dei, OS dag, OHG tag “day”). If the stem is long, a “lall-form” constructed from an element like Rada- (< PGmc *r¯edaz; see 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d) is possible (Nedoma 2004a:268–269). Krause (1966:306–307) and Nedoma (2004a:267–270) favour D¯ado with a long stem-vowel, on the basis of parallels such as OHG Taato. Nedoma proposes an etymological connection with PGmc *d¯ediz “deed” (see discussion of 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna); or perhaps a by-name formed from children’s language, comparable to modE Dad, Daddy. If the sequence represents Da(n)do (: OHG Tanto, OS Dando), this may also be explained as a “lall-name”, with /-n-/ as an intrusive (dissimilatory) element < *Daddo < Dado (Nedoma 2004a:270). On the possible semantic function of this type of infix, see Lühr (1988). 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal The favoured interpretation of latam is as 1.pl.pres.opt. or 1.pl.pres.ind. to a reflex of PGmc *l¯etanan “let” (§ 3.2.2). While the identity of the inflectional ending is disputed, there do not appear to be any objections to the connection with *l¯etanan, with a representing /¯a/ < */¯e1/.
206
The front vocalics
All commentators treat hari as nom./acc.sg. to a reflex of PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army” (see 79. Weimar I haribrig), in which case, i represents either a reflex of the PGmc thematic vowel */i/, or a syllabic reflex of */j/. If the â-like sign is not ŋ, we might be dealing with the common noun “army” (Düwel 2008:65; Holthausen 1931:304); or perhaps a monothematic (abbreviated?) pers.n. Hari (see below). Another possibility, not mentioned in the literature, is that hari is dat., with the terminal -i possibly representing a reflex of PGmc */-ai/ (§ 3.2.2). If, as Pieper believes, the â-like signs are ŋ-runes, the sequence ŋhari could represent a dithematic MN Inghari. Both elements are quite common; however, names with a prototheme Ing- usually (but not always) have a compositional vowel (e.g., Ingobald, Ingaberta, Ingobrand, Inguhilt ~ Ingihilt, vs. Ing-Ø-bolda, Eng-Ø-brand, Hinc-Ø-freda) (Förstemann 1900:959–967; see also entry on 87. †Weser III in § 4.1). The corpus contains several possible witnesses to this name element (the etymology of which is very uncertain – see de Vries (1961 s.v. Yngvi)): 28. Gomadingen iglug/n; 36. Hohenstadt (i)galu; possibly (but doubtfully) 61. Pforzen I (…) M aŋi- ( ? ) Nedoma (2004a:328) regards the â-signs as word-separators rather than ŋ-runes. He doubts that hari by itself is a pers.n., since a monothematic name of this sort would be expected to have a weak inflection (compare OS Herio (9th c.); and in the Scandinavian runic corpus, Skåäng stone (KJ 85) harija; Vimose comb (KJ 26) harja). A strongly inflected Hari may underlie PNs like OHG Harieshaim (8th c.), OS Heristorpe (10th c.) (Förstemann 1900:763), but this need not be the case, according to Nedoma (the PNs could simply contain the first element of a dithematic name). He concludes that it is the common noun “army”. I note that Nedoma elsewhere accepts an analysis of pers.ns. in -i as hypocorisms( ? ) with a suffix */-ija-/ (e.g., 34. HeilbronnBöckingen I arwi). It is not clear to me why this should be inapplicable in the present case. Complex II kunni is connected throughout the literature with the “kin”-word, PGmc *kunjan (§ 4.1). In this case, i here represents a syllabic reflex of PGmc */j/. The various interpretations of ?e, all of which depend on the dubious transliteration of the Y-shaped sign as w, have been discussed in § 4.1. I do not consider any of them reliable; but the most popular connect we with PGmc *wai“woe” (i.e., they assume e to represent a monophthongal reflex of PGmc */ai/).
Data
207
86. †Weser II bone lokom : her Holthausen (1931:305) and Pieper (1987:236) interpret her as a reflex of PGmc *x¯e2r (> Go OS OE h¯er, ON hér, OHG hiar “here”). In Ellmers’ interpretation (1994:127), the sense of “here” is directional (“hither”). Nedoma (2004a:326) criticises this on formal grounds: the directional adverb derived from *x¯e2r ought to appear as *hera (as in OHG). I note, however, that both OS and OHG have adverbial forms hÀr (Köbler 1993). These may be irregular or secondary developments, but they suggest that we cannot rule out a similar interpretation of her. If we are dealing with a reflex of */¯e2/, it shows no sign of diphthongisation (§ 2.3.3.5). 87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede ulu:hari is commonly interpreted as a dithematic MN with the second element identical to 85. †Weser I hari (see above); though Nedoma regards hari as an independent word in both cases (see § 4.1). dede is readily identifiable as 3.sg.pret. dede “did/made” (Holthausen 1931:305; Pieper 1987:236, 238; 1989:183–184). Pret. forms of the “do”verb are attested in a number of runic inscriptions: Oostum combcase (L IX.3) deda; 67. Schretzheim I dedun (possibly also Amay comb (AZ 43; L IX.1) ]eda; and 37. Hoogebeintum (ded)). See further § 5.2.1.1; § 5.2.2.2. 88. Wijnaldum B pendant hiwi If hiwi represents a pers.n. or common noun < PGmc *x¯ıwan “household, family” (§ 3.1.1), the first i represents /¯ı/ < PGmc */¯ı/. The terminal -i is problematic. As has been mentioned, the sequence may also be present on the Meldorf fibula. Düwel suggests that Meldorf hiwi could be an acc. or dat.sg. i-stem h¯ıwi (presumably to an unattested *x¯ıwiz), and on semantic grounds he favours a dative of dedication, with the sense “for Hiwi” (Düwel and Gebühr 1981:172). In this case, the terminal -i represents a reflex of PGmc */-ai/ or */-¯ı/ (§ 3.2.2); if it is acc., on the other hand, then -i represents /-i/ < PGmc */-in/. Looijenga applies a similar etymology to the Wijnaldum inscription, though she treats h¯ıwi as a common noun rather than as a pers.n.; she assigns
208
The front vocalics
it dative case and translates “to the mater familias” (Looijenga 1996:99; 2003a:324). Another possible interpretation is that h¯ıwi represents a nom. i- (or ja-/ j¯o-?) stem, if the apocope of final /-i/ after a long stem has not taken place. We have no clear parallels to support this hypothesis (§ 5.2.1.2). This interpretation is probably not applicable to Meldorf, which is dated to the 1st century, at a time when nom.sg. */-z/ is preserved throughout Gmc. 89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi Düwel regards complex I as the product of a transposition error, and emends to skamella, presumed to be a loanword from LLat scamellum, scamellus “footstool, step, little bench” (M OHG scamal, OS f¯otscamel, OE sceamol) (Düwel 1994d:15; Düwel in Schön et al. 2006:322; Looijenga 2003a:240).4 If this analysis is correct, e is to be expected for borrowed Lat. short /e/ = [Ô] (Kent 1945:45). Complex II is thought to represent a compound with a second element -skaÂi (on the first element, and on Nedoma’s suggestion that -u- represents a compositional vowel < PGmc */-i-/, see § 4.1; § 5.2.1.2). This element has several possible interpretations: (i) a verb-form, 2.sg.imp. skaÂi < PGmc *skaÂi, to *skaÂjanan (> Go skaÂjan “to injure, harm”; ON skeðja, OE sceððan “to scathe, to hurt”); (ii) a nom.sg. i-stem noun derived from this verb, either as a nomen agentis “harmer” or a nomen actionis “harming” (Düwel 1994d:15; also Marold in Schön et al. 2006:323). If we are dealing with an i-stem noun, it is not a direct reflex of a PGmc i-stem, according to Nedoma (TheuneGroßkopf and Nedoma 2006:58–59): the superficially similar Go skaÂis n. “injustice, harm” is in his view a secondary development from *skaÂs (< PGmc *skaÂaz, belonging to a class of neuter ez/az-stems, rather than to the a-declension), with analogical spread of gen.sg. /-is/ (compare the discussion on the etymology of PGmc *agez/*agan, in the entry on 7. Bad Krozingen A in this chapter). Similarly, Nedoma argues, PGmc *skaÂaz (ez/azstem) may have a variant *skaÂiz, reanalysed in the WGmc dialects as a shortsyllable i-stem skaÂi. To these possibilities Marold adds another: skaÂi could be a deverbal adjective (ja-/j¯o-stem?) “harmful, hunting” (Schön et al. 2006:326).
4 On the meanings of scamellum, -us (“thing that can be stepped on”?), see Statham (1914:235).
Data
209
The sequence skaÂi has a Scandinavian parallel (not mentioned in the literature on the Wremen inscription) on the Strøm whetstone (KJ 50). Krause (1966:112) analyses this as a 3.sg.pres.opt. verb-form “may [the stone] harm” (< PGmc *skaÂjai), not as an imperative or a noun. However, Krause reconstructs PNorse /-j¯e/ for the 3.sg.pres.opt. suffix of this class of verbs, which would lead us to expect a form *skaÂje (Krause 1971:127)). A similar interpretation might be possible for the Wremen inscription (for possible examples of inflectional suffixes < */-ai/ represented as -i, see § 3.2.2.1), but it is rather difficult to make sense of in the context of the footstool and its imagery (“May [the hound?] harm the deer”?). 90. Wurmlingen spearhead ?:dorih Düwel’s principal reason for not treating the initial sign as a rune is that no credible reading has been produced (1981b:158). All attempts to read it as a k-rune have worked on the assumption – later shown to be invalid – that the following sign is an i. It would not be methodologically appropriate for me to accept this argument at face value: the fact that a reading does not produce a comprehensible text need not imply that the reading is incorrect. In several of our inscriptions, an initial k (or a sign believed to be k) has been interpreted as the 1.sg.nom. personal pronoun ik (4. Aschheim II; 27. Geltorf II; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I). All commentators interpret dorih as a dithematic MN DÕr¯ıh, with a deuterotheme -r¯ıh < -r¯ık (see 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike). Given that we have no certain etymology for the element DÕr- (§ 4.1), and that this item is the only generally-accepted runic witness to the Second Consonant Shift of /k/ > /x/ (§ 2.5.1.2; § 7.1.3.1), I am not entirely confident that the identification of -rih with the name-element -r¯ıh is correct. A MN Dori : OHG Duri, Dure (Förstemann 1900:434) or *D¯ori is not in itself implausible, but in order to advance it here, we would need to find some explanation for the following h.
210
The front vocalics
5.2 Summary 5.2.1 Reflexes of the short front vowels 5.2.1.1 Stressed syllables Given the doubts about reconstruction of the short front vowels of PGmc (§ 2.2.1), we cannot afford to be overly dogmatic about whether we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc */i/ or */e/ in any particular case. If they are distinct phonemes, there is a strong tendency towards a complementary distribution conditioned by (or at least correlating with) the height of the following vowel: *[i] before a high vowel, *[e] before a non-high vowel. Among runic sequences where we can be reasonably certain that we are dealing with an inherited [i] or [e] in a syllable carrying primary or secondary stress, the following conform to this umlaut pattern: i + high vowel: 28. Gomadingen iglug/n 51. München-Aubing I sigila 53. Neudingen-Baar I udim, midu 56. Nordendorf I wigi/uÂonar, wini 72. Skodborg alawin (with loss of the conditioning */-i/) 82. Weimar III bigina, idun e + non-high vowel: 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade 51. München-Aubing I segalo 87. †Weser III dede A further probable example of the first type is 54. Neudingen-Baar II imuba, although the medial -u- may represent an anaptyctic vowel in a base *Imba (see entry in § 4.1). The alternation segalo ~ sigila for names( ? ) derived from the same root on München-Aubing I seems to provide support for an allophonic variation. We do, however, have a number of instances which would be irregular from this point of view: e + high vowel 67. Schretzheim I dedun
Summary
211
i + non-high vowel 15. Charnay id dan 36. Hohenstadt (i)ga 81. Weimar III ida 82. Weimar IV ida 17. Dischingen I wig/nka is an uncertain case. The majority opinion posits an unrepresented medial /-i-/, giving a phonologically regular Win(i)ka. Three of these apparent counter-examples represent the pers.n. Id(d)a. The evidence of the “do”-verb (Schretzheim I dedun) is unclear, since the stemvowel may be a long /¯e/ < */¯e1/ (see § 5.2.2.2). We must also examine the possible effect of consonants (primarily consonant clusters) on the quality of a short front vowel. Do we have witnesses to the raising of PGmc */e/ > *[i] before a nasal (or specifically before a N+C cluster) (§ 2.3.3.2); or evidence for the lowering of inherited /i/ > [e] before /rC/, as in OS (§ 2.3.3.1)? In fact, the data seem to tell a more straightforward story: in every instance where we can confidently identify a short front vowel preceding a consonant cluster (including those where the first consonant is unrepresented), the vowel is represented as i: 10. Bezenye I godahid M -hi(l)d; 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; 46. †Kleines Schulerloch birg; 53. Neudingen-Baar I filÊ; 62. Pforzen II aodli M -li(n)Â; 68. Schretzheim II si M si(n)Â; 79. Weimar I haribrig M -birg; possibly also 81. Weimar III isd. The pers.ns. in -birg, -hild, lin are normally classified as j¯o-stems (see § 4.4.2), making the appearance of i here consistent with the umlaut pattern outlined above. As for simple tautosyllabic nasals, the only place where we have a reflexes of PGmc */e/ preceding a nasal which is not followed by another consonant are in the reflexes of *weniz “friend” (17. Dischingen I wig/nka M Win(i)ka; 56. Nordendorf I ?leubwini M Leubwini/leub wini; 72. Skodborg alawin M Alawin). The spelling is consistently i, but it is not clear whether we should attribute the raising of */e/ > *[i] to the nasal or to umlaut. This leaves si and filÊ. In the former case, si < PGmc *senÂa- is consistent with the PGmc nasal-conditioned raising of */e/ > *[i]. In the latter, however, neither the reading nor the etymology is certain. In all of these subsets of the data, i appears much more frequently than e. It is conceivable that we may simply be dealing with a general preference for i in orthographic representations of /i e/, regardless of their phonetic environment.
212
The front vocalics
Another orthographic feature to be discussed is the non-representation of a high front vowel. Generally accepted in the literature are: 8. Balingen dnlo M D(a?)n(i)lo; 15. Charnay uÂfnÂai M u(n)Âf(i)nÂai; 17. Dischingen I wig/nka M Win(i)ka; 23. Freilaubersheim Âk M Â(i)k; 47. Lauchheim I fada M fa(ihi)da; 59. Oettingen brg M b(i)rg.5 Of these, only the Charnay and Oettingen examples meet the criteria for “Grønvik’s Law” (§ 2.6.2). Although Dischingen contains a C+T cluster nk, the expansion licensed by “Grønvik’s Law” would be /-ink-/, not /-nik-/. Three of these unrepresented vowels (Balingen; Dischingen; Lauchheim) involve unstressed syllables, and will be discussed further in § 5.2.1.2. Less certain, but possible, examples of an unrepresented /i/ or /¯ı/ are 21. Erpfting lda M (Hi)lda (though this interpretation leaves us without a satisfactory explanation for the omission of initial *h-); 28. Gomadingen iglug/n M Ig(i)lun/g/ng (if the name-stem is the “hedgehog”-word); 58. Oberflacht gba M g(i)ba; 61. Pforzen I ltahu M (I)ltahu (Nedoma’s suggestion, one of numerous interpretations of this sequence). Several inscriptions have an initial sign which may be a k-rune and which may represent the 1.sg.nom. pronoun (i)k: 4. Aschheim II; 11. Bezenye II; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I; 90. Wurmlingen. Two remaining cases for consideration are 27. Geltorf II gwu M g(i)bu; and 30. Hailfingen I alisrh M Alisr(¯ı)h. The proposed interpretation of Geltorf is implausible (see entry in § 7.1.1.1), and the Hailfingen example depends on Arntz’ highly speculative reading, which is not accepted elsewhere. Both of these, therefore, can be rejected.
5.2.1.2 Unstressed syllables Reliable examples of an unstressed short front vowel are found in: 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike; 8. Balingen amilu; 9. Beuchte buirso M BŒriso; 14. Bülach fridil; 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ; 51. München-Aubing I sigila; 61. Pforzen I aigil, andi; 73. Skonager III niuwila; 83. Weingarten I ali/ergu (if alir- is the correct reading). In each case, the written form is i, representing a reflex of PGmc */i/ (at least, no reconstruction */e/ has been proposed for the proto-forms of any of the elements involved). If 19. Eichstetten muni 5 I have excluded from this list those sequences with the ŋ-rune interpreted as /ing/ (15. Charnay kŋia M king(j)a; 77. Szabadbattyán marŋ M M¯ar(i)ng; 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari M Inghari, (ŋ)?e M Ingwe(??)), since it is conventional to interpret this rune as standing for the phonemic sequence /ing/, rather than just /ng/. The Charnay and Szabadbattyán examples have the so-called “lantern” form, which may be a bind-rune iŋ.
Summary
213
is a pers.n., rather than a verb-form (§ 4.1), then it should be added to this list. Similarly, if 56. Nordendorf I wini and 88. Wijnaldum B hiwi are to be interpreted as nom. or acc.sg. i-stems, then their terminal -i represents a reflex of */-i/ (nom.sg. */-iz/, acc.sg. */-in/). On the interpretation of these sequences as datives, see § 3.2.2.1; § 5.2.2.4. Several inscriptions have a word-final or stem-final -i which is variously identified in the literature as a reflex of */-i-/ or */-j-/: 75. Steindorf husi-; 79. Weimar I hari-; 85. †Weser I hari; 87. †Weser III -hari; 89. Wremen skaÂi. The point of disagreement here is the declension of the underlying nominal: we may be dealing with an i-stem (*xŒsiz, *xariz, *skaÂiz) or a (derived?) jastem (*xŒsjaz, *xarjaz, *skaÂjaz) (see also § 5.2.3). The etymology of the Steindorf name-element is more uncertain than the others (see entry in § 4.1). We have also several instances of terminal -i apparently representing a suffix < */-(i)ja-/: 6. Bad Ems madali; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi; 62. Pforzen II gisali; 80. Weimar I liub(i) (Nedoma 2004a:212; see also § 5.2.3). Presumably this suffix developed as */-ij-/ > */-¯ı/ (or */-j-/ > */-i/) following the deletion of thematic */-a-/ (as in, e.g., PGmc *xerdijaz (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 4.2.2)/*xerdjaz (Orel 2003) > OS hirdi, OHG hirti “shepherd”). Long final */-¯ı/ is regularly shortened in OS, but preserved (to an extent) in OHG (§ 2.3.3.3). We cannot, therefore, be certain whether the vowels represented by these -i terminations are short or long. Nedoma’s explanation of the u in 89. Wremen lguskaÂi as an unstressed [ə] < */-i-/ (in *algiz) is not entirely satisfactory. The Westeremden forms adduced as parallels are both interpretable as Frisian Murmelvokale < PGmc */-a-/ (§ 4.1), while other alleged witnesses to the phenomenon, such as the Schweindorf solidus (L IX.8) Â/weladu, are ambiguous (see Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:381–382). If Wremen -u- reflects a similar [ə] < PGmc */-i-/, it is a unique witness to this process. Three inscriptions are believed to contain unrepresented short front vowels in unstressed syllables (see § 5.2.1.1): 8. Balingen dnlo M D(a?)n(i)lo; 17. Dischingen I wig/nka M Win(i)ka; and 47. Lauchheim I fada M fa(ihi)da. The proposed expansions for Balingen and Dischingen involve hypocoristic suffixes in pers.ns. (respectively /-ilo/, /-ika/), although the identification of the stem requires a further expansion in the former case and the acceptance of an uncertain reading in the latter. The Lauchheim example is unlike the others in that it involves the omission not of a single segment but a longer sequence. I note that here, as in Düwel’s suggestion that Erpfting lda M (Hi)lda, an unrepresented /h/ is being
214
The front vocalics
posited. If /h/ in the neighbourhood of /i/ is articulated with less friction than in other environments, then perhaps we might posit the existence of an allophone which speakers perceive as insignificant; or an orthographic rule by which h can be omitted. Against this speculation, we have evidence for overt h before i in Bezenye I godahid; Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; Wijnaldum B hiwi.
5.2.2 Reflexes of the long front vowels 5.2.2.1 */¯ı/ in stressed syllables Our most reliable evidence for reflexes of stressed */¯ı/ consists of the following: 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike; 19. Eichstetten wiwo- (all of the proposed interpretations point to a root in */-¯ı-/); 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ; 62. Pforzen II gisali; 67. Schretzheim I arogis; 71. Sievern wrilu; 83. Weingarten I writ? … i/la; 88. Wijnaldum B hiwi; 90. Wurmlingen dorih. In several places, we cannot be sure whether we are dealing with a reflex of */¯ı/ or short */i/: 14. Bülach fridil; 40. Hüfingen III bi; 56. Nordendorf I wigi/uÂonar; 72. Skodborg alawid; 81. Weimar III bigina. In all of these cases, the reflex of */¯ı/ is spelled i.
5.2.2.2 */¯e1/ in stressed syllables Where we can be reasonably confident that we are dealing with a reflex of */¯e1/, it is consistently represented as a: 3. Arlon rasuwamud; 21. Erpfting gabu; 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade; 74. Soest rada; 77. Szabadbattyán marŋs; 85. †Weser I latam. To this list we may add 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d, if the reading -rad is correct. Worthy of consideration as possible instances of a reflex of */¯e1/ represented e are the preterites of the “do”-verb: 37. Hoogebeintum ded; 67. Schretzheim I dedun; 87. †Weser III dede. The singular forms (Hoogebeintum and Weser III) are probably short, while the pl. dedun may be long (see entries in § 5.1). If so, it appears to be unique as a witness to /¯e/ < */¯e1/ (or as an archaic spelling). The preference in the literature for a short vowel in Schretzheim dedun may be based on the a priori supposition that a WGmc reflex of */¯e1/ must be spelled a (i.e., that a surface form /¯e/ is impossible), which is reasonable, but open to question (§ 2.3.3.4). Another possible case is 61. Pforzen ltahu M elahu, interpreted by Schwab as e¯ l-ahu “eel-water”; but this is based on an uncertain reading and is
Summary
215
subject to several other interpretations. While I hesitate to rule out the possibility that */¯e1/ > /¯e/ M e in these two examples, both can unproblematically be interpreted as reflexes of */e/ (and in the latter, we have good reason to doubt that e is present at all). Several inscriptions contain a-runes which may represent either long /¯a/ < */¯e1/ or short /a/ < */a/: 5. Aschheim III dado; 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna; 74. Soest daÂa; 81. Weimar III hahwar; 82. Weimar IV hahwar; 84. Weingarten II dado. If the name-element present in dado, dado (and perhaps also in daÊïna, daÂa) is D¯ad- < PGmc *d¯ediz “deed”, this makes the interpretation of e as /¯e/ in the verbal “do”-forms all the more unlikely.
5.2.2.3 */¯e2/ in stressed syllables The corpus contains four possible examples of a reflex of */¯e2/, none of them entirely reliable. The most plausible is 86. †Weser II her M h¯er “here”. 53. Neudingen-Baar I udim, midu may contain a reflex of either */¯e2/ or */e/. Given that the written form is i rather than e, I am inclined to favour an interpretation as a short vowel. The reason for this is that the following -u gives us a plausible explanation for the raising of an inherited */e/ > [i]. The same cannot be said for the reflex of */¯e2/, which remains in OHG prior to diphthongisation. Incipient diphthongisation cannot be invoked as an explanation for */¯e2/ M *i, as the first stage of the process in OHG is the lowering of the off-glide (> /ea/), with raising (> /iə/) a later development (§ 2.3.3.5). This also applies to the interpretation of 5. Aschheim III miado (Bauer’s transliteration) as a diphthongal reflex of *m¯e2d¯o “reward”. The final example is 64. †Rubring ?ïn M k¯en “torch”. The uncertainty of the reading, the inadequately addressed question of the mapping ï M */¯e2/, the doubtful authenticity of the object and the dubious nature of Steinhauser’s interpretation make it extremely unreliable.
5.2.2.4 Long front vowels in unstressed syllables Of the long front vowels, only */¯ı/ has reflexes attested in unstressed syllables. These fall into two categories: the suffix /-¯ına/ (< PGmc */-¯ın-¯on/) in FNs (23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna; 81. Weimar III bigina); and the inflectional suffixes of ¯ın-stem deverbal nouns (54. Neudingen-Baar II lbi M l(iu)b¯ı (nom.); 44. Kirchheim/Teck I ( ? )h?ali (nom.) (Looijenga’s interpretation); 68. Schretzheim II wagadin (dat.) (Nedoma’s interpretation); 79. Weimar I
216
The front vocalics
liub(i) (nom.)). We cannot be entirely confident about any of these: Neudingen-Baar II requires expansion; Kirchheim/Teck I and Weimar I are based on uncertain readings; and Schretzheim II has another interpretation as short /i/ < */j/ (§ 5.2.3). Freilaubersheim daÊïna stands out as the only example of a reflex of */¯ı/ represented as anything other than i. On the value(s) of the “yew-rune”, see § 5.2.4. We might also consider the sequences terminating in -i which can be interpreted as dat.sg. i-stems (see § 3.2.2.1; § 5.2.1.2): 56. Nordendorf I wini; 88. Wijnaldum B hiwi; 85. †Weser I hari; 87. †Weser III -hari; and perhaps also 19. Eichstetten muni. It is not entirely clear whether the PGmc dat.sg. suffix of the i-stems is */-¯ı/ or */-ai/: if the former is correct, then these sequences could contain -i M /-Ã/ < PGmc */-¯ı/. However, since this reconstruction is not certain, and since all of these sequences can be interpreted as nom. or acc., with /-i/ < nom. */-iz/ or acc. */-in/ (§ 5.2.1.2), they cannot be considered reliable.
5.2.3 Reflexes of */j/ We have only two reasonably reliable examples of non-syllabic */j/ represented as j: 10. Bezenye I unja; 72. Skodborg auja. Even these cases are problematic, the former because of uncertainties about the reading (although the interpretation is accepted throughout the literature); and the latter because its linguistic identity is in doubt – only Antonsen regards it as WGmc, on the grounds that the MNs alawin, alawid have zero suffixes. Both items appear at sites outside the main area of the study. Other possible (but less certain) witnesses are 59. Oettingen a?ija-, if the reading auija is valid (§ 3.3.1); 72. Skodborg j, if this represents auja or the conjunction ja(h); and 78. †Trier wilja M Wil(l)ja, if my alternative reading is valid, and if the item is genuine. The corpus contains several other j-runes, none of which has a convincing linguistic interpretation: 2. Aquincum ?lain M jlain (Begriffsrune? Reading questionable); 9. Beuchte fuÂarzj (Begriffsrune?); 15. Charnay j (in fuÂark). Possible examples of consonantal /j/ represented as i are 2. Aquincum kŋia and 50. Mertingen ieok. If Looijenga’s interpretation of 57. Nordendorf II io as jÕ(h) “and” is correct, then this would provide us with a third example. Our most substantial evidence for the development of PGmc */j/, however, comes from those sequences with terminal -i representing a suffix */-(i)ja-/,
Summary
217
in which the following /a/ has been deleted, resulting in the syllabication of */j/ (§ 2.3.3.6; § 5.2.1.2): 6. Bad Ems madali; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi; 62. Pforzen II gisali; 68. Schretzheim II wagadin (if this represents a participle declined like a ja-/jo¯ -stem, as in OHG and OS); 70. Schwangau aebi; 81. Weimar III awimund; 85. †Weser I kunni. A possible additional case is 11. Bezenye II arsi-, but its etymology is unknown. Other examples of /i/ < */j/ appear in 23. Freilaubersheim golida; 56. Nordendorf I wigi/u- (if the reading i is correct, and if the underlying stem is *w¯ıgja-/*w¯ıxja-, which is by no means certain). We have several nouns or name-elements in -i which may be interpreted as i-stems (i M /i/ < */i/) or ja-stems (i M /i/ < */j/): 75. Steindorf husi?ald; 79. Weimar I haribrig, liub(i); 85. †Weser I hari; 87. †Weser III ulu:hari; 89. Wremen skaÂi (see § 5.2.1.2). All of these syllabic reflexes of */j/ (if they have been correctly identified as such) are represented as i; we have no evidence of lowering of /i/ > /e/ in unstressed position, as we find in the OHG ja- and j¯o-stem terminations and sometimes medially (§ 2.3.3.6).
5.2.4 The “yew-rune” . This rune occurs in (at most) six places in the corpus (compare Nedoma 2004a:167–168): 15. Charnay ï (in fuÂark), ï/lia (uninterpretable); 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna (M DłÂ¯ına); 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I ïk (Looijenga’s reading); 56. Nordendorf I leubwiniÿ (M Leubwiniyi. Reading and interpretation doubtful – § 3.2.2); 61. Pforzen I aï/llrun (M Ailr¯un); 64. †Rubring kïndoÿ (M k¯e2n d¯oe¯ ; Schneider’s questionable reading and dubious interpretation). Of these, only Freilaubersheim daÊïna and Pforzen I aï/lrun can be considered reliable; and even the Pforzen witness is open to question. The assumption that the “yew-rune” represents /i/ or /¯ı/ is consistent with the widely-accepted interpretations of sequences containing the rune outside my corpus: Caistor-by-Norwich bone raïhan M raihan “roe-deer” (see § 3.2.1.1); Loveden Hill urn sïÂabad M S¯ıÂabad/S¯ıÂbad, with a prototheme S¯ıÂ< pre-OE *sinÂ- (Nedoma 2004a:434–438; Parsons 1999:47–48, 55–59); Nebenstedt I-B bracteate (IK 128; KJ 133), glïaugiz M Gl¯ı-augiz “the brighteyed one”, uïu M w¯ı(h/j)u “I consecrate”. The only other occurrence of the rune in a non-fuÂark sequence in Scandinavia is the By stone (KJ 71) rmÂÿ (uninterpretable, so Krause 1966:161). Antonsen (1970:316–317; 1972:134; 1975:2–5; 2002:30–31) argues that the original value of . was PGmc */æ/ ¯ (= */¯e1/), and he accordingly translit-
218
The front vocalics
erates it æ ¯ in the Nebenstedt example (Glæ¯ < PGmc *glæ¯ > OE glær, ¯ MLG gl¯ar “amber, resin”; OIc glæsa ´ “to decorate with something shiny”). Whether or not this analysis is correct at the inception of the fuÂark, it does not appear to hold for the Continental inscriptions: the attested reflexes of */¯e1/ are all represented as a (with the possible exception of the “do”-verb (see § 5.2.2.2)). In several English inscriptions (postdating the Anglo-Saxon runic reform and so not belonging to the Older FuÂark tradition(s)), ï represents a fricative [ç], or palatalised /g/ M [j]: Ruthwell Cross (8th c.) alme.ttig M OE (Northumb.) almehtig; Great Urswick stone (9th c.) toro.tred M Torohtred; Thornhill stone (9th c.) Ÿate.nne M EadÂegne (Page 1995:137; 1999:141). In our witnesses, it is most unlikely that . represents a consonant:6 neither *[daθçna] nor *[açlr¯un] is pronounceable without the insertion of an additional vowel. Since [ç] remains an allophone of /h/ in OE, as in the other WGmc dialects, the continued use of a distinct rune, rather than h, for this allophone seems odd; on the other hand, it is no more curious than using the yewrune for /i ¯ı/, where there is no suggestion that it represents anything phonetically distinct from the sounds represented by i. On the hypothesis that the original value of the rune was an allophone of PGmc */x/, see Beck (2003:79–81). If the interpretations of these sequences are correct, then it appears that in the Continental runic tradition, as in Older FuÂark inscriptions elsewhere, the “yew-rune” is functionally a free variant of i (see Page 1995:138–140; Parsons 1999:48). The choice of this rune does not appear to be motivated by the phonetic environment: close parallels for daÊïna are 68. Schretzheim II wagadin; and 81. Weimar III bigina. For aïlrun we have aigil in the same inscription; the corpus contains a number of examples of /ai/ represented as ai (§ 3.2.1), but the only sequence ail is 42. †Kärlich hailag. These observations have no direct bearing on the various hypotheses concerning the original value of .. In the two reliable cases where it appears, we have good grounds for supposing that it represents a high front vowel. We have no basis for arguing that the selection of ï is motivated by any phonetic or phonological distinction – it does not represent a distinct allophone of /i/ or /¯ı/. What, then, is the motivation for its selection? Why use a rare and phonologically redundant rune when a more common and formally simpler one is available? This must remain – for the time being, at least – an open question.
6 Grønvik (1987:124–126) assigns Nordendorf I . the value [ç] and identifies it as the enclitic conjunction “and” (: Go -h) M Awa Leubwinih “Awa and Leubwini”. This enclitic is not productive in any of the attested Gmc dialects except Go, and – as noted – the runological evidence seems to suggest that the use of . for a palatal consonant is a later, uniquely English, development.
Conclusions
219
5.3 Conclusions The behaviour of the front vocalics attested in the inscriptions holds no great surprises for us, although several anomalies require further investigation. The short front vowels */i e/ show a strong tendency towards complementary distribution correlating with the height of the following vowel. Exceptions are the pers.ns. Id(d)a (Charnay iddan; Weimar III ida; Weimar IV ida) and AgilaÂr¯u (Griesheim), with i before a non-high vowel; and Schretzheim II si M si(n) < PGmc *senÂaz, which suggests that the process of raising /e/ before a nasal+consonant cluster is operative (hardly surprising, since this process is commonly ascribed to PGmc (§ 2.2.1; § 2.3.3.2)). The reflexes of */¯ı/ appear as i, with the sole exception of Freilaubersheim daÊïna. Similarly, reflexes of */¯e1/ appear as a (presumably representing /¯a/) except perhaps in the pret. of the “do”-verb. For */¯e2/, we have no entirely reliable evidence. If we are to trust †Weser II her, this would suggest that */¯e2/ > CRun /¯e/. We have no indication that the diphthongisation of */¯e2/ is underway. This process in OHG belongs to a chain-shift of which the diphthongisation of /¯o/ > /uo/ is also a part; the absence of any evidence for the latter (§ 4.2.3.1) is consistent with this view. Where the front semivowel comes to occupy final position in a word or a compound-element following the deletion of following material (as in the jaand j¯o-stems), it is consistently represented as i, which supports the conventional view that */j/ > syllabic /i/ (or /¯ı/?) under these conditions. We have little evidence for inherited */j/ where it remains non-syllabic: if the examples in § 5.2.3 are reliable, then there appears to be a variation j ~ i, with no obvious motivation. We cannot posit any phonotactic explanation like that proposed for the variation /w/ M w ~ u in the reflexes of PGmc *wr¯ıtanan (§ 4.2.5). It is conceivable that regional or local orthographic traditions may be involved (see Map 4): as noted earlier, the two reliable examples of j both lie outside the main study area, while one of the i examples (Mertingen ieok) lies within the Continental runic “heartland” around the upper Danube and upper Rhine. On the other hand, we have a possible witness to j (Oettingen) within the same area, and a possible i-spelling (Aquincum) far outside it. The datings of these items vary too widely for any chronological distinctions to be drawn. Skodborg is probably somewhat earlier than the others, and Oettingen may be somewhat later; but it is not possible to be certain even of this (see § 1.1.2, and catalogue entries).
220
The front vocalics
Data
221
6. The low vowels It is likely that in the vast majority of cases, reflexes of PGmc */a/ will appear in the inscriptions as a. If this phoneme has a fronted allophone *[ Ô e], it is possible that it might appear as e (or perhaps i, ï?) (§ 2.3.4.2). Conversely, we might see o for expected a under those conditions where /a/ > /o/ (or a rounded allophone of /a/ M *[ɒ] M ) in OHG and/or OS (§ 2.3.4.1). If allophones similar to those of PGmc */a/ posited by Antonsen (§ 2.2.1) exist in the language of the inscriptions, they may reveal themselves in transliteration as something other than a (e.g., *[] M e; *[ɑ] M o). /¯a/ < lPGmc */¯a/ is unlikely to be represented as anything other than a, unless it is subject to i-umlaut like the apparently unique OS êhtin (§ 2.3.4.3).
6.1 Data Included in this section are all inscriptions containing what may be a reflex of PGmc */a/. Also included are reflexes of */¯ax/ < */anx/, and possible examples of anaptyctic /a/. Earlier sections deal with a-runes which can (more or less) reliably be identified as reflexes of */¯o/ (§ 4), as */¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/ (§ 5), as monophthongal reflexes of */ai/ (§ 3.2.2), or as belonging to digraphs representing diphthongs (§ 3.2.1; § 3.3.1); they will not be discussed here. Also omitted are a-runes appearing in sequences for which we have no linguistic interpretation, e.g., 31. Hailfingen II (a)????( ? ). 4. Aschheim II fibula kahi On the interpretation of ahi as a pers.n. Ahi, see § 5.1. As we have no satisfactory etymology, we cannot be certain whether or not we are dealing with a reflex of */a/.
222
The low vowels
5. Aschheim III fibula dado If this sequence represents a pers.n. Dado or Da(n)do, as opposed to D¯ado (§ 5.1), then a represents a regular reflex of PGmc */a/ (see also 84. Weingarten II dado). 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ That complex I madali is a pers.n. is generally accepted in the literature, but the etymology and morphology are disputed (see § 5.1). If either of the proposed interpretations connecting the name with PGmc *maÂl-/*madl- is correct, then the two a-runes represent a regular reflex of PGmc */a/ and an anaptyctic vowel (§ 2.3.5), respectively. The favoured interpretation of complex II bada is that it is connected with OS gibada “consolation”. On the etymology of this word, and on the alternative suggestion that it is connected with PGmc *badw¯o “battle”, see § 4.1. If either of these proposals is correct, the stem represented by bad- contains a regular reflex of PGmc */a/. 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike agirike is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic MN. The etymology of the prototheme Agi- is not certain, but all the alternatives assume the initial a- to represent a reflex of */a/ (§ 5.1). 8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? On Krause’s interpretation of a?uz as PNorse ansuz “god” (with a M PNorse /a/ < PGmc */a/), see § 4.1. I do not consider this reading reliable. dnlo is widely believed to represent a pers.n., which Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:130) and Krause (1966:303) identify as D(a)n(i)lo, with an unrepresented /-a-/. Given that other expansions are possible, this assumption is not reliable. On the etymology of the name-element Dan- and the alternatives, see § 5.1.
Data
223
On the suggestion that amilu? is connected with the royal name Amal, see § 4.1. If this interpretation is valid, initial a- presumably represents surface /a/, although the etymology of the name is not certain. It is possible that i here represents a variant /i/ substituted for historical /a/ in unstressed position, though the motivation for this variation is not clear. On the other hand, Amil- may be a “rhythmic variant” of Amal-; if so, /i/ is not a reflex or allophone of */a/ but an independent alternant (Nedoma 2004a:181). Haubrichs’ interpretation of -il- as the dim. suffix /-il-/ has been discussed in § 5.1. 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid That complex II represents a dithematic FN GÕdahi(l)d is generally accepted (§ 4.1; § 5.1). If the prototheme is Goda- < PGmc *gudaz “god” or G¯oda- < PGmc *g¯odaz “good”, -a- represents a thematic vowel < PGmc */a/. If the correct prototheme of the “god”-word is an s-stem *gudz (see entry in Orel 2003), the compositional vowel would have to be a secondary development. In OS and OHG compounds with the “god”-word, forms with and without compositional vowels are attested: e.g., OHG gotelih ~ got-Ø-liih “godly”; OS god-Ø-kund “godly” vs. godobeddi “cushion for holy objects” (Gallée 1910 (glossary); Holthausen 1967; Schützeichel 2006). 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun Despite the consensus that arsiboda represents a FN Arsiboda, the etymology of the prototheme is unknown (§ 5.1). Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:329) and Krause (1966:309) treat the terminal -a of this complex as a weak nom.fem. suffix. Nedoma. on the other hand, treats it as a gen.sg. o¯ -stem suffix /-ł/ < PGmc */-¯oz/ (§ 4.1). If segun is an imported form of Lat. signum “sign”, -u- probably represents an anaptyctic vowel (§ 4.1). This vowel is presumably /u/, but the attested OHG parallel is segan, with anaptyctic /a/. Given that OHG favours /a/ in general and /u/ only before /m/ (§ 2.3.5), it is possible that the selection of /u/ in segun M segun is motivated by an awareness of the Lat. terminal /-m/. Alternatively, the anaptyctic vowel here might be influenced by the /-u-/ of the Latin model. At any rate, there is no reason to suppose that u represents any modification of an underlying /a/.
224
The low vowels
12. Bopfingen fibula mauo The etymology of the noun or pers.n. represented by this sequence is uncertain (§ 3.2.2; § 3.3.1; § 4.1). If the proposed connections with PGmc *maguz “boy, youth” or *magwj¯o “girl” are correct, then we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc */a/. None of the proposed etymologies is without problems, so the value of this witness remains in doubt. 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? As noted in § 4.1, Krause (1966:307) suggests that (f)t may be an abbreviation for a verb f(a)t(¯o) 2.sg.imp. “embrace, take”, with the root-vowel not represented. If this is correct, it reflects a type of abbreviation similar to 8. Balingen dnlo M D(a)n(i)lo. This is a speculative expansion which depends for its justification upon the doubtful reading of m? as mik M 1.sg.acc. mik (§ 5.1), and the need to supply a verb of which this pronoun could be the object. 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) ï/ ia [V] k r l
[II] :uÂfnÂai:id
[III] dan:liano
[IV]
Antonsen (1975:77) reads faÂai rather than fnÂai in complex II, and interprets it as fa¯e, dat.sg. to a reflex of PGmc *fadiz “husband” (§ 3.2.1). Although liano is generally interpreted as a pers.n., its etymology is unknown (§ 3.2.1). If Opitz’ connection of dan:liano with the prophet Daniel is correct, the a of dan is the stressed /a/ of a pers.n. Danila (see also 8. Balingen dnlo, above). 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ( ? )?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) On Fischer’s suggestion that the first part of this inscription contains a MN Danil (compare 8. Balingen dnlo), see § 5.1.
Data
225
23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida There is general agreement in the literature that daÊïna represents a FN DłÂ¯ına, with the root-vowel -a- representing either /¯a/ < */¯e1/ (§ 5.1) or a short /a/. Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:226–228) derives the stem from a PGmc *daÂ-l- > MHG tadel “blame, rebuke”. This etymology is accepted by Krause (1966:280), but emphatically rejected by Nedoma, who regards the etymology of this stem as obscure (see § 7.1.2.1). 24. Fréthun I sword pommel h?e?( ? ) In § 5.1 I mentioned Fischer’s suggestion (2007:72) that this inscription contains a name-element Hlem- < PGmc *xlammiz. If this is correct, e represents a product of “primary” i-umlaut of */a/. As noted in the earlier discussion, however, Fischer’s reading is speculative and this name-element is unattested. 26. Gammertingen capsule [I] ado [II] ad/mo Complex I is seen by (almost) all commentators as a weakly inflected nom. MN Ado, attested in the 7th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:238), and found as a prototheme in various dithematic names as Ado- ~ Ato-. Parallels in Latin sources, and later OHG names with similar forms, may be connected with the element Atho-, Atha-, Athal- (Förstemann 1900:151–182). Haubrichs (2004:78; also Looijenga 2003a:242) identifies Gammertingen ado with PGmc *aÂan/*aÂaz, as a short form of *aÂalaz (> Burg *aÂals, OE ðele, OHG adal “noble”), apparently as a product of Spirantenschwächung (§ 2.4.2). Against this hypothesis, Wagner argues that the element Ad- ~ Atmust be derived not from *aÂa-, but from a distinct PGmc *ada- (> OHG atahaft “continuous, lasting”) (Wagner 1989b). If ado M A(n)do with an unrepresented nasal (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:239; Nedoma 2004a:141, 145–146), it is probably connected with PGmc *and¯on (> ON andi, OS ando “breath”; OE anda “malice, envy, hatred”; OHG anto “zeal” (Haubrichs 2004:77; Nedoma 2004a:146; Orel 2003). A possible runic parallel is the Vimose buckle (KJ 24) aadagasu/t. Schwab (1998a:396; 1999a:13, 21) suggests that the sequence represents a Christian apotropaic charm rather than a Gmc word, with a and o standing
226
The low vowels
for Greek A and , and the sign of the Cross (not a rune) between them (see also her interpretation of 5. Aschheim III dado). The second rune of complex II may be a malformed d (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:239; Krause 1966:304), in which case it has the same range of interpretations as complex I. If we read amo, this could be another weakly inflected MN, possibly related to the name-element Amala- (see 8. Balingen amilu? in § 5.1). 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate lalgwu [swastika] In von Grienberger’s interpretation (§ 4.1), al represents the “formula-word” alu. As I have already indicated, however, this interpretation cannot be considered reliable. 29. Griesheim fibula [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru Complex II is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic FN AgilaÂr¯uÂ, with the prototheme based (according to Nedoma 2004a:149–150) on Agi- (see 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike) followed by a meaningless suffix /-la-/ (not dim. /-il-a/) (§ 5.1). In this case, the initial a-rune represents a reflex of PGmc */a/. It is not clear whether the suffix is derived from PGmc or is a later innovation; but in either event, there seems no reason to doubt that a here represents /a/. 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). In Arntz’ speculative reading, alisrh represents a dithematic MN with the prototheme Alis-, which may be connected with PGmc *aliz¯o/*alis¯o “alder” (§ 5.1). Arntz interprets laÂa as laÂa acc.sg., to a cognate of PNorse laÂu “invitation, invocation” (< PGmc *la¯o). This “formula-word” is attested on several bracteates (perhaps including 73. Skonager III lÊu); and possibly also on 32. †Hainspach lÂ. If this is correct, the first a-rune represents a reflex of PGmc */a/, the second the inflectional suffix /-ł/ < */-¯on/.
Data
227
31. Hailfingen II fibula [I] (a)????( ? ) [II] ( ? )daan? On Jänichen’s reading of complex II as adaauna, see § 3.3.1. Opitz (1987:113) reads daannl and interprets it as the name of the prophet Daniel (compare 8. Balingen dnlo; 15. Charnay dan:liano). If we read daana (see § 5.1), this could represent a weakly inflected pers.n. Dłna, comparable to Balingen dnlo. A digraphic spelling aa suggests a long /¯a/ < */¯e1/, rather than short /a/. 32. †Hainspach pendant lÂsr (Krause 1935c:122–123). Krause (1935a:38; 1935c:123–125; 1937:468) proposes expanding l to l(a)Â(a) “invitation, invocation”, with two instances of unrepresented /a/ (see 30. Hailfingen I laÂa). The expansion of a suffix /-a/ is debatable: Krause translates the whole text as “invocation here”, which implies that laÂa is understood to be nominative; Krause appears to be working on the assumption that the analogical replacement of inherited nom. /-u/ with /-a/ has taken place, though he does not commit himself to identifying the language as preOHG, or even as WGmc. For further discussion of the nom.sg. o¯ -stem suffix, see § 4.4. 33. Heide-B bracteate alu This sequence is readily identified as the “formula-word” alu “ale/magic/ protection”( ? ). Its etymology and interpretations have been discussed in § 4.1. Although several alternative etymologies exist, all assume that a- represents a reflex of PGmc */a/. 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi Througout the literature, arwi is interpreted as a MN Arwi. Several etymologies have been proposed, all of which assume a- to represent a reflex of PGmc */a/ (§ 4.1).
228
The low vowels
35. Hitsum-A bracteate [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la As mentioned in § 4.1, Seebold (1996) reads complex II as groba M gr¯oba “hole, pit”, and identifies this form as a vriddhi-derivative of an underlying reflex of PGmc *grab-. If this is correct, o here represents /¯o/ derived from /a/ by ablaut. It appears that this alternation can be assigned to PGmc, and we are in this case dealing with a reflex of PGmc */¯o/, not a direct reflex of */a/. 36. Hohenstadt fibula (…)(i)galu In Pieper’s (2010) interpretation, alu represents the “formula-word” alu “ale/ magic/protection” (see 33. Heide). In § 5.1 I mentioned the possibility that we might be dealing with a FN Igalu, with the stem < PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz (see 28. Gomadingen). If there is any merit to this suggestion, we have /a/ in the second syllable where we ought, etymologically, to have */i/ or possibly */u/ (as in OS OHG igil). This unexplained form renders the “hedgehog” interpretation unlikely here; we have no parallels, and no evidence for levelling of unstressed vowels. It seems more reasonable to treat (i)ga as a weakly inflected FN Iga/I(n)ga (§ 5.1). It is conceivable that a represents an anaptyctic vowel in a name < *Igl-; although this has no known etymology and no parallels (unless Gomadingen iglug/n is to be interpreted the same way). 38. Hüfingen I Kleinbrakteat [I] VVIT (????) [II] alu Complex II can reliably be identified as the “formula-word” alu (see 33. Heide). 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag The two words readily identifiable in this inscription (if it is genuine) are the theonym W¯odan (dat.sg. W¯odani?) < PGmc *w¯odanaz (see § 4.1) and hailag “holy” < PGmc *xailagaz (§ 3.2.1). In both cases, the a of the second syllable represents a reflex of PGmc */a/.
Data
229
43. “Kent” fibula ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa (my transliteration). If Looijenga’s reading of complex I as gadu and the proposed connection with PGmc *gad¯on “companion, spouse” are correct, we have here another regular reflex of PGmc */a/ M a. However, both the reading and interpretation are uncertain (§ 4.1). 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali bada appears to be parallel to 6. Bad Ems bada (qv). 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula arugis The etymology of the name represented here and in 67. Schretzheim I arogis has been discussed in § 4.1; § 5.1. Whether the prototheme represented by aru~ aro- is connected with PGmc *ar¯on “eagle” or *arwaz “ready” (see 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi), the initial a- represents a reflex of PGmc */a/. 47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada As discussed in § 3.2.2, fada is commonly interpreted as a name-element < PGmc *fa¯o “mistress( ? ), aunt( ? )”, with the first a representing /a/ < PGmc */a/ (on the interpretation of the terminal -a, see § 4.4.3.3). Alternatively, the sequence may represent an abbreviated verb-form fa(ihi)da “made” (Nedoma 2004a:194; Schwab 1998a:420). 48. Lauchheim II comb ?dag Schwab (1999a:20) reads odag M o¯ dag < PGmc *audagaz/*audigaz “fortunate(?), happy(?)” (§ 3.3.2). As noted in the earlier discussion, I do not consider either this reading or the proposed monophthongisation of */au/ to be plausible. If the first sign is non-runic, then the text is simply dag, which could be the “day”-word (PGmc *dagaz; see 84. Weingarten II in § 5.1) or a strongly inflected nom. MN Dag, with the same etymology. All of these interpretations assume a to represent a reflex of PGmc */a/.
230
The low vowels
52. München-Aubing II fibula bd The only available interpretation of this sequence is Meli’s suggestion (1988:120–121) that it might be a contraction of b(a)d(a) “consolation” (compare 6. Bad Ems bada; 44. Kirchheim/Teck I bada). Both Düwel (1998b:77–78) and Nedoma (2004a:399) regard this as an untestable speculation. 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna While it is generally agreed that hamale represents a dat. MN (§ 3.2.2), the etymology of the stem Hamal- is uncertain. Scardigli (1986:354; 1994:288) treats it as a (nom.) technical term “strut”, related to modG (dial.) Hämele n. “handcuff, band for tying the hands of infants to the edge of the cradle”, and/or OIc hamla f. (M OE hamele) “oar-loop”. Nedoma rejects this on the grounds that modG Hämele is based on an OHG dim. construction in /-il¯ın/, for which hamale is not a possible form (we would expect *hamil¯ı); moreover, the semantic shift “restricting band” M “strut, support” is at best questionable (Nedoma 2004a:242). De Vries (1961) derives OIc hamla from the verb hemja “to restrain” (PGmc *xam(m)janan), but does not go into detail about the derivation. If hamale is derived from a proto-form *xaml-, then the second a represents an anaptyctic vowel of the common WGmc type (§ 2.3.5). In the view of Opitz (1981:30–31; 1982:488), Hamale is a hypocoristic form of a dithematic name in Hama- (: OE hama m. “clothing, skin, body”; OHG-OS g¯uð-hamo “battle-dress” (Hildebrandlied V.5)). Nedoma objects that l-suffixed forms of this type are constructed from the stem + */-il-/, not */-al-/; and these forms are weakly inflected, so /-e/ is not a possible ending. Haubrichs (2004:85) connects the name to OHG hamal “wether” < hamal adj. “cropped, mutilated” (< PGmc *xamalaz), which might have originated as a nickname “wether; castrated one” (the meaning could alternatively be “scarred, mutilated” in a more general sense). Nedoma is not averse to the etymon *xamalaz, but he proposes that the meaning is “man with cropped hair” (compare, e.g., OFris h¯eres-homelinge f. “cutting-off of the hair”) (Nedoma 2004a:322–323). In defence of this interpretation, Nedoma cites a number of other Gmc pers.ns. which make reference to hair (e.g., WGmc Strubil¯o f. (1st century) “the little tousle-haired one”)1 (Nedoma 1998b; 2004a:324).
1 “die kleine Strubbelhaarige”
Data
231
If the connection with *xamalaz is correct, then it appears that a in the second syllable is not a case of anaptyxis but a regular reflex of PGmc */a/. That a in the root is a reflex of */a/ is undisputed. 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? On the various interpretations of logaÂore, see § 4.1. Given the uncertainties about the etymology and composition of this word, the history of the vowel represented by -a- is not clear. It may be the thematic vowel of an a-stem element (< PGmc *lug-a- or *l¯og-a-). There is no disagreement in the literature over the interpretation of complex II as the theonym W¯odan (see 42. †Kärlich wodani), with a representing a reflex of (unstressed) */a/. That Âonar in complex [A III] represents a reflex of PGmc *Âunraz “thunder” and/or the identical theonym (§ 4.1) is generally accepted. The medial -a- is in this case a product of the common WGmc anaptyxis (type 1 – see § 2.3.5). 58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd In Klingenberg’s interpretation (Klingenberg 1974), ba functions as a haplogram: gba M g(i)ba “gift” (< PGmc *geb¯o) or 1.sg.pres. g(i)ba (to Go giba vs. OS gebu, OHG gebu) “I give” (§ 5.1); and ba M Go ba (< PGmc *b¯a), nom./ acc.pl.neut. to bai “both (bread and wine)”. Klingenberg divides afd into two words: af represents a preposition af < PGmc *aba (> Go ON OS af, OE f ~ of, OHG aba “from, away from”; see further § 7.1.1.1); and d is an abbreviation for the dative object of this preposition, perhaps a repetition of dul “festival” (< *dulÂiz f.; see § 4.1; § 7.1.2.1) (Klingenberg 1974:88). Düwel (2002e:479) offers an alternative, but similar, rendering of the text as g(eba) ba dulÂa f(ri)d(u) “Gift for (religious) celebration. Peace”. Here, a is the inflectional suffix of dulÂ-. No such inflection appears in the OHG i-stems (BR § 218); in Go, long-syllable masc. i-stems do take dat.sg. /-a/ (by analogy with the a-stems), but the fem. i-stems retain a form (= /ai/? See discussion of 15. Charnay uÂfnÂai in § 3.2.1). A dat.sg. /-a/ is also attested for long-stemmed masculines (but not feminines) in OS (Holthausen 1921 § 295).
232
The low vowels
Both of these interpretations suffer from phonological difficulties, and both of them rest on the assumption that the sequence is an abbreviated form of a longer text, the reconstruction of which can only be speculative. As an alternative (not advanced in the literature), it is conceivable that afd might represent an underlying form *aft < PGmc *aftÀ (> Go afta “behind”; ON OFris OS OLF eft “after”; OE ft ~ eft “behind, again”) (see also § 7.1.2.1). The presence of i-umlaut in eft points to a pre-form in */-i/. If the product of “primary” i-umlaut has not been phonologised, then the conditioning vowel ought still to be present (in which case we might expect a form like *afti ~ *afdi). If, on the other hand, the mutated vowel has been phonologised, then we would expect it to be written e. A further problem is that no reflex of *aftÀ is attested in OHG (Köbler 1993; Schützeichel 2006; Wells 1990). According to Orel (2003), i-umlaut in ON eft is derived analogically from eftir (< PGmc *aft(e)raz), rather than directly from a pre-form *afti. A similar process cannot be operative in the Continental dialects, however, as the cognates of ON eftir do not have /-i-/ in the second syllable and do not undergo umlaut: OS aftar, OHG after. It is conceivable that a CRun form *aft without an umlaut-conditioning vowel exists alongside the pre-forms of eft, as a parallel to pre-ON *aft (and perhaps OE ft, if this represents an unmutated variant); but we have no supporting evidence for the existence of such a form. 59. Oettingen fibula a?ijabrg If Betz’ reading auija- is correct, and if this sequence represents a reflex of PGmc *aujan “luck” (§ 3.3.1), then the second a-rune represents the thematic vowel. This reading is speculative, however. 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? If fura represents a preposition < PGmc *fura “before” (§ 4.1), then -a is a reflex of the final */-a/. Arntz interprets furad as furad- < PGmc *fraÂaz “strong” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:318–319), with a representing the root-vowel (again < */a/); see further § 7.1.2.1.
Data
233
61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun?(…) [II] ltahu·gasokun? There is agreement throughout the literature that reflexes of PGmc */a/ are represented by the a-runes of andi (M andi “and” < PGmc *andi) (§ 5.1) and gasokun (M gas¯okun 3.pl.pret. “scolded? /fought?/quarrelled?”) (§ 4.1). If aï/llrun is correctly read allrun/all(u)run (Pieper 1999:30; Marold 2004:220–223), then this may represent a name in All- < PGmc *allaz “all” (see 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ; 72. Skodborg alawin, alawid); or Alu- (see § 4.1), which would make the name a true cognate of ON Olrún ˛ (Marold 2004:227). The former would be morphologically odd: pers.ns. with this element normally retain a compositional vowel /-a-/ (occasionally /-o-/) (Förstemann 1900:51–55). Schwab (1999b:57) adduces a counter-example in Langob. Altruda, but it is not clear that this is a name in *alla- rather than *alda- (> OE eald, OFris OS ald, OHG alt “old”). It is conceivable, as Schwab suggests (ibid.), that allrun could be interpreted as alr¯un = OHG alr¯un > modG Alraun “mandrake” (which Kluge (2002) etymologises as *ala- “all” + *r¯un- “whisper; secret”), perhaps intended with the literal meaning “mandrake” rather than as a pers.n. Of the numerous interpretations of ltahu (§ 4.1), several warrant special consideration here. If the reading elahu is correct, and if this is to be connected with OHG elah(h)o “elk, deer” (< PGmc *elx¯on) (§ 5.1), then a represents an anaptyctic vowel; the context is appropriate for the general OHG anaptyxis (type 2) (§ 2.3.5). One of the interpretations offered by Schwab (1999b:64–67) is that elahu is a compound eli-ahu “foreign water”, with the element eli- < PGmc *aljaz (> OHG eli- “strange, foreign, other” (in elilenti “foreign country”) : Lat alius “other”). The proposal is that e represents a vowel derived from /a/ via i-umlaut (§ 2.3.4.2). In this interpretation, and that of Nedoma (§ 4.1, interpretation no. 3), ahu is connected with PGmc *axw¯o “water, river, stream” and a- therefore represents /a/ < PGmc */a/. a also represents a regular reflex of */a/ in Seebold’s interpretation (no. 4 in § 4.1) that ahu M ahu inst.sg. to a reflex of PGmc *axuz “caution”. Looijenga expands ltahu to (a)l t¯ahu (with an underlying /a/ not represented orthographically). Al is here an endingless form of the adj. “all” (PGmc *allaz; for the reflexes, see 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ). Both Looijenga and Wagner interpret tahu as a reflex of PGmc *tanxuz “tough” (§ 4.1), with a representing /¯a/ < PGmc */an/ (§ 2.2.2; § 2.3.4.3). Looijenga treats t¯ahu as an adverb and translates the whole text “A. and A. vigorously fought/condemned all” (2003a:255). If this were correct, however,
234
The low vowels
al ought to have an overt (strong) acc.pl.masc. ending like OHG al-e (analogically derived from PGmc nom. *all-ai; compare acc.pl. *all-anz (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.5.1; Ringe 2006:281)). The indeclinable adjectives in OHG only appear in nom. case (occasionally also acc.sg.) and in predicative use (BR § 247). 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa gisali may be connected with PGmc *g¯ıslaz “hostage” or *g¯ıslaz/*g¯ızlaz “arrow” (§ 5.1). In either case, the medial -a- represents a vowel attributable to the common WGmc anaptyxis (§ 2.3.5). 66. Saint-Dizier sword pommel alu There seems no reason to doubt that this inscription represents the “formulaword” alu (see 33. Heide). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd Throughout the literature, alagu is interpreted as a dithematic FN with a prototheme < PGmc *allaz (> Go alls, ON allr, OE eall, OFris al(le), OS OHG al “all”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:340–341; Krause 1966:299; Looijenga 2003a:255; Nedoma 2004a:173–175). If this is correct, then the two a-runes represent reflexes of */a/, respectively the root-vowel and the thematic vowel. In complex II, arogis is generally accepted as a MN equivalent to 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis (qv), with a representing a reflex of PGmc */a/ in either of the competing etymologies (*ar¯on “eagle” vs. *arwaz “ready”). 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo wagadin is variously interpreted as a participle or deverbal noun wag(g)(j)a(n)dÃn, based on PGmc *wagjanan “move” (§ 4.1). In all of the available interpretations, the first a-rune represents the root vowel /a/ < */a/. The second a-rune belongs to the participial suffix < PGmc */-and-/, and is also therefore a reflex of */a/.
Data
235
69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r Interpretations involving the transliteration of the “rune-cross” as a g-rune include Looijenga’s gabar M Gabar, a hypocoristic MN : *Gabahari, with a prototheme related to OHG gaba “gift” (a variant of gëba), and a deuterotheme < PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army” (see 79. Weimar I in § 5.1) (Looijenga 2003a:257). In this interpretation, the first a-rune apparently represents an /a/ developed secondarily (vs. regular /e/ < PGmc */e/), while the second represents the compositional vowel. A compositional is quite common in OHG dithematic names in Gib-/Geb-, but it co-exists with other variants (compare, e.g., Gabuard (= G¯ab-Ø-ward?); Gebahard ~ Gebohard ~ Gebihart ~ Ghebehard (Förstemann 1900:562, 633; Kaufmann 1968:129–130, 144–145)). Looijenga does not discuss the possibility that gab- could contain long /¯a/ < */¯e1/ (compare 21. Erpfting gabu in § 5.1). Opitz (1987:40) favours Klingenberg’s suggestion (Klingenberg and Koch 1974:128–129) that we should read either gab M gab 1./3.sg.pret. “gave” (with a M /a/ < PGmc */a/), or gaba M g¯aba “gift” (a M /¯a/ < */¯e1). Klingenberg’s other proposed interpretations include: (i) abar M Abar (< PGmc *abraz “strong”; see below); (ii) gabar M ga(m)bar = OHG gambar “powerful” (< PGmc *gamb(a)raz (Köbler 1993)), perhaps a by-name or weaponname. Düwel (1981b:159–160; 1984:325; 1994b:268) suggests reading arab (without treating the cross as g), which might be an abbreviated form of a dithematic MN Ara(n)b(erht), with a prototheme possibly connected with PGmc *ar¯on “eagle” (see 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis in § 4.1). Nedoma also cautiously interprets the inscription as a pers.n., though he does not accept Düwel’s expansion. The two most likely options in his view are abar M Abar m. (PGmc *abraz > Go abrs “strong, mighty”; ON afr-endr at afli “very strong, valiant”), with the second a-rune representing an anaptyctic vowel of the common WGmc type (§ 2.3.5); or uaba M Wa(m)ba m./f. (< PGmc *wamb¯o “belly, womb”; see § 4.1) (Nedoma 2004a:198). Schwab (1998a:376–378) suggests that abar is an abbreviation (with metathesis) of the Mediterranean magical formula Abrasax/Abraxas. A parallel text can be found on a 6th/7th-century cruciform amulet from Lausanne, which contains various permutations and abbreviations of the formula, including ABRA, ABRAC, ABAR. Nedoma (2004a:197) is sceptical, but the only objection he expresses is to the metathesis abar M abra-. While Schwab’s connection of this inscription to Mediterranean magic is conjec-
236
The low vowels
tural in itself, this transposition is not sufficient reason to rule it out: the corpus contains rune-sequences for which metathetic interpretations are widely accepted (e.g., 9. Beuchte buirso M BŒriso (see entry in § 4.1); 89. Wremen ksamella M skamella (see entry in § 5.1)); and the Lausanne amulet itself contains a variant ABAR. 72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid That auja = auja “luck” < PGmc *aujan, and that alawin, alawid represent pers.ns. in Ala- < PGmc *allaz “all” (see 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ) is uncontroversial. These interpretations give us several clear witnesses to a M /a/ < PGmc */a/. Stiles (1984:30) suggests that jalawid is a haplographic ja(h) Alaw¯ıd “and Alaw¯ıd” (see § 5.1). 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu Complex II lÊu is identified in the literature as an abbreviated form of laÂu “invitation, invocation” (see 32. †Hainspach lÂ; and § 4.1). If this is correct, the root-vowel /a/ has been omitted. 74. Soest fibula [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano In complex I, daÂa is identified throughout the literature as a FN DłÂa, with the same stem as 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna. The quantity of the root-vowel (/a/ < PGmc */a/ or /¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/) is uncertain; see § 5.1. The most widely accepted interpretation of complex II is as a nom. MN At(t)ano, with the cross functioning as a “carrier”, rather than as a g-rune (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:348–349; Krause 1966:280; Nedoma 2004a:216–221; Opitz 1987:40–41). This may be connected with an element *aÂa-, backformed from PGmc *aÂalan (> OHG adal “(noble) descent, lineage”); see further § 7.1.2.1. Klingenberg treats the cross as g, but assigns it a Begriffsrune function “g(ift)”. He accepts the interpretation of atano M At(t)ano (Klingenberg and Koch 1974:126). Looijenga reads gatano (with the rune-cross functioning as a g-rune) and interprets it as a weak nom. MN Gatano, which she does not attempt to ana-
Data
237
lyse (2003a:258). Nedoma (2004a:214) notes (and rejects) a similar reading by Meli (1988:147–148). A possible parallel is OHG Gatani f. (8th c.; Förstemann 1900:563), the etymology of which is uncertain. Kaufmann (1968:130) suggests a connection with OE gada, OS gi-gado “companion” (< PGmc *gad¯on; compare Looijenga’s interpretation of 43. “Kent” gadu in § 4.1); or with the ethnonym Gaut- (< PGmc *gautaz/*gaut¯on, with monophthongisation of */au/ > */¯a/, vs. regular /ɔ¯ /; see § 2.3.1.4). 75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) On the suggestions that -?ald represents a name-element -bald (< PGmc *balÂaz/*baldaz “bold”) or -wald (< PGmc *waldanan “rule, wield”), see § 4.1. In either case, a represents a reflex of */a/; however, I do not consider the reading of ? as b or w reliable (and Graf disputes the presence of a – see catalogue), and so the interpretation of the entire inscription remains in doubt. 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f If amelkud is a FN with the element Amel- = Amal- (§ 5.1), the initial a may represent a reflex of */a/. For discussion of the etymology, see 8. Balingen in § 5.1. 77. Szabadbattyán buckle marŋs? The favoured interpretation of marŋ is as a MN M¯aring < PGmc *m¯erjaz “famous” (§ 5.1). It is possible that the root-vowel is short /a/, and that we are dealing with a name-element marha- < PGmc *marxaz (> ON marr, OE mearh “steed”; OHG marah-stal “stable”) (Antonsen 1975:75; Arntz and Zeiss 1939:359; Kiss 1980:114; Krause 1966:311). In Antonsen’s view, this may be understood as a by-name with a sense “descendant of Mar(h)s”, or “horseman”. Another possible etymon would be *mariz (> Go mari-saiws, ON marr, OE mere, OHG meri “sea, lake”; OFris mar “pool, ditch”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:359).
238
The low vowels
79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· The interpretation of haribrig as a FN with a prototheme < PGmc *xariz/ *xarjaz “army” is uncontroversial (§ 5.1). In this case, a represents a reflex of */a/. 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: As mentioned in § 3.3.2, hahwar is generally interpreted as a dithematic MN with a prototheme H¯ah- < PGmc *xanxaz (> PNorse hahai dat.sg. (Möjbro stone, KJ 99), OHG h¯ah “horse, courser”) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:373; Krause 1966:289; Nedoma 2004a:315–316). Although Nedoma favours this etymology, a derivation from PGmc *xauxaz “high” is also possible (although rather unlikely: if we were dealing with */xɔ¯ x-/ < */xaux-/, we would expect a spelling *hoh-; see § 3.3.2). The deuterotheme -war is interpreted as either -war < PGmc *waraz “wary” (a M /a/ < PGmc */a/); or -w¯ar < *w¯eraz “true” (a M /¯a/ < */¯e1/) (§ 4.1; § 5.1). The former seems to be the more popular. 82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w The name hahwar here is identical to that on 81. Weimar III. 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la The majority view is that complex I should be read alirguÂ, representing a dithematic FN in Alir- < PGmc *aliz¯o/*alis¯o “alder” (§ 5.1). If this is so, then the initial a represents a regular /a/ < PGmc */a/. On the alternative reading aerguÂ, see § 3.2.1. In the most popular interpretations of feha, e represents a monophthongal reflex of PGmc */ai/ (§ 3.2.2). In the earlier discussion, I mentioned Looijenga’s identification of the sequence with OHG fegin¯on “to enjoy oneself ” (< PGmc *fagan¯ojanan/*fagen¯ojanan), with e representing an i-umlaut reflex of PGmc */a/. Since the rune can plausibly be explained in terms of monophthongisation of */ai/, or as a reflex of an underlying front vowel, I am not inclined to give Looijenga’s interpretation much credence.
Data
239
84. Weingarten II fibula dado While there is general agreement that this inscription, like 5. Aschheim III dado, represents a weakly inflected MN Dado, Da(n)do or D¯ado, we have no way of determining whether the root-vowel is long /¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/ or short /a/ < */a/ (§ 5.1). 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal latam is generally interpreted as a form of the verb < PGmc *l¯etanan “let”, the first a-rune representing /¯a/ < PGmc */¯e1/ (§ 5.1). It may be interpreted as 1.pl.pres.ind. (-am M /-am/ < PGmc */-amaz/); or as an irregular 1.pl.opt. (-am M /-¯am/, vs. regular /-¯em/ < PGmc */-aim(a) (Pieper 1987:234–235; see § 3.2.2)). Although the latter interpretation is more widely accepted, I agree with Nedoma (2004a:326) that it is anomalous and that the former is more plausible, at least from a phonological perspective. Throughout the literature, hari is connected with PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army” (see 79. Weimar I haribrig). Complex III hagal is interpreted throughout the literature as hagal “hail” (PGmc *xaglaz/*xaglan > ON hagl, PNorse hagala (Kragehul spearshaft, KJ 27), OE hg(e)l ~ hagol, OFris heil, OS OHG hagal). In this case, the first a is the root-vowel < PGmc */a/, and the second is a product of the common WGmc anaptyxis (§ 2.3.5). On anaptyxis in Kragehul hagala and other early Scandinavian inscriptions, see Krause (1971:82–85). 87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede If ulu represents the “owl”-word (PGmc *uwwal¯on) (§ 4.1), we appear to have a compositional vowel written -u- where we would expect a phonological form /-a-/. Nedoma rejects Pieper’s connection of ulu with u¯ la- because of this apparent discrepancy. No-one has suggested that -u- here represents an underlying /a/; Pieper seems content to overlook the issue. Here, as in the case of †Weser I (above), hari is taken to represent a reflex of *xariz/*xarjaz.
240
The low vowels
89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi If ksamella has been correctly identified as a loanword from Latin scamella “footstool, step” (§ 5.1), then we have a stem-vowel /a/ represented as a, but it is not derived directly from PGmc */a/. The terminal -a is explained by Düwel (in Schön et al. 2006:322) as a direct import from Lat., rather than a Gmc inflectional suffix. Heine expands on this by identifying scamella as an example of the reinterpretation of a nom.pl.neut. o-stem as a nom.sg.fem. a¯ -stem (compare CLat. opus n., nom.pl. opera M LLat. opera f.(nom.sg.) “work”) (Heine in Schön et al. 2006:322–323). In the most popular interpretation of complex II (§ 4.1), lgu represents (a)lgu- < PGmc *algiz/*elxaz/*elx¯on “elk, deer”, with the initial vowel unrepresented. An alternative interpretation, with an unrepresented /a/ in a different position, is Looijenga’s suggested connection with PGmc *laguz “lake, water”. Both of these may involve an unrepresented reflex of */a/. skaÂi is connected in the literature with PGmc *skaÂjanan “hurt” (see § 5.1 for the various analyses). In all of these interpretations, a represents the rootvowel < PGmc */a/.
6.2 Summary It is plain that in the vast majority of cases where we can be reasonably confident that we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc */a/, it is consistently represented a. We have several reliable examples of anaptyctic /a/: 6. Bad Ems madali; 56. Nordendorf I Âonar; 62. Pforzen II gisali; 85. †Weser I hagal; possibly also 36. Hohenstadt (i)gal- (if the base is *Igl-); 54. Neudingen-Baar II hamale (if based on a PGmc *xaml-). All of these belong to the common WGmc anaptyxis (type 1). If 61. Pforzen I ltahu = elahu M elahu “elk, deer”, then this gives us an example of the OHG anaptyxis (type 2) (§ 2.3.5). The only plausible example of /¯a/ < PGmc */an/ before */x/ is 81, 82. Weimar III, IV hahwar; and even this is uncertain. More dubious is 61. Pforzen I tahu; the connection with *tanxuz “tough” is only one of the numerous interpretations of the sequence.
Summary
241
The only possible cases of e for /a/ via i-umlaut are Pforzen elahu and Weingarten feha, both of which we can reject with some confidence. The corpus contains abundant evidence for a in i-umlaut contexts: 4. Aschheim II ahi; 6. Bad Ems madali; 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike; 8. Balingen amilu; 11. Bezenye II arsiboda; 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna; 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ; 61. Pforzen I andi; 79. Weimar I haribrig; 85. †Weser I hari; 87. †Weser III hari; 89. Wremen skaÂi. If the reading alirgu is correct for 83. Weingarten I, this provides us with a further example. The absence of an orthographic distinction between mutated and unmutated allophones of /a/ does not necessarily imply that i-mutation is not underway in CRun. A mutated *[] or *[Ô] may exist, but if so, it is evidently perceived by the creators of inscriptions as underlyingly /a/. If the mutated vowel were phonologised, or if phonologisation were incipient, we might reasonably expect to see some variation between a and e. The corpus contains several examples of a rune other than a which may represent an alternant of /a/: 8. Balingen amilu; 35. Hitsum g?ob/la; 76. Stetten amelkud; 87. †Weser III ulu. In none of these cases does the vowel clearly represent a direct reflex of */a/. The Amil- ~ Amel- name-element may simply be a “rhythmic variant” of Amal- (i.e., i and e represent /i/ and /e/, not derivable from /a/). If Hitsum g?ob/la M gr¯oba, the alternant results from a different ablaut grade of the root (i.e., < PGmc *gr¯ob- ≠ *grab-). †Weser III ulu remains without a satisfactory explanation (see entry in § 4.1). We have several inscriptions possibly containing an /a/ which is not represented orthographically: 8. Balingen dnlo M D(ł)n(i)lo; 14. Bülach (f)t M f(a)t(o); 32. †Hainspach l M l(a)Â(u/a), sr M s(a)r; 52. München-Aubing II bd M b(a)d(a); 61. Pforzen I l M (a)l; 73. Skonager III lÊu M l(a)Âu; 89. Wremen lgu M (a)lgu or l(a)gu. All of these are speculative expansions (the Balingen, Skonager and Wremen examples being the most credible). There does not appear to be any pattern to the contexts that would enable us to construct an orthographic rule comparable to “Grønvik’s law” for the nonrepresentation of a high vowel (§ 2.6.2). We have two possible examples of initial /al-/ M l- (Pforzen I; Wremen); but the former is very uncertain. Although the “formula-word” laÂa ~ laÂu is well attested in the bracteate corpus (Krause 1966:253–257), there are no parallels for the expansion of l M laÂ-, proposed for Skonager. The reading of †Hainspach l is questionable, even if the item is authentic. A similar form appears on the Sedschütz pot (AZ 5), excluded from my corpus because of its early date (3rd c.); but the inscription is obscure and may not be runic.
242
The low vowels
6.3 Conclusions It seems clear that, as we would expect, reflexes of PGmc */a/ appear throughout the corpus as a. The alleged witnesses to a mutated /a/ M *[] ~ *[Ô] M e are unreliable, while all of the other cases in which a vowel-rune other than a appears and where we might be dealing with a root in PGmc */a/, the variation can be explained as an alternation of the underlying vowel-phonemes, rather than as any sound change relating to */a/ itself. We have no evidence for a reflex of */a/ being represented as o. For the long vowel /¯a/ < */anx/, our only witness is hahwar, with the vowel represented by a. Since this phoneme would be expected to merge with /¯a/ < */¯e1/, which is consistently represented as a (§ 5.2.2.2), this is to be expected.
The obstruents
243
7. The consonants 7.1 The obstruents In this section we are principally concerned with written forms which may constitute evidence for the existence of fricative allophones of */b d g/ (§ 2.5.1.1); for the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2); or for Spirantenschwächung (§ 2.5.1.3). Reflexes of */b d/ which are fricatives *[β/v ð] might be spelled *f Â, if (and only if) */f/ and */θ/ have voiced allophones (see below). In one or two cases, forms in u/w have been interpreted as reflexes of */b/; these are discussed in § 7.1.1, below. It is less likely that fricative reflexes of */g/ will appear as *h unless they are devoiced, since */x/ does not develop a voiced allophone in any of the Gmc languages. At least one form in h has been interpreted in this way (§ 7.1.3). If affrication of */p t k/ has taken place, we might expect to see the affricates represented as digraphs *pf ~ *ph, *ts ~ *th( ? ), *kh, similar to the familiar ms. spellings. On the other hand, if the affricates are present but the Medienverschiebung is not underway, carvers might not feel any need to mark the affricates as such: if */p/ > [pf], but */b/ is still [b], then the phonological system has no contrast between a plosive /p/ and an affricate /pf/. It is plausible to postulate that the affricates (or affricated plosives) exist but are not marked orthographically at this stage of development. The fricatives arising from the shift of */p t k/ are likely to show up as *f s h (with no contrast between geminate and degeminated forms to be expected, as geminates are only rarely marked with a double rune). Even here, though, we cannot be confident that /s2/ would be distinguished from /ts2/ (both being spelled as in most OHG texts – § 2.5.1.2.1). It is possible that, even if the shift of */t/ > /ts2 s2/ is complete, all reflexes of */t/ would be spelled t. If the Medienverschiebung has taken place, the devoiced/lenis reflexes of */b d g/ are likely to be spelled *p t k; even here, though, we will only find sound changes reflected in the surface forms if carvers feel that there is a significant contrast which needs to be represented, and if they are not following
244
The consonants
conservative or traditional orthographic practices. The same applies to other devoicing processes in initial and/or final position (§ 2.5.1.4.1). Voiced allophones of */f θ/ might appear as *b d, if the reflexes of */b d/ have fricative allophones (see above). Since the rune z is redundant after the early loss of */z/, it is available to be used for a voiced reflex of */s/. Deletion of */x/ in phonetically weak positions would not be unexpected, especially if there is little indication that archaic forms are being preserved and maintained in Continental epigraphical tradition(s). One further possibility which needs to be considered (even if we do not think it likely) is the use of z for reflexes of */z/, either as archaic spellings or as indications that the merger of */z/ and */r/ is incomplete (§ 2.5.1.1.3).
7.1.1 The “labials” (PGmc */p b f/) 7.1.1.1 Data 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ The b-rune in complex II is most commonly taken to be a haplograph representing two reflexes of */b/: uba M u(m)ba ~ u(m)b(i) “around” (< PGmc *umbi), which may be compounded with bada M bada “consolation( ? )” (< PGmc *bad- ?), or possibly “battle” (< PGmc *badw¯o). Arntz’ interpretation of uba as a weakly inflected pers.n. Uba is not especially helpful, as no etymology is offered. For further detail on all these interpretations, see § 4.1. 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike Complex I contains three b-runes unproblematically interpreted as reflexes of */b/ boba is a FN B¯oba, with a stem possibly < PGmc *b¯ob¯on “boy”( ? ) (§ 4.1); and leub is connected with *leubaz “dear, lovely” (although it is morphologically ambiguous – see § 3.1.1).
The obstruents
245
9. Beuchte fibula [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso The interpretation of complex II as a MN BŒriso (with metathesis of i and r) is undisputed, although there is disagreement about the length of the root vowel and the etymology of the name (§ 4.1). A possible alternative *Biurso is discussed (and rejected) in § 3.1.1. There is no reason to think that b represents anything other than a reflex of PGmc */b/. 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun Though the interpretation of the whole sequence arsiboda is a matter of some debate (§ 4.1), the connection of boda with PGmc *bud¯on “messenger” is not. 13. Borgharen buckle bobo This is thought to be a masc. counterpart to 7. Bad Krozingen A boba, with two b-runes representing reflexes of */b/ (see above, and § 4.1). 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? fridil in complex I is frequently connected with OHG fridil ~ friudil “friend, beloved, husband” (§ 5.1; for criticism of this interpretation, see § 7.1.2.1). More plausibly, Nedoma (2004a:301–303) interprets it as a pers.n. derived from the verbal stem of *fr¯ıdjanan “to take care of ”. The “prefix” fri- may be a reduplication of the stem (whichever interpretation we follow); or it may represent the adjective “free” (PGmc *frijaz); or a form of the verb *frij¯ojanan “to free; to love( ? )”. All of these are discussed in more detail in § 5.1. More tentative is the suggestion that (f)t in complex III is a contracted verbform f(a)t(o), 2.sg.imp. “embrace; clothe( ? )” (§ 4.1). This is a speculative proposal of Krause’s, which has nonetheless been widely accepted. I am not inclined to give it much credence.
246 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) ïia [V] k r
The consonants
[II] :uÂfnÂai:id
[III] dan:liano
[IV]
uÂfnÂai in complex II is commonly interpreted as u(n)Â-f(i)nÂai (3.sg.pres.opt.) “may … discover”, with f representing (EGmc?) /f/ < PGmc */f/ (§ 3.2.1). Antonsen’s alternative reading faÂe M fa¯e (dat.sg.) “father” (1975:77; again, see § 3.2.1) also starts from the assumption that f = /f/ < */f/. 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) Looijenga (2003a:238) reads the beginning of the inscription as fiaginÂ, taken to be a FN in -gin = -gun (see § 4.1). The element fia- is not discussed; but since I do not regard either the transliteration or the interpretation as reliable, it will not be pursued further. 20. Engers fibula leub Like 7. Bad Krozingen A leub, this item contains a reflex of PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely”, with b = */b/. As with the Bad Krozingen witness, several morphological and semantic interpretations are possible (§ 3.1.1). 21. Erpfting fibula lda·gabu Düwel’s interpretation of gabu as g¯abu (dat.sg. o¯ -stem) “as a gift” has not been challenged (Düwel 2003c:13–16). Doubts might be raised about the identification of the inflectional suffix and its meaning (for discussion of the suffix, see § 4.1; § 4.4.1). On the stem vowel a (vs. e), see § 4.1; § 5.1. 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida It is generally agreed that boso represents a MN B¯oso, most likely < PGmc *b¯os¯on (> PNorse *b¯osan “lump, chunk”). In this etymology and in the alternatives discussed earlier (§ 3.2.2; § 4.1), b is assumed to represent a reflex of PGmc */b/.
The obstruents
247
27. Geltorf II-A bracteate lalgwu Arntz (1937:7) suggests that gwu M g(i)bu “I give” (§ 4.1), with w representing a fricative reflex of */b/ = [β] or [v]. This is not plausible: the hypothesis that u or w might be used to represent [β/v] depends on the similar use of in Romance orthography. The Roman letters can be used to represent Lat. /u/ or /w/. From the 2nd century AD, Lat /w/ is realised as a fricative [v]; since Lat. /b/ also has a fricative allophone [v], confusion between the two is possible (Allen 1978:40–42; Kent 1945:62). However, there is no such development in OS or OHG (or, for that matter, any of the other Gmc dialects in the first millennium):1 only the phonemes /b/ and /f/ can have the phonetic form [v] or [β] (§ 2.5.1.1; § 2.5.1.3). The representation of one of these fricatives as u or w in a runic inscription could only arise analogically from knowledge of Roman script, as it reflects a sound change peculiar to Latin/ Romance. Whatever the state of Latin literacy among the makers of runic inscriptions may have been (see Düwel 1994b), in the absence of supporting evidence it seems highly unlikely that they habitually followed Latin orthographic practice. On phonetic grounds, the only reasonable runic transcriptions of a fricative [v, β] would be b or f. 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi The most plausible interpretation of arwi is as a reflex of PGmc *arwaz “ready”. The suggestion that arwi is related by Verner’s Law to PGmc *arbjan “inheritance”( ? ) has already been discussed and rejected in § 4.1.
1 The development of a fricative /v/ < /w/ is a feature of modern German and Dutch, but not of MHG (Wright 1955 § 19) or (probably) MDu (van Helten 1887 § 102 Opmerk. 5). The NGmc dialects of the high Middle Ages also probably retain an approximant [w]: the First Grammatical Treatise (mid-12th century) makes it clear that this is the case for Icelandic (Haugen 1972:42–43). The late medieval runic evidence from Bergen is ambiguous, but it suggests that /w/ is still an approximant in the 14th century: u (rather than f) is used to represent reflexes of */w/ (e.g., B205 (before 1332) foukuarÂr M Fólkvarðr; B368 htusuains M Hettusveins (gen.)); see “Runic inscriptions from Bryggen” website.
248
The consonants
35. Hitsum-A bracteate [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la On the proposal that fozo is connected with the ethnonym Fosii, see § 4.1; § 7.1.2.1. If this is correct, then f would presumably represent a reflex of PGmc */f/ (the etymology of the name is discussed in § 4.1). The reading of complex II is uncertain, but if groba is correct, then it would seem to represent a name or word connected with PGmc *grab- “dig, carve” (§ 4.1). 40. Hüfingen III fibula bi This inscription has been tentatively associated with PGmc *bi “by; near”, or the related prefix (§ 5.1). Its meaning is unclear, but if this interpretation is correct, then we have another case of b representing a reflex of */b/. 43. “Kent” fibula ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa (my transliteration). I have speculatively suggested (§ 4.1; § 5.1) that w?fa might represent a reflex of PGmc *w¯ıban “woman” (nom./acc.pl.?). If this is correct (which is very uncertain), f would represent a fricative < PGmc */b/. 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali bada appears to be parallel to 6. Bad Ems bada (see above, and § 4.1), possibly associated with PGmc *bad- “consolation”( ? ) or *badw¯o “battle”. 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade In all the available interpretations, this inscription contains three reflexes of */b/ represented as b. The first is in birg, interpreted as either an imperative form of the verb bergan “to protect” (< PGmc *berganan), or a FN derived from the same root (see § 5.1). The second is in leub, unproblematically to be associated with PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (see 7. Bad Krozingen A, and § 3.1.1). Lastly, selbrade is interpreted as a MN with the prototheme Selb- < PGmc *selbaz/*selb¯on “self ” (§ 5.1).
The obstruents
249
47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada Two interpretations of fada have been proposed, both treating f as a reflex of */f/: it is most commonly interpreted as a name-element < PGmc *fa¯o “aunt”; but Schwab (1998a:420) sees in it an abbreviated verb-form fa(ihi)da “made, decorated”. For more detail, see § 3.2.2. 52. München-Aubing II fibula bd The speculation that this might be a parallel to 6. Bad Ems bada; 44. Kirchheim/Teck I bada has been discussed in § 6.1. The interpretation remains uncertain. 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? If klef represents the 3.sg.pret. form of *kl¯ıbanan “to stick( ? )” (§ 3.2.2), then f represents a fricative reflex of */b/. It might be possible to interpret this as underlying */f/ alternating with */b/ via Verner’s Law (grammatischer Wechsel): i.e., infin. *kl¯ıbanan (< ePGmc *kleif-ì) vs. pret. *klaif. This does create alternations like OHG hev¯ı ~ hef¯ı “elevation” (< PGmc *xafj-) vs. urhab “cause” (< *xab-, < *xaf´- (via Verner’s Law) < PIE *kap-), but it is doubtful whether *kl¯ıbanan is a similar case. The cognates of OHG kl¯ıban use in both the present and preterite stems, but this would be expected whether we are dealing with reflexes of */b/ or */f/. The only non-Germanic cognates given by Orel (2003) or Pokorny (1959–1969) are Slavic (e.g., OCSl u-glübl’˛o “get stuck”), and point to PIE *gleibh- which would give an underlying PGmc root in */-b-/, not */-f-/. Düwel (1990:8) suggests a transliteration klefilÂ, with f a haplograph and fil M fil “garment”. He does not go into detail about the etymology, but it may be connected with PGmc *falÂanan “to fold” or the related noun *faldiz “cloak, fold” (§ 5.1). Similar interpretations are fil M fill-i “garment”( ? ) < PGmc *fellan “skin” (Nedoma 2004a:244; see § 5.1 for more detail); and filÂa M filÂa < PGmc *feltaz “felt; cloak( ? )” (Looijenga 2003a:247; again, see § 5.1). These are discussed further in § 7.1.2.1.
250
The consonants
54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna The expansion of lbi to l(iu)b¯ı “love” (< PGmc *leub¯ın) is speculative, but generally accepted (§ 3.1.1). As mentioned in § 5.1, Scardigli (1986:353) suggests that the sequence might be a haplogram, expandable to liub¯ı bi “love, by/near …”. He does not pursue the hypothesis any further. That imuba represents a FN is not disputed, but the etymology presents a number of difficulties. Several interpretations treat b as a reflex of PGmc */b/: Imuba might be an abbreviated form of a dithematic name Im-b{} (with the deuterotheme unknown, but beginning with /b-/) (Nedoma 2004a:347); or might be connected with PGmc *imbiz “multitude, swarm” (Haubrichs 2004:87). Elsewhere, b is taken to be a product of dissimilation, /b/ < */m/ (see § 7.2.2.1). For more detail on these etymologies, see § 5.1. 55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? The only readily interpretable part of this inscription is liub, which contains a reflex of *leubaz “dear, lovely” (see § 3.1.1). The other b belongs to the sequence bigws, which Opitz (1987:234) tentatively connects with the verb biginnan (< PGmc *bi-gennanan) “to begin” (§ 5.1; see also 81. Weimar III bigina); but this remains doubtful. 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? Although there are disagreements about the interpretation of inscription B, it is not a matter of dispute that leub represents a reflex of *leubaz (§ 3.1.1). 57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? Several interpretations of the sequence bir- are discussed in § 5.1, all proceeding from the assumption that b represents a reflex of PGmc */b/, and that it is the beginning of a noun or pers.n., variously connected with PGmc *ber-il- “carrier, bearer, giver( ? )”, *ber¯on “bear”, or perhaps *berxtaz “bright”. Given the uncertainties of reading and interpretation, we cannot draw any strong conclusions from this item.
The obstruents
251
58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd gba is interpreted as either a nominal g(e)ba “gift”, or (by Klingenberg only) a 1.sg.pres. (EGmc) verb g(i)ba “I give” (§ 5.1). While opinions differ about the morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the word, the association with the root PGmc *geb- is uncontested. In Klingenberg’s (1974) interpretation, ba is haplographic, and also represents the pronoun ba “both (sc. bread and wine)” (§ 6.1). The various interpretations of afd are summarised in § 6.1. Both Klingenberg (1974:88) and Opitz (1987:126) treat af as a preposition equivalent to OS af, OHG aba “from, away from”. To account for the form of the preposition in /-f/, the /-b-/ of OHG is ascribed to the operation of Verner’s Law; the cognates in /-f/ (OHG aba being the only exception) are assumed to reflect a proto-form *af. Orel (2003), on the other hand, reconstructs *aba as the proto-form (as indicated in § 6.1). The /-f/ in the cognates can be accounted for as a fricative allophone of PGmc */b/, and Orel regards the /-a/ of OHG aba as a secondary development. The comparative evidence warrants some discussion at this point: some non-Germanic cognates (Skt. ápa, Av. apł “away, off ”; Gk. #, # “from”) seem to suggest disyllabic proto-forms with differing assignment of accent (alongside a monosyllabic form? Compare Lat ab “from”; Alb. pa “without”). It is plausible to derive the af forms from PGmc *af < PIE *áp(a); and OHG aba < PGmc *aba < ePGmc *afá < PIE *apó (compare Pokorny 1959–1969 s.v. *apo-). Ringe, like Orel, gives only one PGmc form, derived from PIE *apó via Verner’s Law (PIE *apó > ePGmc *afá > *abá > *ába> lPGmc *ab) (Ringe 2006:104–105, 116).2 On the other hand, Ringe cites the OHG reflex as ab, and does not deal with the form aba. If we are to posit two proto-forms in PGmc, we must assume that the form affected by Verner’s Law survives only in OHG, while the alternant *af disappears; and it would seem theoretically more economical to explain OHG aba as a secondary development from a PGmc *ab- = *[aβ-], in line with Orel’s and Ringe’s reconstructions. Since all the attested forms can be derived without difficulty from a PGmc *ab(a), I see no reason to posit the existence of an alternant *af(a). Klingenberg believes the dialect of this inscription to be EGmc, and (on the evidence of Bible Gothic) PGmc */b/ is a fricative in final position (usually spelled in the Romanised representation of 2 This derivation is presented as an apparent counterexample to the hypothesis that the apocope of non-high vowels in pre-Gmc/ePGmc precedes Verner’s Law.
252
The consonants
Wulfila’s alphabet), there is no need to invoke Verner’s Law to explain this form. Düwel’s alternative – that fd could be expanded to f(ri)d(u) “peace” (PGmc *friÂuz > ON friðr, OE frið, OFris frethu, OS frithu, OHG fridu) (Düwel 2002e:479; compare 14. Bülach fridil) – requires considerable expansion of the text, as well as the hypothesis that d represents OHG /d/ < PGmc */θ/ (see § 7.1.2.1). If it is correct, then we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc */f/. The other possible interpretation which I advanced in § 6.1 (afd M aft “after”) also treats f as a reflex of */f/; the validity of this interpretation depends on the claim that d represents a reflex of */t/ (again, see § 7.1.2.1). 59. Oettingen fibula a?ijabrg brg is interpreted in the literature as either an imperative verb-form b(i)rg “protect!” or as the deuterotheme of a FN -b(i)rg/-b(e)rg (§ 5.1; see also 46. †Kleines Schulerloch birg; 79. Weimar I haribrig). Both the verb and the name-element are derived from the PGmc root *berg- “protect”. 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? The most popular interpretation of fura is that of Krause (1966:285), in which it is a preposition fura “before, in front of ” < PGmc *fura (§ 4.1). Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:318–319) suggests that it could be related to PGmc *fraÂaz “strong”; or that it could represent a partial fuÂark. Both of these interpretations are problematic (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1). Nonetheless, insofar as the sequence is interpretable (Krause’s interpretation of fura is plausible, but there are difficulties with his treatment of the text as a whole), f is universally believed to represent a reflex of */f/. deofile is generally interpreted as a form of the loanword “devil” (CLat diabolus; LLat diuvalus), with f representing a fricative [v] < CLat /b/ (on which see 27. Geltorf II, above; for further discussion of OHG tiufal (etc.), see § 3.1.1). If this sequence does represent the “devil”-word, it might provide us with evidence for a voiced allophone of /f/. The historical connection with Lat /b/ does not imply that the carver of this inscription spoke a dialect with a fricative allophone of /b/: the source is a form in [-v-], and the spelling f would seem to indicate that the creator of the inscription perceived this sound as being nearest to the /f/ of his or her own dialect.
The obstruents
253
61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun? [II] ltahu·gasokun? Marold (2004) proposes that aï/lrun was intended to read allurun (§ 4.1). Several possible interpretations of allu- are offered, one of which is as a reflex of PGmc *alb- “white; elf( ? )”. If this is the case, u is taken to represent either a fricative allophone of */b/, or an alternant /w/. I have earlier argued against the plausibility of the notion that a reflex of PGmc */b/ can be spelled w or u (see 27. Geltorf II). The notion that PGmc */b/ and */w/ are related via Verner’s Law has been mentioned and criticised in the entry on 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I in § 4.1. 65. †Rügen stone piece fgiu Arntz’ interpretation of giu as the verb-form gi(b)u (1937:7–8; see § 4.1) claims as a parallel 27. Geltorf II gwu (see above). As in the case of Geltorf, Arntz here assumes that the surface form giu is possible because w/u is confusible with a fricative allophone of /b/ = [β/v], which I do not consider to be credible (see Geltorf entry). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd That leuba represents a nominal < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” is uncontroversial. In this case, it is generally interpreted as a weakly-inflected FN (§ 3.1.1; § 7.1). 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo Complex II is generally interpreted as a MN with a fem. parallel in 67. Schretzheim I leuba. Other grammatical and semantic analyses have been proposed (§ 3.1.1), but that we are dealing with a reflex of *leubaz “dear, lovely” is undisputed. 69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r The “rune-cross” on this spatha is subject to many interpretations (§ 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 6.1), all of which assume that b represents a reflex of */b/. They in-
254
The consonants
clude: uaba M Wa(m)ba FN (n-stem derivative of PGmc *wamb¯o “belly”); gab M gab (3.sg.pret.) “gave” (< PGmc *gab), or gaba M głba “gift” (< *geb¯o or *g¯eb¯o); arab M Ara(n)b(erht) (with a deuterotheme < PGmc *berxtaz “bright”); and abar M Abar MN (< PGmc *abraz “strong”) (see § 6.1 for more detail on each of these). The only interpretation which does not assume that b = /b/ < PGmc */b/ is Schwab’s proposal that this inscription reflects the magical formula Abrasax/ Abraxas, which is not Germanic in origin (§ 6.1). 70. Schwangau fibula aebi leob (Meli, cited by Düwel 1994b:277; Schwab 1998a:412). The reading of this inscription as a witness to PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” is no longer accepted (§ 3.1.1). Looijenga (2003a:257) connects aebi with an adjective < PGmc *aibijaz < *aib¯o “district”, whereas Nedoma (2004a:148) suggests a connection with Langob. Aibone (abl. to Aibo), which Francovich Onesti (1999:174) associates with PGmc *aiwaz “age; law” (§ 3.2.1; see also Kabell’s interpretation of 56. Nordendorf I awa in § 3.2.2). Francovich Onesti’s explanation might be plausible for Langob. , but not for runic aebi: a Romance-speaking scribe unfamiliar with the Gmc phoneme /w/ might substitute the nearest Romance phoneme /v/ (< CLat /w/ and /b/), and so spell Langob. /aiwo/ with or . As discussed in the entry on 27. Geltorf II, above, there is no evidence that PGmc */w/ is realised as a fricative which might be perceived by a native speaker as similar to a fricative reflex of */b/ = *[β/v]. On the erroneous claim that PGmc */b/ alternates with */w/ via Verner’s Law, see the entries on 27. Geltorf II and 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I in § 4.1. 75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) It is generally agreed that this inscription contains a dithematic MN HŒsiwald/HŒsibald, although there are serious doubts about transliteration, as well as difficulties with both interpretations (§ 4.1). If the latter is correct, then the deuterotheme is a reflex of PGmc *balÂaz/*baldaz “bold” (see further § 7.1.2.1).
The obstruents
255
79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· This inscription contains four b-runes, all interpretable as reflexes of */b/. Two of them belong to PGmc *leub- (complex III liub(i), complex IV leob – see § 3.1 for further discussion). Complex I is universally thought to represent a dithematic FN, with brig a metathetic form of -birg < PGmc *berg¯o “protection” (§ 5.1). Complex II hiba is thought to be another FN, possibly an abbreviated form of a dithematic name with a deuterotheme in /b-/ which cannot be identified (§ 5.1). Looijenga’s attempt to connect hiba with PGmc *x¯ıwan “spouse” (i.e., to interpret b as a reflex of PGmc */w/) is not plausible (see 27. Geltorf II; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I). 80. Weimar II fibula [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: Complex II is uncontroversially interpreted as a MN BŒbo, although the etymology is unclear (§ 4.1). Complex III is a direct parallel to hiba on 79. Weimar I (see above, and § 5.1). If it is a pers.n., it may well refer to the same individual. 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: The identity of bigina is uncertain: it may be a pers.n. connected with OHG p¯ıga/p¯ıgo “heap”, but this is disputed by Nedoma (2004a:235) (see § 5.1). The possibility that the sequence represents a form of the verb “to begin” (PGmc *bi-gennanan) is discussed in § 5.1; that it represents an imperative, as Klingenberg (1976c:370–371) proposes, is unlikely. Although the reading is not altogether clear, it is generally accepted that complex II contains a reflex of PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (§ 3.1.1). 82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w Arntz reads the sequence ?e?? as leob – i.e., as a parallel to the other inscriptions containing reflexes of *leubaz “dear, lovely” (§ 3.1.1). As my diplomatic transliteration indicates, this reading is doubtful (see catalogue).
256
The consonants
83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la The most common interpretation of feha is as a pers.n. or substantivised adjective < PGmc *faixaz I “colourful” or *faixaz II “hostile( ? )”, with e representing a monophthongised reflex of */ai/. More detail is given in § 3.2.2, where a number of alternative interpretations without monophthongisation are also discussed. In all of them, f is taken to represent a reflex of */f/.
7.1.1.2 Summary 7.1.1.2.1 PGmc */p/ No reflexes of */p/ are attested in the corpus. We may be able to make inferences about whether CRun */p/ is subject to the Second Consonant Shift from the data on the development of the other affected obstruents together with the existing theories about the chronology of the Shift (§ 2.5.1.2.4). For my conclusions on this point, see § 7.1.4.1; § 8.2.1.
7.1.1.2.2 PGmc */b/ In the vast majority of cases, we have no reason to doubt that reflexes of */b/ are represented as b. This does not by itself tell us anything about the question of whether fricative allophones survive in the dialects of the inscriptions. If CRun /b/ is sometimes realised as a fricative, it would not be surprising for carvers to understand it systematically as still /b/ and to spell it b. There are four places where */b/ might be spelled f: 43. “Kent” w?fa M w¯ıfa < PGmc *w¯ıb-; 53. Neudingen-Baar I klef M kl¯ef < PGmc *klaib; 58. Oberflacht af M af < PGmc *ab(a); 60. Osthofen deofile M deofile. None of these is without problems: my transliteration and interpretation of “Kent” w?fa are highly speculative; Neudingen-Baar kl¯ef < PGmc *klaif involves monophthongisation in a phonological context where it would not normally be expected (§ 3.2.2.1.2); Oberflacht af is part of a doubtful interpretation; and Osthofen deofile is a loanword, so it is far from clear whether we should identify f with the reflexes of PGmc */b/ (not to mention the uncertainties of the transliteration). In the Osthofen witness, if we are dealing with a voiced fricative [v], this might constitute evidence that in at least some CRun dialects, /f/ can be voiced (see § 7.1.1.2.3, below); but it does not indicate that /b/ has a fricative allophone.
The obstruents
257
The corpus contains one form in b which has been claimed as a reflex of */w/ (70. Schwangau aebi M Aebi < *aiwi-); and several in w/u identified as reflexes of */b/ or as Verner’s-Law alternants of roots in */b/ (27. Geltorf II gwu M g(i)bu; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi M arwi (as an alternant of *arbjan); 61. Pforzen I allu- M alb-; 65. †Rügen giu M gi(b)u). I have argued in the discussions above, and in § 4.1, that these cannot be valid: Verner’s Law cannot be invoked here, as it produces an alternation between */f/ and */b/ (the voiceless reflex of PIE */p/ and its voiced correlate), not between */b/ and */w/ (two underlyingly voiced sounds). The hypothesis that b and w/u are both plausible spellings for a fricative [β/v] depends on the assumption that rune-carvers follow the alternation which is made possible in Romance orthography as a consequence of phonological developments in Latin. Our runic inscriptions, however, are produced by speakers of a vernacular in which, if fricatives [β/v] exist as allophones of /b/ and/or /f/, they are not confusible with (or orthographically interchangeable with) /w/. The corpus contains no evidence for the devoicing of */b/, i.e., possible reflexes of */b/ represented as p. The rune p does not appear at all in the corpus, except in the Charnay fuÂark. As in the case of PGmc */p/ (§ 7.1.1.2.1, above), we might be able to make inferences about the state of development of */b/ by reference to the other voiced obstruents: if there is evidence for devoicing of */d/, and especially if there is evidence for the devoicing of */g/, then we might be able to infer that */b/ is devoiced as well (§ 7.1.4.1; § 8.2.1).
7.1.1.2.3 PGmc */f/ Nowhere in the corpus do we appear to have a reflex of */f/ represented as anything other than f. If this phoneme has a voiced allophone in the dialects of the inscriptions, it would seem that carvers have not chosen to mark it in their spellings. It is possible that 60. Osthofen deofile indicates a voiced allophone allowing the use of f to represent LLat [v] < CLat /b/ (see discussion in § 7.1.1.2.2). The presence or absence of a voiced allophone can be inferred if we find evidence of voicing in respect of */θ/ and/or */s/.
258
The consonants
7.1.2 The “dentals” (PGmc */t d θ s z/) 7.1.2.1 Data 3. Arlon capsule godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…) That godun is an oblique form of a weakly inflected FN is not disputed; the stem is connected with either PGmc *g¯odaz “good” or *gudz/*gudaz “god” (§ 4.1). In either case, d clearly represents a reflex of */d/. Êes may represent a gen.sg.masc./neut. demonstrative (< PGmc *Âeza or *Âas); the transliteration is doubtful, however (§ 5.1). Even if we accept it, the problems of reconstructing the PGmc demonstrative need to be overcome. A proto-form *Âeza ought regularly to produce a WGmc *Âer- (: OS *ther, OHG *der), so it is more likely that we are dealing with a reflex of */s/. rasuwamud is universally interpreted as a dithematic MN with the prototheme R¯asuwa- < PGmc *r¯eswa-( ? ) “chief, counsellor( ? )” (§ 4.1). The deuterotheme -mu(n)d is connected with PGmc *mund¯o “hand, protection” (with unrepresented nasal – § 2.6.2; § 7.2.2), or possibly a related *munduz “guardian” (see § 4.1 for more detail). The name appears to provide us with clear examples of reflexes of PGmc */s/ and */d/. woÊro is a problematic sequence: the apparent bind-rune Êr may be an erroneous form of r (§ 4.1), but Nedoma accepts it and interprets the sequence as an abbreviated (and weakly inflected) form of a MN in *w¯oÂ-r- < PGmc *w¯odaz “mad” (Nedoma 1992:2–3; 2004a:418–419). The alternation */θ/ ~ */d/ is apparently taken to be a product of Verner’s Law from an under a¯ t- (Orel 2003; Pokorny 1959–1969). See further lying *w¯oÂ- < PIE *u § 7.1.2.2.3. The Â-rune following woÊro is not readily interpretable. The object is damaged at this point, but it is likely that  is the beginning of another word (pers.n.?) (Krause 1966:286; Nedoma 1992:2; 2004a:307). Arntz speculates that o might be the beginning of O¯Âaling (o is here a haplograph, also standing for the terminal /-o/ of Woro – see § 4.1), a patronymic built on the base o¯ Âal < PGmc *¯oÂalan “inheritance” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:436); but this cannot be considered more than a speculation, given that the remaining material is unrecoverable.
The obstruents
259
5. Aschheim III fibula dado This is a direct parallel to 84. Weingarten II dado (see below). 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ madali is generally interpreted as a pers.n., with a stem derived from PGmc *maÂlan > OS OHG mahal “assembly, law court” (§ 5.1). In most discussions of the name (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:197; Krause 1966:282; Krause and Werner1935:332; Schwerdt 2000:208), it is implied that d represents a reflex of PGmc */θ/ via Spirantenschwächung (§ 2.5.1.3). Nedoma, on the other hand, identifies the etymon as *madla-, a Verner’s Law alternant of *maÂlan (2004a:371–372). Schramm (1957:35, 152) takes a similar view, adducing as a possible parallel Madalwyn (Förstemann 1900:1115 (s.v. MATHAL)). The curious case of OS OHG mahal < *maÂl- is discussed in § 2.5.1.4.3. bada is thought to be related to OS gibada “consolation” (< PGmc *bad- ?), or possibly PGmc *badw¯o “battle” (§ 4.1). Although the etymology of the word is not certain, it is likely that we are dealing with a reflex of PGmc */d/. 8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? Krause suggests that a?uz may represent PNorse ansuz “god” (he does not make clear whether the whole inscription is to be seen as PNorse, or whether this is supposed to be a loanword or fossilised formulaic word); but the reading is so uncertain that this cannot be taken further (§ 4.1). dnlo is normally interpreted as a MN D(a)n(i)lo (with the vowels omitted), for which the most widely accepted etymon is PGmc *daniz “Dane”. For more on this, on other possible expansions, and on Opitz’ attempt to identify dnlo with the prophet Daniel, see § 5.1.
260
The consonants
9. Beuchte fibula [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso The z-rune in complex I is not interpretable. In the interpretation of buirso as a MN BŒriso, /-is-/ is a hypocoristic suffix added to a base *b¯ur- or *bur- (§ 4.1; § 5.1). Nedoma lists several other recorded pers.ns. which appear to have the same structure (2004a:265–266). 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid There is no dispute in the literature about the interpretation of godahid as a dithematic FN GÕdahi(l)d, with the prototheme < PGmc *go¯ daz “good” or *gudz/*gudaz “god” (perhaps more likely the latter) (§ 4.1); and the deuterotheme < *xeldiz/*xeldjo¯ “battle”, with /-l-/ not represented (§ 7.2.1.1). 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun Complex I is generally thought to represent a FN Arsiboda, with a deuterotheme < PGmc *bud¯on “messenger” (§ 4.1). The etymology of the prototheme Arsi- is not known; the possibilities are discussed in § 5.1. Arntz’ suggestion (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:329) that it is connected with PGmc *urz¯on “man( ? )” assumes that the dialect of the inscription is EGmc. A WGmc reflex would be expected to have /-r-/ < */-z-/ (§ 2.5.1.1.3). Given that all the attested names in Arsi- are Langobardic (Nedoma 2004a:203–204), it is unlikely that we are dealing with a reflex of *urz¯on here. segun is generally interpreted as a loanword : Lat. signum “mark, sign” (§ 4.1). If this is correct, then s represents /s/ as the phoneme perceived as being closest (systematically and/or phonetically) to Lat. /s/. 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? Arntz’ identification of fridil with OHG fridil ~ friudil “friend, beloved, husband” (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:171; see § 5.1) is accepted by many others (Klingenberg 1976b:311–312; Krause 1966:307; Looijenga 2003a:235; Opitz 1987:14, 195). Köbler (1993) derives it from a PGmc *fridila-, though
261
The obstruents
it is not clear why: this would regularly give us OHG *fritil; and he mentions a cognate OLF OS friuthil, which would seem to point to a proto-form in */θ/, not */d/. Orel (2003) also gives a proto-form *frij¯odelaz for OHG friudil, OS friuthil. Nedoma protests that the connection between fridil and OHG fridil rests on the invocation of Spirantenschwächung, which in his view is anachronistic (§ 2.5.1.3) (Nedoma 2004a:303). He is evidently assuming – with good reason – a proto-form in PGmc */-θ-/. As a less problematic alternative, Nedoma suggests that frid- represents the stem of PGmc *fr¯ıdjanan > OHG fr¯ıten “to take care of ” (see § 5.1). I agree that the connection with OHG fridil ~ friudil is acceptable only if we treat it as a product of despirantisation < PGmc *friÂ- (vs. *frid- > OHG frit-, OS frid-); but I defer judgement on this point until the summary (§ 7.1.2.2.3). Despirantisation of */θ/ is also invoked in Krause’s widely-accepted interpretation of du as the 2.sg.nom. pronoun du < PGmc *¯u (§ 4.1). Nedoma again rejects this (2004a:298), but does not offer an alternative interpretation. Krause’s hypothesis that ft should be expanded to f(a)t(o) 2.sg.imp. “embrace!”/“clothe!” < PGmc *fat¯o (or *fato¯, if we posit trimoric vowels in PGmc – see Ringe 2006:73–75) is, like the other aspects of his interpretation, rarely challenged in the literature. It certainly presents no difficulties in respect of the phonological interpretation of t (or f – see § 7.1.1.1); but it is no more than a speculative expansion and should be treated with caution (see discussion in § 4.1; § 6.1). 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) ï/ ia [V] k r l
[II] :uÂfnÂai:id
[III] dan:liano
[IV]
As has been noted in earlier comments on this inscription, it is most commonly thought to be linguistically EGmc, with uÂfnÂai M u(n)ÂfinÂai 3.sg.opt. “may … discover” (§ 3.2.1). In Antonsen’s alternative interpretation and identification of the text as WGmc (1975:77), the sequence is uÂfaÂai M u(n) fa¯e “to (my) husband” (§ 3.2.1; § 4.1). Both Â-runes present problems for this interpretation. Firstly, u(n) is unproblematic as an EGmc form (compare Go unÂa-, OE u¯ Â, ON unn “away”), derivable from a PGmc *unÂa. However, the Continental forms (OHG untaz, unzi, OS (and OE) und “to, as far as”) seem to point to a different etymon, *unda (*unÂa would regularly produce OHG *und(not unt-), OS *¯uth- (Gallée 1910 § 283; Holthausen 1921 § 191)). We might
262
The consonants
expect an underlying PGmc *und- > OHG *und- > unt-, OS und- to be represented as *u(n)d-; the spelling in  is curious. Antonsen interprets faÂai as dat.sg. to a reflex of PGmc *fadiz, the only attested reflexes of which are Go faÂs, fadis “master”. Again, the spelling  requires some justification, which Antonsen does not provide. Regular Continental reflexes of *fadiz would be OS *fadi, OHG *fati. For Go faÂs ~ fadis, there is no need to posit an alternate proto-form in */θ/, but the non-Gmc cognates (Toch A pats, Toch B pets, Skt páti, Gk « “husband”; Av paiti “spouse, master”; Lith. pàts “married man”; Lat. potis “capable”) indicate PIE *pátis > PGmc *faÂiz, of which *fadiz (the etymon for the Gothic forms) could plausibly be a Verner’s Law alternant. Antonsen’s interpretation can be upheld (phonologically, at least) if we explain  as a reflex of */θ/ rather than */d/; but as in a number of other putative cases where Verner’s Law is invoked, the alternant in question is not attested (*faÂiz would regularly give OS *fathi, OHG *fadi). It might perhaps be related to PGmc *fa¯o > OE faðu “aunt” (see 47. Lauchheim I -fada, below and in § 3.2.2), and/or *fad¯er “father”; see § 7.1.2.2.3. id dan is invariably interpreted as Iddan – an oblique form of a weakly inflected MN normally taken to be EGmc, like the rest of the inscription (see § 5.1); a WGmc interpretation is possible, but the inflectional morphology presents some difficulties (Findell 2010:9–11). This name is most commonly connected with PGmc *idiz “activity, deed” (see entry on 81. Weimar III in § 5.1). The representation of a double consonant by two runes dd is unusual (though by no means unique), and may be intended to assist the reader by showing the continuity of the text from one side of the headplate to the other (Düwel 1981a:374). 16. Chéhéry fibula [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E (or E : ditan) [III] sum(Óik) The problematic sequence htid / ditan in complex II has been tentatively identified as a FN Dita (see § 5.1). The suggested etymological connection with PGmc *Âeud¯o “people” (or perhaps the derived adjective *Âeudijaz “good, seemly”) (Fischer and Lémant 2003:251) requires both despirantisation of */θ/ and devoicing of */d/; the relationship of i to PGmc */eu/ is not discussed. No parallels for a name *Dita/*Dito are attested. If the name is a parallel to OHG Titza f. (Nedoma 2004a:280), then this is consistent with the view that d and t represent reflexes of PGmc */d/ and */t/, respectively; but the etymology of this name is unknown.
The obstruents
263
No interpretations have been offered in the literature for complex III. I do not propose to pursue further my suggestion in § 4.1 that sum might be a form of the indefinite pronoun sum. 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) As noted earlier (§ 4.1; § 7.1.1.1), I do not consider Looijenga’s interpretation of the beginning of the inscription as fiagin M Fiagin (supposedly a FN in -gunÂ) reliable. It will not be pursued further here. Opitz’ (1982:486) reading of muni as munt M munt “hand” (= OHG munt < PGmc *mund¯o; § 4.1) is not widely accepted, but it is worth mentioning as it involves a putative case of shifted /d/ > /t/. This will be discussed further below (§ 7.1.2.2.2). 21. Erpfting fibula lda·gabu The sequence lda cannot be interpreted with confidence. The only interpretation offered in the literature is Düwel’s cautious suggestion that it may represent a FN (Hi)lda (< PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o; compare 10. Bezenye I godahid; 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild), with the initial /hi-/ not represented (Düwel 2003c:15). On the omission of /-i-/, see § 5.1; on /h-/, see § 7.1.3.1. 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida Although the etymology of boso M B¯oso is problematic (§ 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 7.1.1.1), no-one has proposed that s represents anything other than a reflex of */s/. No comment is made about the presence or absence of a voiced allophone. The interpretation of wraet as wrait “wrote, carved” (3.sg.pret., to PGmc *wr¯ıtanan) with t a reflex of PGmc */t/ is undisputed (§ 3.2.1). Likewise, Âk is generally accepted as representing the 2.sg.acc. pronoun Âik/Âek < PGmc *Âeke (§ 5.1). The etymology of the FN DłÂ¯ına is no less problematic than that of B¯oso (§ 5.1; § 6.1). It cannot easily be connected with PGmc *d¯ediz “deed”, unless we posit a fricative allophone for /d/ which might be spelled Â. Nedoma pro-
264
The consonants
poses a name-element *dłÂ(i)-, but this lacks an etymology and has no clear parallels (Nedoma 2004a:279). Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:226–228) identifies the name with a PGmc *daÂ-l- > MHG tadel “blame, rebuke”, possibly connected with OBret dadl, OW tadl “assembly, dispute”; OIr dál “assembly”. Nedoma objects that tadel is in fact a Low German form (: OHG z¯adal “lack, need”), with initial /t-/ < PGmc */t-/, not a product of Second Consonant Shift < */d-/. He also rejects the connection of tadel with the Celtic “assembly”-word (Nedoma 2004a:278). There are, as far as I am aware, no attested Gmc words traceable to a root *daÂ- or *d¯eÂ- (> NWGmc *d¯aÂ-). golida is almost universally treated as a 3.sg.pret form of a weak verb, with the suffix -da = /-da/ < PGmc *-d¯e (Ringe 2006:251) / *-da (Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.8). There is some disagreement on the identity and meaning of the stem (§ 4.1). The exception to this consensus is Jänichen (1951:227), who interprets ida as the FN Ida, possibly < PGmc *idiz “activity, deed” (see the entry on 81. Weimar III in § 5.1). The interpretation as a weak verb has gained much wider acceptance, and we should be wary of Jänichen’s propensity to see alleged “formula-words” (including Ida) at every turn. On the other hand, there is nothing phonologically objectionable about his intepretation. 25. Friedberg fibula ÂuruÂhild This inscription is universally interpreted as a dithematic FN with the prototheme Áur¯uÂ- < PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/*Âr¯uÂij¯o “strength” (§ 4.1; § 7.2.1.1), and the deuterotheme -hild < PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle” (§ 5.1; see also 10. Bezenye I godahid). 26. Gammertingen capsule [I] ado [II] ad/mo ado is usually interpreted as a pers.n. Ado, possibly connected with *aÂa- > *aÂalaz “noble” (with despirantisation of */θ/ > /d/ – § 2.5.1.3), or with *ada(Wagner 1989b); see § 6.1 for more detail. On the connection of names in At-/Ad- with *aÂalaz, see the discussion of 74. Soest atano, below. Another possibility (also discussed in § 6.1) is that we are dealing with a name A(n)do < PGmc *and¯on “breath( ? ); zeal( ? ); hatred( ? )”.
The obstruents
265
If the second rune of complex II is d, then the name Ado or Ando is repeated; on the alternative transliteration amo, see § 7.2.2.1. 29. Griesheim fibula [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru Complex II is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic FN in -Âr¯u < PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/*Âr¯uÂij¯o “strength” (see § 4.1, and 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild, above). The prototheme is discussed in § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1. 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). If Arntz’ reading of this problematic inscription is valid (see catalogue), alisrh may represent a MN Alisr(¯ı)h. The etymology of Alis- is uncertain, but it could be connected with PGmc *alis¯o/*aliz¯o > OS elira ~ elis-, OHG elira ~ erila “alder” (§ 5.1). No form in /-s-/ is attested in OHG, but Wagner (1994/95) presents evidence from modG dialects that a “southern” /s/-form survives in Else(n), Elsbeere “service tree” (Sorbus torminalis). Arntz treats laÂa as laÂa acc.sg. “invitation” (to PGmc *la¯o) (§ 6.1), with  representing a reflex of PGmc */θ/. 31. Hailfingen II fibula [I] (a)????( ? ) [II] ( ? )daan? daan? may represent a pers.n. related to 8. Balingen dnlo, possibly < PGmc *daniz “Dane” (§ 5.1). As noted in § 6.1, however, the double spelling aa suggests a long vowel, giving a name-stem D¯an- (with unknown etymology). 32. †Hainspach pendant lÂsr (Krause 1935c:122–123). The transliteration and interpretation of this inscription are tentative. Krause proposes that l is an abbreviated form of l(a)Â(a) “invitation”, a word which may also be present on the Hailfingen sax. For more discussion and criticism, see § 4.4; § 6.1. Krause’ expansion of sr M s¯ar “here” (< PGmc *s¯er-) has been discussed in § 5.1. If correct (which is doubtful), s represents a reflex of */s/.
266
The consonants
35. Hitsum-A bracteate [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la fozo may be connected to the ethnonym Fosii (possibly via a related pers.n.) < PGmc *f¯ozaz/*f¯osaz “relative( ? )” (§ 4.1). If the name is PNorse, as is generally thought to be the case, z can unproblematically be identified with PNorse /z/ < PGmc */z/. If it is WGmc, we must interpret z as either a reflex of */z/ which has not undergone rhotacism or as a reflex of */s/ which is voiced in medial position. These possibilities are discussed further in §§ 7.1.2.2.4–7.1.2.2.5. 37. Hoogebeintum comb [I] ?nlu [II] (ded) If complex II is a runic inscription rather than a geometric decoration (which is not certain – see § 5.1), it may represent dÀde (3.sg.pret.) “made”. Compare 67. Schretzheim I dedun; 87. †Weser III dede. 39. Hüfingen II Kleinbrakteat (??? ?) ota ota is most likely to be an imitation of the formulaic( ? ) PNorse ota, possibly < PGmc *¯oxt¯on “fear” (§ 4.1). Schwab implicitly invokes the Second Consonant Shift in suggesting that the present example might instead (or as well) represent *¯otag < PGmc *audagaz/*audigaz “fortunate, blessed” (§ 3.3.1). 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula [I] aunr?d [II] d Although the reading is uncertain, complex I is thought to contain a dithematic name in -r¯ad < PGmc *r¯edaz “advice” (or perhaps a fem. *r¯ed¯o), and/or the related adjective *r¯edaz “learned( ? ), respectable( ? )” (§ 5.1; see also 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade). On the prototheme, see § 3.3.1. The single rune in complex II (Begriffsrune? Paratextual mark?) is not linguistically interpretable.
The obstruents
267
42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag If the inscription is genuine (which is doubtful – see Appendix 2), wodani can readily be interpreted as a dat. form of the theonym W¯odan < PGmc *w¯odaz “mad” (§ 4.1; see also 56. Nordendorf I wodan). 43. “Kent” fibula ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa (my transliteration). If Looijenga’s transliteration is correct (see catalogue), then gadu may be connected with PGmc *gad¯on “companion, spouse( ? )”; Looijenga interprets it as an o¯ -stem meaning “wife” (§ 4.1; on the suffix, see § 4.4.1). 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali bada is interpreted as a parallel to 6. Bad Ems bada (see above, and § 4.1). The etyma proposed for this are *bad- “consolation”( ? ) and *badw¯o “battle”; in either case, d represents a reflex of */d/. 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula arugis That this inscription contains a dithematic MN Arug¯ıs is not controversial. The deuterotheme (also present in 67. Schretzheim I arogis) is probably based on PGmc *g¯ısa- > Langob -g¯ıs(a)- “arrow, spear” (possibly related to the better-attested “spear”-word *gaizaz > OFris OS OHG g¯er). For more detail, see § 5.1. The prototheme is discussed in § 4.1. 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade selbrade is interpreted throughout the literature as a dat. form of a dithematic MN with the prototheme Selb- < *selbaz/*selb¯on “self ” (§ 5.1). The deuterotheme -r¯ad is thought to be derived from *r¯edan/*r¯edaz “counsel, advice” (or the related adjective, or a related fem. noun); see 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d, above and § 5.1.
268
The consonants
47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada The most popular interpretation of this inscription is as a dithematic FN in -fada < PGmc *fa¯o (> OE faðu “aunt”), with d treated as a despirantised reflex of */θ/ (§ 2.5.1.3). For this reason and on morphological grounds, Nedoma (2004a:194) rejects this interpretation. A possibility not mentioned in the literature is that fada could be derived from a PGmc *fad- as a Verner’s Law alternant of *faÂ- (see Antonsen’s interpretation of 15. Charnay faÂai (vs. the more popular transliteration fnÂai), above). An alternative (Schwab 1998a:420) is that fada is an abbreviated form of the weak 3.sg.pret. verb-form faihida “made, decorated”, with d in the suffix = /-d-/ < PGmc */-d-/. For more detail on both of these interpretations, see § 3.2.2. 48. Lauchheim II comb ?dag The most straightforward interpretation of this inscription is as a pers.n. related to PGmc *dagaz “day” (or possibly just the word “day” by itself) (§ 6.1). Schwab’s alternative reading odag M o¯ dag < PGmc *audagaz/*audigaz “fortunate( ? )” is discussed (and rejected) in § 3.3.2 (see also Schwab’s interpretation of 39. Hüfingen II ota). 49. Liebenau bronze disc ra … Alternative reading: ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138). If Düwel’s reading and interpretation are correct (and, as noted in the earlier discussions, the reading is tentative), we appear to have a dithematic pers.n. Rauzw¯ı, with Rauz- < PGmc *rausan/*rauzan “reed” M “spear/sword( ? )” (§ 3.3.2). It is conceivable that z represents either a reflex of */z/ which has not yet merged with */r/ (§ 7.1.2.2.5) or a voiced allophone of */s/ (§ 7.1.2.2.4). 51. München-Aubing I fibula [I] segalo [II] sigila The pers.ns. Segalo, Sigila are both thought to be connected to a root sig- < PGmc *segez/*segaz “victory” (with s therefore representing a reflex of */s/ in both cases). For more detail, and for discussion of the alternative sugges-
The obstruents
269
tion that sigila represents a loanword from Lat. sigillum “sign” (perhaps equivalent to OE sigle “brooch”), see § 5.1. 52. München-Aubing II fibula bd This inscription can only be interpreted speculatively, and the only suggestion that has been offered is that it is an abbreviated form of b(a)d(a) “consolation” (Meli 1988:120–121), or perhaps a pers.n. < PGmc *bad- “consolation( ? )” or *badw¯o “battle” (§ 6.1. Compare 6. Bad Ems bada; 44. Kirchheim/Teck I bada). 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? Complexes I and II are likely to represent the same word, either mid(d)u < PGmc *medjaz “middle” or midu < *m¯e2d¯o (or possibly mi(r)du < *mizd¯o?) “reward” (see § 4.1 for details). Both of these interpretations treat d as a reflex of */d/. Rather than posit an unrepresented /r/ < */z/, I think it more reasonable to suppose that if we are dealing with the “reward”-word, i represents a reflex of */¯e2/ (§ 5.1). The transliteration of fi?? as fil and its interpretation are discussed in § 7.1.1.1 (see also § 5.1 for more detail): fil M fil “garment” (perhaps connected with PGmc *falÂanan “to fold” and/or *faldiz “cloak, fold”) (Düwel 1990:8); filli < PGmc *fill-i < *fellan “skin” (Nedoma 2004a:244); filÂa < PGmc *feltaz “felt; cloak( ? )” (Looijenga 2003a:247). All of these interpretations are speculative; Looijenga employs an unexplained sound change */t/ > /θ/ which is not supported by the attested reflexes of *feltaz (OE felt, OHG filz) and so lacks plausibility (or demands further explanation; compare Nedoma’s interpretation of 74. Soest atano, in which a plausible mechanism for */θ/ > /t/ is proposed). Düwel’s fil and Nedoma’s filli do not suffer from the same problem, but they have no attested parallels (e.g., OS *filth, *fillith; OHG *fild, *fillid). On the stem extension or suffix */-iθ-/, see § 5.1. 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna urait M wrait “wrote, carved” is an unproblematic interpretation (§ 3.2.1; see also 23. Freilaubersheim wraet) with t a reflex of PGmc */t/.
270
The consonants
bliÂgu is universally interpreted as a dithematic FN Bl¯ıÂgu(n)Â, with both Â-runes representing reflexes of PGmc */θ/ (Bl¯ıÂ- < PGmc *bl¯ıÂ(j)az “blithe, glad” (§ 5.1); -gun < *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (§ 4.1)). 55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? Opitz’ expansion of ws M OHG (h)wa() “something” (nom.sg.neut.) (Opitz 1987:234) was mentioned in § 4.1, but is too speculative to qualify as a reliable witness to the effect of the Consonant Shift on */t/. Also tentative (and not pursued further) are the transliterations of parts of complex III as idun M Id¯un (oblique FN; compare 81. Weimar III iduni/:) or dedun M dÀdun “made” (3.pl.pret.; compare 67. Schretzheim I dedun) (§ 4.1). 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The interpretation of logaÂore is problematic and has been much discussed in the literature (see § 3.2.2; § 4.1). It may be a compound with the second element a reflex of PGmc *Âurisaz “giant, demon” or *Âurzuz “dry”. Alternatively, Düwel has suggested that it represents an agentive suffix */-θra-/ (< PIE *tor- “loud”?): logaÂore (nom.pl.masc.) < *luga-Âra-ai “mendacious”. Then again, it may be a nomen agentis based on PGmc *Âur¯enan “to dare”. More detailed discussion of all of these interpretations (none of which is free of difficulties) can be found in § 4.1. All of them assume that  represents a reflex of PGmc */θ/. That wodan is the theonym W¯odan < PGmc *w¯odanaz < *w¯odaz “mad” is uncontested (§ 4.1). Likewise, Âonar is unproblematically connected to PGmc *Âunraz “thunder”, and is generally assumed to be the identical theonym *Áunraz (ON Áórr etc.). For more on this and on the more controversial prefix wigi/u-, see § 4.1.
The obstruents
271
58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd dul is generally interpreted as equivalent to OHG tuld < PGmc *dulÂiz (§ 4.1). Klingenberg (1974:88) notes that a form of this word without Second Consonant Shift survives in (modern) Bavarian and East Swabian Dult “church festival”; and he infers that both this and Oberflacht dul are therefore loanwords from Gothic. This assertion presupposes that Consonant-Shift devoicing of /d/ has taken place in the contemporary dialects of the region. PGmc *dulÂiz would regularly produce a pre-OHG *dulÂi > *dul > Frk *duld, UG tuld (with apocope of the thematic vowel after a long stem (BR §§ 214–215)). It would seem more straightforward to interpret dul as a WGmc form with unshifted /d-/ and fricative /-θ/; Klingenberg’s claim that this inscription is EGmc rests on imaginitive (but very uncertain) interpretations of the other elements (see § 5.1; § 6.1). The signification of the final d is not clear: Klingenberg treats it as a logogram, perhaps standing for a repetition of dulÂ; while Düwel (2002e:479) suggests that fd might be expanded to f(ri)d(u) “peace” < PGmc *friduz (§ 7.1.1.1), with d representing the despirantised reflex of */θ/. In § 6.1 I suggested that afd might represent the preposition/adverb aft “behind, after”. The interpretation of 81. Weimar III isd as ist “is” (see entry in § 5.1) has gained wide acceptance, and provides us with a parallel for /t/ M d. There are no serious phonological problems with this interpretation, although it is not at all clear how it might be integrated into a coherent reading of the whole text. 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? go? is most commonly interpreted as God “[Christian] God” < PGmc *gudz/*gudaz “god” (although it could be a reflex of *go¯ daz “good”, or a pers.n. based on either etymon – § 4.1), while deofile is taken to represent “devil” (a loan from LLat diuvalus; CLat diabolus – see § 3.1.1; § 7.1.1.1). If deofile represents a dat. or voc. form of the name Theophilus rather than “devil” (§ 5.1), then we have here the substitution of d for Lat
272
The consonants
loanwords. It is questionable as evidence for the despirantisation of /θ/, since we cannot be sure whether Continental scribes (let alone the creators of runic inscriptions) would interpret as equivalent to /θ/ in their own dialects, or as a representation of Lat /t/. In Krause’s popular interpretation (1966:285), d?h is the 2.sg.acc. pronoun dih < PGmc *Âeke (§ 5.1; see also 23. Freilaubersheim Âk), with both despirantisation of */θ/ > /d/ (§ 2.5.1.3) and frication of /k/ via the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2; § 7.1.3.1). The two alternatives suggested by Arntz (and detailed in § 5.1) also involve despirantisation of */θ/ (or at least, the assumption that a reflex of */θ/ can be represented d): one is that furad represents a reflex of PGmc *fraÂaz “strong”; the other (which can safely be dismissed as implausible) is that it is a scrambled fuÂark. The *fraÂaz interpretation might be redeemed if we posit the existence of a Verner’s Law alternant *fradaz. I am not aware of any evidence to support this, and we should be suspicious of the ad hoc invocation of Verner’s Law to explain away a problematic surface form. The invocation of Verner’s Law in respect of */θ/ ~ */d/ will be discussed further in § 7.1.2.2.3. 61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun? [II] ltahu·gasokun? andi is interpreted throughout the literature as the conjunction “and” < PGmc *andi (§ 5.1). If the sequence at the beginning of complex II is ltahu (see catalogue), tahu may represent a reflex of PGmc *tanxuz “tough”, either as a name element (Wagner’s aŋiltahu M Angilt¯ahu (§ 5.1) rests on a questionable runic reading of marks which all other commentators regard as non-runic), or as an independent word (Looijenga treats it as an adverb “vigorously” (§ 6.1)). Nedoma sees in ltahu a RN Ilt-ahu/Alt-ahu (§ 5.1). Several German RNs contain an element Ilz < *Ilt-, which is thought to be linked to the more widespread “Old European”( ? ) element Il-/Al- “water, river”( ? ) (Bahlow 1985). If this interpretation is correct, then t represents a /t/ which is later subject to the Second Consonant Shift, although it should not be regarded as a PGmc */t/, except insofar as it can be said to be incorporated into the consonant system which is input to the shift. On the interpretations of the alternative reading elahu, see § 4.1.
The obstruents
273
Despite disputes about its semantic and syntactic properties, gasokun is generally accepted as a 3.pl.pret. form of a verb cognate with OHG gi-sahhan “to condemn, quarrel( ? )” (§ 4.1). s here represents the root-initial reflex of PGmc */s/. 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa gisali is probably a MN < PGmc *g¯ıslaz “hostage” or *g¯ıslaz/*g¯ızlaz “arrow, spear” (§ 5.1). If it is the latter, it is likely to be related to the element -g¯ıs attested in 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 67. Schretzheim I arogis. s almost certainly represents a reflex of */s/ (as in Langob g¯ısil) rather than */z/ (in Icel. gill “parhelion, mock sun”, which Orel relates to the same protoform (gill < *g¯ızl-?)). urait is an exact parallel to 54. Neudingen-Baar II urait, and likewise interpretable as wrait “wrote, carved” (§ 3.2.1). aodli is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic FN with the prototheme Aod- < PGmc *audaz/*audan “wealth, happiness”( ? ) (§ 3.3.1) and the deuterotheme -li(n) < *lenÂaz/*linÂijaz “mild” (§ 5.1). 64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] (?)riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) Steinhauser’s interpretation of do? as doï M d¯oe¯ (3.sg.pres.opt.) “may … do/ make” is discussed in § 3.2.2. As indicated in the earlier sections, I consider this transliteration unjustified and the interpretation based on it highly dubious. Equally unreliable is Steinhauser’s logographic interpretation of complex III as w M w¯ıhi Áonar “consecrate, Áonar!” (§ 4.1). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd The interpretation of alagu as a FN in -gu(n) (< PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o) is not disputed (§ 4.1; compare 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ). dedun can uncontroversially be interpreted as dÀdun (3.pl.pret.) “made” (although there are difficulties in relation to the stem vowel – see § 5.1), with both d-runes representing reflexes of PGmc */d/.
274
The consonants
The final d of complex II is frequently treated as a Begriffsrune or as an abbreviation for d(eda) (3.sg.pret.) “made”. Looijenga’s treatment of arogisd as a MN Arogist < -gast is discussed and rejected in § 5.1. Also in § 5.1 I speculated that isd might be a parallel to 81. Weimar III isd M ist “is”, with d = /t/ < */t/ (see also my comments on 58. Oberflacht afd). I do not consider any of these interpretations satisfactory: the deda interpretation presents fewest difficulties, but any employment of abbreviations needs to be viewed with caution unless parallels can be found (as in 71. Sievern rwrilu M r(una/-¯a) wr¯ıtu – see entry in § 4.1). The more widely accepted interpretation of arogis is as a parallel to 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis (see above), i.e., a dithematic MN with a deuterotheme probably < PGmc *g¯ısa- “arrow, spear”. 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo The interpretation of siÂwagadin is discussed in detail in § 4.1; § 5.1. It is generally agreed that si represents a reflex of PGmc *senÂaz “journey, way” with unrepresented nasal, s representing a reflex of */s/ and  a reflex of */θ/. wagadin is also believed to contain an unrepresented nasal and to represent a pres.part. wag(j?)a(n)d-, to PGmc *wagjanan “to move, shake”. While there is disagreement about the inflectional morphology, the underlying verb stem, and the semantics (§ 4.1), it is accepted in all interpretations that -ad- represents the participial suffix < PGmc */-and-/. 71. Sievern-A bracteate rwrilu wrilu is interpreted throughout the literature as wr¯ıtu (1.sg.pres.) “I write/ carve” (§ 4.1; note, however, the reservations expressed there about the inclusion of this item in the corpus). This obviously depends on an assumption that l is an erroneous or malformed t. Nowak (2003:537) comments that the l is quite clear (this is not evident from the photograph in Krause 1966, Taf. 58), and that the error must have been present in the model from which the bracteate maker is assumed to have worked; it is not the case that one twig has been obscured from an original t. Nowak adds that the distance between i and l is rather large, with enough room for an additional twig. If this is correct, we are not dealing with a reflex of */t/ represented as l, but with a carving error.
The obstruents
275
72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid alawid is normally interpreted as a dithematic MN, but the etymology of the deuterotheme is uncertain. Suggested etyma are PGmc *wedanan “to bind”; *widuz “wood”; *w¯ıdaz “wide”; *Win(i)d “friend; Wend”; *wendanan “to twist, wind”; *wediz “pledge” (for details, see § 4.1). I have also suggested (again, see § 4.1) that d might be interpretable as a paratextual sign, with the alawi a truncated form of the repeated name alawin. 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu Complex II lÊu is interpreted throughout the literature as l(a)Âu “invitation” < PGmc *la¯o (§ 4.1. See also 30. Hailfingen I laÂa( ? ); 32. †Hainspach lÂ). The only difficulty with this interpretation for our purposes is that the dialect of the text is generally believed to be PNorse, rather than WGmc; but a WGmc interpretation is not impossible. 74. Soest fibula [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano rada and daÂa are most plausibly interpreted as weakly-inflected FNs. The latter is universally agreed to be a parallel to 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna (the etymology of which is uncertain – see above, and § 5.1; § 6.1), while rada is probably R¯ada, to PGmc *r¯edaz “counsel” (see entry on 41. IglingUnterigling aunr?d in § 5.1). For more detail, and for comments on Looijenga’s interpretation of rada as a verb-form, see § 5.1. Complex II is most commonly thought to be a MN At(t)ano, which Nedoma (2004a:218) analyses as an abbreviated form of a dithematic MN in AÂana(compare, e.g., VGo Athanaricus; OHG Adangrim) < PGmc *aÂa- < *aÂala“noble” (§ 6.1). Nedoma maintains that the name has nothing to do with PGmc *att¯on (> Go atta, ON atti, OFris aththa “father”; OHG atto “ancestor”), though it is not clear to me why this connection should be impossible. Starting from an underlying *AÂano, he explains the surface form Attano as a product of “hypocoristic gemination”, *AÂano M *AÂÂano (a productive pattern in the formation of hypocorisms in Latin and Greek as well as Germanic), combined with despirantisation of */θ:/ M /t:/. As a parallel he adduces OHG Sicco < *Siggo < *Sigo (8th c.); WFrk Dacco < *Daggo < *Dago (6th c.) (2004a:219). The latter at least is unlikely to be explicable by
276
The consonants
invoking the Consonant Shift, if the form is taken to be a genuine representation of 6th-century WFrk, since the devoicing of /g/ only occurs in UG (§ 2.5.1.2.3). It is worth noting that Nedoma’s derivation does not necessarily imply that intervocalic */θ/ is voiceless *[θ]: if */θ/ has both voiced and voiceless allophones, the voiceless one is to be expected in a geminate (compare OHG kussen “to kiss” (< PGmc *kussjanan) vs. kiosan “to choose” (< PGmc *keusanan)). In this respect, the parallel with Sicco and Dacco is not exact, as the gemination of */g/ will produce a plosive *[-g:-], even if the dialect in question retains a fricative allophone *[] (§ 2.5.1.1). The derivation would therefore be *[--] > *[-g:-] > *[-k:-], as opposed to *[-ð-]/*[-θ-] > *[-θ:-] > *[-t:-]: despirantisation can be explained by the allophony of */g/ in the former case, but a similar motivation cannot apply to */θ/ > */t:/. Nedoma does not offer any exact parallels for the development of a plosive from */θ(:)/. Reading the “rune-cross” as a g-rune, Meli (1988:147–148) and Looijenga (2003a:258) posit a MN Gatano, which could be connected with PGmc *gad¯on “spouse” (see § 6.1, and compare 43. “Kent” gadu); it is implied that t is a shifted reflex of */d/. We have, then, interpretations of t in this inscription as /t:/ < */θ:/ < */θ/, /t:/ < */t:/, and /t/ < */d/. Despite Nedoma’s rejection of the etymon *att¯on, this seems to me the least problematic of the three; but it must be regarded as uncertain. 75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) The reading of this inscription is far from certain (see catalogue), but few authors show any hesitation in identifying a dithematic MN HŒsibald/ HŒsiwald. The interpretations of the prototheme are discussed in § 4.1: it is thought to reflect either PGmc *x¯usan “house” or *xusiz “young man, warrior”. Both of these etymologies present problems, but both assume that s represents a reflex of PGmc */s/. The deuterotheme in these interpretations is either -bald (< PGmc *balÂaz/ *baldaz “bold”) or -wald (< PGmc *waldanan “to rule, wield”) (§ 4.1). If it is a -bald name, d probably represents a reflex of */d/. The usual OHG form is bald; the variant balt seems to point to a proto-form in */d/ rather than */θ/ (Schützeichel 2006).
The obstruents
277
76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f The only available interpretation of amelkud is as a dithematic FN in -ku(n)d < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (§ 4.1), with */g/ devoiced via the Second Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.2; see also § 7.1.3.1) and */θ/ despirantised (§ 2.5.1.3). The element -gun is attested as -gu in 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ; 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ; 83. Weingarten I ali/erguÂ. 77. Szabadbattyán buckle marŋs? On the possibility that s represents a gen.sg. suffix /-s/ < PGmc */-eza/ (to a MN Młring), see § 5.1. This is doubtful, and the interpretation of s remains problematic; it might represent the beginning of another word, or perhaps a Begriffsrune or other abbreviation (Krause 1966:311; Opitz 1987:109). 78. †Trier serpentine object [I]wilsa [II] wairwai Schneider (1980:197) interprets wilsa as an imperative form of a denominal verb in /-is¯on/ (§ 5.1). While there are problems with his treatment of the text as a whole and of the alleged imperative suffix -a (not to mention the doubts about the inscription’s authenticity), denominal verbs with this structure are certainly attested in OHG: e.g., lustis¯on “to desire” (to lust < PGmc *lustuz/*lustaz; compare OHG lust¯on < PGmc *lust¯ojanan, and lusten < *lustjanan); deadjectival grimmis¯on “to rage” (to grim “grim” < PGmc *gremmaz; compare OHG grimmen < PGmc *gremmjanan). As was mentioned in § 5.1, the form of s is unusual, and I have suggested that it could be transliterated j. The suggestion that wair in complex II represents a reflex of PGmc *waiza“seaweed( ? ), stalk( ? ), penis(???)” is discussed in § 3.2.1. As I argued earlier, *wair < PGmc *waiza- is phonologically plausible (whereas Schneider’s proposed gloss “penis” and his interpretation of the whole text as an erotic charm are extremely dubious). If the inscription is genuine, it is possible that we have here a reflex of */z/ represented as r.
278
The consonants
80. Weimar II fibula [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: Despite the difficulties of transliteration, complex I is widely interpreted as containing a pers.n. in Sig- < PGmc *segez/*segaz “victory”, or in SinÂ- < PGmc *senÂaz “journey, way”. It may alternatively (if read right to left) be a MN ending in -g¯ıs (see 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 67. Schretzheim I arogis) (§ 5.1). All of these interpretations treat s as representing a reflex of */s/, but they are all speculative. Looijenga’ (2003a:261) transliteration sigibl/ad M Sigibald is speculative (§ 5.1; see 75. Steindorf, -?ald, above). 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: This inscription appears to contain a FN Ida (with a stem possibly < PGmc *idiz “activity, deed”) in rect and oblique forms (Ida, Id¯un). For more detailed discussion, see § 5.1. The final -d of awimund represents a reflex of */d/ in the name-element -mund < PGmc *mund¯o “protection” (see entry on 3. Arlon in § 4.1). isd is usually interpreted as the copula ist (3.sg.pres.), with s = /s/ < */s/, and d representing a reflex of */t/ (about which there is, surprisingly no comment in the literature) (§ 5.1). The only other alleged example of this phenomenon is in Looijenga’s interpretation of 67. Schretzheim I arogisd as a MN Arogast (§ 6.1). I have tentatively suggested that Schretzheim isd might also represent the copula, and that 58. Oberflacht afd might also have /t/ represented as d (see above). 82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w The various interpretations of Â/wiuÂ/w are summarised in § 3.1.1; § 4.1. Probably the least problematic of them is Âiuw M Âiuw “servant” (< PGmc *Âegwaz), favoured by Looijenga (2003a:262). The reading Âiu M ÂiuÂ- (< PGmc *ÂeuÂ-) invokes Verner’s Law to posit an unattested alternant of PGmc *Âeud- (in *Âeud¯o “people, nation”; *Âeudjaz “good, kind” – see § 3.1.1). This will be discussed further in § 7.1.2.2.3.
The obstruents
279
ida is unproblematically identified as the FN Ida (see 81. Weimar III, above and in § 5.1). 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la Throughout the literature ali/ergu is treated as a dithematic FN in -gu = -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (see 54. Neudingen-Baar IIbliÂgu in § 4.1), with  unambiguously a reflex of */θ/. The prototheme is most commonly transliterated alir- M Alir- < PGmc *aliz¯o/*alis¯o “alder” (§ 5.1; compare 30. Hailfingen I alisrh). Looijenga’s proposed reading aer- M Aer- < *aiz¯o “honour” (§ 3.2.1) is also plausible. In either case, r represents a rhotacised reflex of */z/ (§ 2.5.1.1.3). In complex II, writ- represents the present stem wr¯ıt-, to PGmc *wr¯ıtanan “to write, carve”. The following material is not clearly legible (see § 4.1); one of the possible readings suggested by Nedoma (2004a:177) is writid M wr¯ıtid (3.sg.pres.) “writes, carves”. As noted in § 4.1, there is some disagreement about whether we should reconstruct */-θ/ or */-d/ in the PGmc 3.sg.pres. verbal suffix, but OS -d, OHG -t suggest a proto-form in */-d/. Since the reading is speculative, and we have no other 3.sg.pres. verb-forms in the corpus, we cannot verify this interpretation. 84. Weingarten II fibula dado This inscription is generally interpreted as a MN Dado/D¯ado/Da(n)do, but for none of these alternatives is the etymology certain: it might be a “lallname”; a name in d¯ad- < PGmc *d¯ediz “deed”; or an abbreviated form of a dithematic name in Dag- < PGmc *dagaz “day”. These possibilities (and Schwab’s non-runic interpretation) are discussed in § 5.1. For our present purposes, it is likely that both d-runes represent /d/, but they are not clearly identifiable as reflexes of PGmc */d/. 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal latam in complex I is a form of the verb with a stem l¯at- < PGmc *l¯etanan “to let”, with t = /t/ < PGmc */t/ (§ 5.1), although there is some debate about the inflectional ending (§ 3.2.2).
280
The consonants
87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede That dede represents dede (3.sg.pret.) “made” is uncontroversial (§ 5.1). Both d-runes in this inscription can be identified as reflexes of PGmc */d/ (see also 37. Hoogebeintum (ded); 67. Schretzheim I dedun). 89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi The most plausible interpretation of complex I is as an erroneous form of *skamella, representing a loanword from Lat. scamellum/-us and referring to the stool itself (§ 5.1). If this is the case, then s represents /s/, but not a direct reflex of PGmc */s/. It is generally agreed that skaÂi is connected with PGmc *skaÂjanan “to harm”, perhaps as a verbal imperative “harm!”; a nomen agentis “harmer”; a nomen actionis “harming”; or a deverbal adjective “harmful” (see § 5.1 for more detail). It may be the second element of a compound with lgu- (see § 4.1). Although the inflectional morphology and semantics are problematic, there is no reason to doubt the identity of the stem. 90. Wurmlingen spearhead ?:dorih In the most common interpretation of this as a MN DÕrr¯ıh, the etymology of the prototheme Dor-/D¯or- is not clear. If the stem vowel is short, Düwel suggests a connection with ON Âora “to dare” (< PGmc *Âur¯enan), Âorinn “brave” (with despirantisation of */θ/ – § 2.5.1.3). A difficulty with this interpretation is that the alternant Tor- in OHG parallels suggests an underlying PGmc */d-/, not */θ-/ (§ 4.1). Steinhauser interprets dorih as d¯o r¯ıh “make rich/powerful” (Steinhauser 1968b:18–19; see § 4.1). Opitz (1987:247 n.3) objects that Steinhauser is assuming the presence of shifted /k/ in -r¯ıh, but unshifted /d/ in the imperative d¯o (: OHG t¯o > tuo). This criticism involves assumptions about the chronology of the Consonant Shift which do not appear well substantiated: the St. Gallen witnesses show vacillation between unshifted /d/ and shifted /t/ (or /d/ = [d]) in the 8th century, and the shift of the voiceless plosives is thought to predate˚ that of the voiced ones (§ 2.5.1.2.4), although we cannot be certain that there was no overlap (*/k/ being the last of the tenues and */d/ the first of
The obstruents
281
the mediae to be affected by the shift). Moreover, in some OHG dialects (MFrk, RFrk), /k/ is subject to the shift, but /d/ is not (§ 2.5.1.2.3). Wurmlingen is in UG dialect territory, but we do not know where the spearhead was manufactured. I note also that Opitz readily accepts an interpretation of 60. Osthofen involving d?h M dih, with shifted /k/ (note that Opitz does not invoke “pseudo-Consonant Shift” here (§ 7.1.3.2.1) alongside deofile M deofile, with unshifted /d/ (see entry in § 5.1).
7.1.2.2 Summary 7.1.2.2.1 PGmc */t/ In almost every case where it is likely that we have a reflex of */t/, it is represented as t (the clearest examples are 23. Freilaubersheim wraet; 54. Neudingen-Baar II urait; 62. Pforzen II urait; 83. Weingarten I writ-; and 85. †Weser I latam). Nowhere in the corpus do we find any direct evidence for the effects on the Second Consonant Shift on reflexes of */t/. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, this does not necessarily mean that affricate and/or fricative allophones of /t/ do not exist in the dialects of the inscriptions, since it is plausible that these might be consistently represented as t. We have one probable and two possible cases of a reflex of */t/ represented as d: that 81. Weimar III isd is the copula ist (3.sg.pres.) is widely (though not universally) accepted. 58. Oberflacht afd M aft “behind, after” and 67. Schretzheim I isd M ist “is” might exhibit the same type of spelling, although both are speculative interpretations and must be treated with caution. Whether or not we accept Oberflacht or Schretzheim as witnesses to this phenomenon, the representation of /t/ as d may indicate that final /-d/ can be devoiced [d] after a voiceless fricative /s/ (or /f/, if the Oberflacht example is valid). This˚ does not necessarily have any bearing on the Consonant Shift of */d/ or on other devoicing processes described in § 2.5.1 (see § 7.1.2.2.2, below). There are no parallels to the change of */t/ > /θ/ proposed by Looijenga for 53. Neudingen-Baar I filÊ M fil < *feltaz. Given that we have other interpretations of the sequence which do not invoke a sound change of this type, I see no reason to accept it.
282
The consonants
7.1.2.2.2 PGmc */d/ The corpus contains numerous reflexes of */d/ represented as d; if CRun /d/ has a fricative allophone, it is not marked orthographically, unless the (possible)  spellings which are sometimes interpreted as Verner’s Law alternants of a known etymon in */d/ (3. Arlon woÊro; 15. Charnay faÂai; 82. Weimar IV Â/wiuÂ/w – see § 7.1.2.2.3, below) are actually indicators of a fricative /d/ = [ð]. The ms. evidence indicates that /d/ is a plosive in all the WGmc dialects, which makes this a dubious line of speculation from the outset. If we nonetheless pursue the possibility of a [ð] allophone, we run into doubts about transliteration: in the Arlon and Weimar cases the presence of  is questionable. Charnay might be allowed to stand, if only because its inclusion in this study depends on Antonsen’s identification of the text as WGmc (whereas the preferred EGmc interpretation involves the reading of this sequence as fnÂai M f(i)nÂai vs. OS OHG find- < PGmc *fenÂ-), but it would then be an isolated example against the overwhelming majority of d spellings (including those in a similar phonological environment, e.g., 6. Bad Ems bada; 74. Soest rada). We have several forms in t which are alleged to be reflexes of */d/ affected by the Second Consonant Shift: 16. Chéhéry ditan; 19. Eichstetten muni M munt; 39. Hüfingen II ota; 74. Soest gatano. All except Hüfingen are based on uncertain transliterations; and Hüfingen ota can be explained much more straightforwardly as an imitation of the Scandinavian parallels. That ditan M Ditan might be connected with PGmc *Âeud- is a suggestion raised by Fischer and Lémant, but not explored in any detail. It also implicitly invokes the despirantisation of */θ/ (§ 7.1.2.2.3) and an unexplained change of the root vowel. The treatment of Soest gatano as a pers.n. Gatano < *gad¯on relies on the doubtful assumption that the “rune-cross” is to be read as a g. I see no reason to prefer this over the alternative atano, with t interpretable as a reflex of */t/ or */θ/ (although the interpretations based on this transliteration are not without problems). Opitz’ interpretation of muni M munt “hand, protection” is the least problematic of these examples, from a phonological point of view. We could perhaps explain it as witness to a process of devoicing in final position (§ 2.5.1.4.1). I do, however, disagree with the transliteration munt (see catalogue). Perhaps our best evidence for any devoicing of */d/ is from the use of d for reflexes of */t/ (§ 7.1.2.2.1). If the interpretation of d as /t/ in Weimar III isd and/or the other possible cases is correct, this would more likely reflect assimilation to the preceding fricative than either Consonant Shift or final devoicing.
The obstruents
283
On the strength of the available data, then, the possibility that the Consonant Shift of */d/ > /t/ is underway in at least some dialects during the 6th century cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty, but the evidence for it – or for the other devoicing processes mentioned in § 2.5.1.4.1 – is not at all reliable.
7.1.2.2.3 PGmc */θ/ With regard to this phoneme, we have three issues to consider: the conditioned voicing of /θ/ > [ð]; despirantisation > /d/ (§ 2.5.1.3); and alternations between PGmc */θ/ and */d/ arising from Verner’s Law. Where we have reason to believe an inscription contains a reflex of */θ/, in the majority of cases it is spelled  – even where the phonetic environment is suitable for voicing (e.g., 23. Freilaubersheim daÊïna; 74. Soest daÂa; 89. Wremen -skaÂi). Spellings in d which are claimed by at least some commentators as evidence for despirantisation are: 6. Bad Ems madali, bada; 14. Bülach fridil, du; 16. Chéhéry ditan; 26. Gammertingen ado; 44. Kirchheim/Teck I bada; 47. Lauchheim I fada; 52. München-Aubing II bd; 60. Osthofen furad, d?h, deofile; 76. Stetten -kud; 90. Wurmlingen dor-. Three of these candidates can probably be discounted from the outset: the etymology of ditan (if it is a pers.n. Ditan) is unclear, but I see no reason to support the proposed connection with PGmc *Âeud-. deofile is only to be considered if we accept Jungandreas’ interpretation of the sequence as Theophilus (which is doubtful). That Osthofen furad represents a word is still more doubtful (as against Krause’s more popular, but also questionable, treatment of furad?h M fura dih; see below). Bad Ems and Kirchheim/Teck bada (and by implication München-Aubing bd, if this is to be interpreted as b(a)d(a)) are identified by Schwerdt (2000:208–209) as examples of Spirantenschwächung (i.e., despirantisation), apparently following the hypothesis that OS gibada “consolation” is based on the PIE root *bheh1- “warm, bake” (Pokorny 1959–1969 s.v. *bhe¯ -, *bho¯ -; see § 4.1) with a suffix < PGmc *-Âo-/*-do- < PIE *-ta-. If this is correct, the surface form -d- is more likely attributable to a proto-form in */-d-/ (perhaps alternating with */-θ-/ via Verner’s Law – see below) than to the OHG despirantisation of */-θ-/ (which is evident in known reflexes of this root: OHG bad vs. OS bath “bath” < PGmc *baÂan; OHG bad¯on vs. OE baðian (unattested in OS) “to bathe” < PGmc *ba¯ojanan). Elsewhere in the runological literature, where gibada is connected with *bheh1-, it is via PGmc
284
The consonants
*bad-, not *baÂ-. In a similar way, proto-forms in */d/ > OHG /t/ are identifiable for fridil, dor-, and ado. If fada is an abbreviated form of faihida, then it can be accounted for in the same way. In several places, Verner’s Law rather than OHG despirantisation is used to explain forms in d which may relate to an etymon in */θ/ (Bad Ems madali M *madl- vs. *maÂl- “assembly”; Lauchheim fada M *fad- vs. *fa“spouse( ? )” (my suggestion); Osthofen furad M *frad- vs. *fraÂ- “strong”), as well as to two forms in  with supposed etyma in */d/ (3. Arlon woÊro M *w¯oÂ- vs. *w¯od- “mad( ? )”; 82. Weimar IV Â/wiuÂ/w M Âiu M *ÂeuÂ- vs. *Âeud-). None of the proposed alternants *madl-, *fad-, *w¯oÂ-, *ÂeuÂ- has any attested reflexes in the daughter Gmc languages; but we do have plausible derivations from PIE */t/ (> ePGmc */θ) for *w¯od- (Lat. v¯at¯es “seer, poet” (possibly a Celtic loanword); Gaulish Ô«, OIr fáith “seer”; W gwawd “poem; praise; ridicule”) and *Âeud- (PGmc *Âeud¯o “people” : Hitt tuzzi- “army”; Osc touto, Umb tutas “citizenry, state”; OIr túath “people, tribe”; OLith tautà, Latv tàuta “people, nation”) (Orel 2003; Pokorny 1959–1969 s.v. a¯ t-, *t¯eu-). For woÊro and Âiu we can at least make a principled case for *u the existence of a PGmc alternant in */θ/ (although in both cases it is questionable whether  is present at all). If PGmc *maÂl- is the underlying form of the “assembly”-word (< PIE *mə[d]-tlo-, according to Pokorny (1959–1969 s.v. *m¯od-:*məd- or *m¯ad-:*məd-)), a Verner alternant *madl- is certainly hypothetically possible, but we cannot defend it in the same way as *w¯oÂ- and *ÂeuÂ-. The further etymology of *faÂ- (a proto-form reconstructed for OE faðu, which does not have any attested cognates that I am aware of) is not entirely clear, but OE faðu appears to have the specific meaning “father’s sister”: it glosses Lat amita, and occurs in one of Ælfric’s homilies alongside modrie “mother’s sister” (BT). Since mod(d)rie is a derivative of m¯odor “mother”, it is likely that faðu is similarly related to fder < PGmc *fad¯er < PIE *pat¯e´r – the canonical example of Verner’s Law in operation. A derivation PIE *pát¯a > PGmc *fa¯o > OE faðu (and perhaps *pátis > *faÂiz, of which Charnay faÂai (Antonsen’s reading) might be the dat. form) is plausible; but whether this also has a variant *pat¯a´ > *fad¯o which could underlie Lauchheim fada is unknown. According to Orel (2003), PGmc *fraÂaz (> OHG frad “strong”) is related via Verner’s Law to *fr¯odaz (> Go froÂs, OE OFris OS fr¯od “wise”, ON fróðr “knowing, learned”, OHG fruot “skilful, long-lasting, beloved”) < PIE *pret-, prÕt- (Pokorny 1959–1969 s.v.). Osthofen furad is not likely to represent a cognate of OHG fruot (a surface form *frod ~ *furod would be more
The obstruents
285
likely – see § 4.2.3 on the reflexes of PGmc */¯o/); and we have no direct evidence for a PGmc *frad-. We can find some support for all of the putative Verner’s Law examples except madali (and even this is at least hypothetically possible); but all of them except madali and Lauchheim fada are based on doubtful transliterations and/or word divisions. If fada does represent fada “father’s sister”, it would be a unique alternant of OE faðu. We could perhaps speculate that fada is a curtailed form of *fadar M *fadar “father”, but this is doubtful: from the available images, I can see no trace of any carvings after -a. If *fadar was intended, the carver must have omitted the final rune (though not due to lack of space; there is certainly room for at least one additional character). The only alleged examples of d M /d/ < */θ/ for which no alternative and equally plausible interpretations appear in the literature are Stetten -kud and the two sequences interpreted as 2.sg. personal pronouns du, d?h (compare 24. Freilaubersheim Âk, everywhere interpreted as acc. Â(i)k). Dealing with the pronouns first, it must be noted that in neither case is the transliteration certain; and both belong to speculative (albeit widely accepted) interpretations. d?h M dih also involves the shift of */k/ > /h/; but the same can be said for the interpretation of Wurmlingen dorih, which has found almost universal acceptance (on the shift of */k/, see § 7.1.3.2.1; § 7.1.4.1). However, no alternatives have been offered for Bülach du; it is either treated as the pronoun du or as part of an uninterpretable sequence. Arntz’ suggestions for Osthofen d?h are no less problematic than the pronominal interpretation. As witnesses to Spirantenschwächung or to the despirantisation of */θ/, these two remain doubtful, but we should look for corroboration. The interpretation of Stetten -kud as -ku(n)d < -gun is dependent on Pieper’s transliteration; no alternatives have been proposed. Nedoma, maintaining the view that d cannot represent a reflex of */θ/ in the “runic” period, highlights the doubts about the textuality of the inscription (Nedoma 2004a:182, 183). No-one, as far as I am aware, has advanced a hypothesis in which the marks on the Stetten object constitute a runic inscription with the sequence -kud representing anything other than the name-element < PGmc *gunÂ-. It could, for example, be ku(n)d < PGmc *kundaz (> Go airÂa-kunds “of earthly origin”; ON ein-kunn “sign, mark”; OE Âel-cund “of noble kind”; OS god-kund “of divine kind”; OHG gomman-kund “male”). If, as has been claimed for amel- and for the similar sequence 8. Balingen amiluk (see entry in § 4.1) is in some way connected with the Ostrogothic dynasty, then perhaps amelkud could represent a compound (byname?) Amel-ku(n)d “of Amal kind [i.e., descendant of the Ostrogothic dynasty]( ? )”. If Amel-/Amal-
286
The consonants
is based on PGmc *ama- “persist( ? ); annoy( ? )”, as has been suggested (see Balingen entry in § 5.1), Amel-ku(n)d might carry a meaning “of a persistent/ annoying kind”. These are mere speculations, and the conventional interpretation has the advantage of a well-known parallel in the OHG name Amelgundis (see § 4.1). In contrast, no name-element -kund is mentioned by Förstemann (1900) or Kaufmann (1968); Reichert does have an entry for a name Cundig(us), but it is classified as non-Gmc (Reichert 1987 s.v. CUNDIG). Throughout the discussions of all these cases, Nedoma’s position is that despirantisation can be ruled out on the evidence of OHG. While I find his arguments persuasive, I hesitate to rule out the possibility that the inscriptions might contain reflexes of PGmc */θ/ represented as d rather than the expected Â. Any interpretation involving despirantisation must be treated with caution, however. In all of the examples discussed here, we have good reasons to doubt the reading and/or the connection to a pre- or proto-form in */θ/. A possibility not widely discussed in the literature on any of these inscriptions is that d might be used in some cases to represent the voiced allophone of */θ/ = [ð], rather than the plosive /d/ – that is, to represent Spirantenschwächung proper. Most of the forms in d discussed here are in intervocalic positions (madali, bada, fridil, ado, bada, fada, bd (if this represents b(a)d(a)); and if lenition in initial position is allowable (see introduction to § 2.5.1.3), we might invoke voicing in du, ditan, d?h, deofile, dor-. The only alleged case of a reflex of */θ/ represented as d which cannot be a fricative [ð] is Stetten -kud. If /θ/ has a voiced allophone in the dialects of the inscriptions, then it is at least hypothetically possible that some carvers might spell it d rather than the conventional Â. To sum up the evidence for Spirantenschwächung and despirantisation of */θ/, we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that d might occasionally be used to represent either a voiced allophone [ð] or the plosive /d/ < */θ/; but none of the alleged examples is altogether convincing. Wherever the transliteration and etymology allow us to be confident that we are dealing with a reflex of */θ/, the spelling is Â. One further consideration in relation to this sound change is that of chronology relative to the Consonant Shift. As outlined in § 2.5.1.3, the despirantisation of */θ/ must postdate the devoicing of */d/ in those dialects where the latter occurs (EFrk, UG); if it did not, */θ/ and */d/ would merge and feed the Medienverschiebung to produce /t/ for reflexes of both proto-phonemes (e.g., the 2.sg.nom. personal pronound would be *tu, not du). The dialects where */θ/ and */d/ do merge > /d/ (MFrk, RFrk) are also those which show evidence of despirantisation only at a comparatively late date (not before c.900). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that in any dialect of the “runic”
The obstruents
287
period, if the reflex of */d/ is voiced (in those contexts where devoicing occurs), then the reflex of */θ/ is still a fricative. This inference does not help us a great deal, since we are in much the same position regarding the evidence on the devoicing of */d/ as with the despirantisation of */θ/: the corpus contains several possible cases which are not reliable as positive evidence, but which cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty (§ 7.1.2.2.2). The only inscription which is thought to contain both a reflex of */θ/ represented as d and a reflex of */d/ is Osthofen (if go? M God; or if we allow the d of deofile as evidence for /d/ ≠ /t/). If the inscription originates near the find-site, it would fall within RFrk dialect territory, where the */θ/-*/d/ merger does take place. If we leave aside the late attestation of */θ/ = in OHG witnesses in this region, then we could speculate that the d spellings of the Osthofen inscription do indicate that the merger has taken place. On the other hand, from the same region is Freilaubersheim, with two probable (though not certain) reflexes of */θ/ spelled Â, and two of */d/ spelled d. Other inscriptions contain reliable witnesses to both */θ/ M Â and */d/ M d (e.g., 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild; 56. Nordendorf I logaÂore, wodan, wigi/uÂonar; 62. Pforzen II aodliÂ; 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ, dedun; 74. Soest rada, daÂa), but none of the find-sites is in the same area, and for none of them do we have any indication that they originate in this area. If Nedoma’s analysis of 74. Soest atano is correct, it stands alone as a reflex of */θ/ spelled t. As noted above, t can also be interpreted as a reflex of */d/ or */t/, and I am cautiously inclined to favour the latter.
7.1.2.2.4 PGmc */s/ Reflexes of */s/ are plentiful in the corpus, with all the reliable examples spelled s. The only possible indication that /s/ has developed a voiced allophone comes from the two appearances of z in interpretable sequences: 35. Hitsum fozo; 49. Liebenau ra?zwi (Düwel’s reading). Both of these have been connected with etyma which may have alternate forms in PGmc */s/ ~ */z/ (as Verner alternants < PIE */s/). The most straightforward way to account for them is as reflexes of */z/ (§ 7.1.2.2.5); but it is not impossible that the surface forms in z represent voiced reflexes of */s/. Both z-runes occur in intervocalic position, where voicing occurs in OHG and OS; though they must be set against the reliable s-spellings in similar contexts (e.g. 3. Arlon rasuwamud; 9. Beuchte buirso M buriso; 23. Freilaubersheim boso; 62. Pforzen gisali; possibly also 75. Steindorf husi?ald, though in this case the transliteration can hardly be called reliable). If /s/ = [z] in this context,
288
The consonants
then s remains the preferred spelling. It is conceivable that the use of z is localised to the northern part of the study area and/or to the earlier part of the period of runic activity on the Continent: both the Hitsum and Liebenau finds are in northerly sites, far from the concentration of “South Germanic” finds in the upper Rhine/upper Danube area (though we have no way of knowing where the texts were created, and it is quite likely that the Hitsum text is not WGmc at all – see § 7.1.2.2.5); and they are among the oldest items in the corpus.
7.1.2.2.5 PGmc */z/ As we would expect, reflexes of */z/ are rare in the corpus: the phoneme is most frequent in inflectional endings; the presence of inflectional */-z/ is taken to be evidence that the dialect of a particular inscription is not WGmc (§ 1.2.1; in the Continental corpus we have evidence for the apocope of */-z/ in strongly-inflected masc. nouns/pers.ns. such as 56. Nordendorf I wodan (not *wodanaz); 61. Pforzen I aigil (not *aigilaz – § 5.1)). The only reflexes of */z/ appearing in the corpus are those belonging to root syllables. We have two possible cases of a reflex of */z/ spelled r (78. †Trier wair (if genuine); 81. Weingarten I alir-/aer-) and two possible cases spelled z (35. Hitsum fozo; 49. Liebenau ra?zwi). At first glance, we might be inclined to dismiss the idea of a WGmc identity for the Hitsum and Liebenau inscriptions, given the expected merger of PGmc */z/ and */r/ in root syllables in all of the WGmc dialects. Treating Hitsum as part of the corpus of PNorse bracteate texts presents no real difficulties; but other possibilities are at least worth considering. Seebold claims that in the Continental runic corpus we have no clear examples of a reflex of PGmc */z/, and we cannot therefore be certain whether or not rhotacism had occurred in the “runic” period of WGmc (Seebold 1996:195). This is not entirely accurate: Trier wair might not be considered reliable due to the doubts about its authenticity; but for Weingarten I ali/erguÂ, while we have alternative readings alir- vs. aer-, both involve etyma with /r/ < PGmc */z/. It might be possible to argue for a chronological division between the forms in z and those in r. The Weingarten witness probably belongs to the second half of the 6th century, while Hitsum is typologically dated to the second half of the 5th century, and Liebenau still earlier (see catalogue entries). It is possible that non-final */z/ has not merged with */r/ in these early witnesses. If the Trier inscription is genuine, Schneider (1980:196) dates it to the late 5th or early 6th century, but there are no good grounds for this: it is a stray find, without clear typological parallels which can be used for dating.
The obstruents
289
With the scant evidence available, the furthest we can go is to advance a tentative hypothesis that the */z/-*/r/ merger takes place some time after the production of the Hitsum bracteate in some dialects of the northern part of the study area, and certainly before the production of the Weingarten I inscription in the south. We must, as always, remind ourselves that geographical divisions based on the deposition of portable objects are not reliable. The data – such as they are – are consistent with this hypothesis, but we would need a much larger and more reliable dataset to support it with any confidence. As noted in § 7.1.2.2.4, above, it is also possible to argue that the z-forms are evidence for Spirantenschwächung in respect of the reflexes of */s/; though again, any such claim is limited by the paucity of the data.
7.1.3 The “gutturals” (PGmc */k g x/) 7.1.3.1 Data 2. Aquincum fibula [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia The major interpretations of kŋia are described in § 4.1; § 5.1. It may be a reflex of PGmc *kuningaz/*kunungaz “king”, or a cognate of ON kinga “brooch( ? )”. Both of these interpretations treat k as a reflex of */k/; but, as has been pointed out (§ 3.2.1), they are speculative and it is not clear that this complex is linguistically interpretable. Grønvik (1985:178–179) reads another k in the preceding sequence, klain M klain “pretty” (nom.sg.fem.) (< PGmc *klaini-) (§ 3.2.1). Looijenga (2003a:227) emends ain to aig M aig, 3.sg.pres. “owns”, with n an error for intended g = /g/. The form aig would be anomalous: this verb exhibits grammatischer Wechsel, i.e., the action of Verner’s Law on an underlying PGmc */x/ < PIE */k/ (cf. Toch. A aik- “to know, to recognise” (Orel 2003 s.v. *aixa)) in some of its forms. Thus, OHG has infin. eigan (< PGmc *aiganan < *aixá-) vs. 1./3.sg.pres. eih (< PGmc *aix < *áix). 3. Arlon capsule godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…) The FN godun M GÕd¯un is based on either PGmc *g¯odaz “good” or *gudz/ *gudaz “god” (§ 4.1). Both etymologies treat g as a reflex of */g/.
290
The consonants
4. Aschheim II fibula kahi Here, as in several other inscriptions (11. Bezenye II; 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I; 90. Wurmlingen), k is believed by some commentators to represent the 1.sg.nom. personal pronoun ik/ek < PGmc *ik/*ek(a) (§ 5.1; on the nonrepresentation of front vowels, see § 5.2). ahi is generally believed to be a pers.n., but its etymology is uncertain (§ 5.1): the stem may be a reflex of PGmc *axaz “mind”; or it might be connected with the protothemes of 7. Bad Krozingen agirike; 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ), with h representing a fricative reflex of */g/ (i.e., *[] or devoiced *[x] > *[h]). This, however, can be no more than a cautious speculation, and the significance of h here remains an unknown. 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike It is generally agreed that agirike represents the dat. form of a MN Agir¯ık, with Agi- < PGmc *agez/*agan “fear” (or perhaps *agj¯o “edge”); and -r¯ık < PGmc *r¯ıkz “ruler” or *r¯ıkjaz “noble, princely” (§ 5.1). 8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? One interpretation of amilu? is as a pers.n., amiluk M Amilu(n)k, with the patronymic suffix -u(n)k < -u(n)g (§ 4.1). As well as inferring an unrepresented nasal (§ 7.2.2.1), this interpretation depends on the reading of the final sign as k, which is doubtful. If it is allowed, k M /k/ < */g/ could be explained as a product of the Second Consonant Shift or of an independent final devoicing process. The alternative interpretation as an o¯ -stem Amilu presents fewer difficulties, although there is disagreement about the assignment of case (§ 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 5.1). 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid Complex II probably contains a FN with the prototheme goda- M G¯od- < PGmc *g¯odaz “good” or God- < PGmc *gudz/*gudaz “god” (§ 4.1; compare 3. Arlon godun); and the deuterotheme -hid M -hi(l)d < *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle” (§ 5.1; § 7.2.1.1).
The obstruents
291
11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun The initial sign has been read as k M (i)k “I”; although this is doubtful (§ 5.1). If complex II segun represents a borrowed form of Lat. signum “mark, sign” (§ 4.1), then g represents /g/, although we are not dealing with a reflex of a PGmc word in */g/. 12. Bopfingen fibula mauo Two of the various interpretations (§ 3.2.2) assume that mauo has an etymon in */-g-/, with that */g/ having been vocalised to [w] and/or deleted. The most popular connects it with PGmc *maguz “kinsman”; while in Looijenga’s formulation, the etymon is PGmc *magwj¯o “girl” (< *magu- + -(i)j¯o). Nedoma (2004a:387–388) objects that the supposed vocalisation of */g/ (which would regularly give us OHG *magu, attested in compounds maguzoho “mentor”) is unmotivated. A vocalisation of this sort (*/g/ = *[] > *[w]) is plausible in the case of *magwj¯o, as the Gothic reflex (mawi) indicates; compare also OE ¯eow “servant”, OHG teo “unfree” (etc.) < PGmc *Âegwaz (82. Weimar IV in § 3.1.1). 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? Krause (1966:307) reads the end of complex III as mik M mik 1.sg.acc. As noted in § 5.1, later microscopic examination indicates that this is incorrect. 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) [II] :uÂfnÂai:id [III] dan:liano [IV] ïia [V] k r liano is normally interpreted as a MN Liano (of unknown etymology). Gutenbrunner’s suggestion (cited by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:191) that it represents lai(h)nÕ (3.pl.opt.) “may they grant” (to PGmc *laixwn¯on) is doubtful, as is Opitz’ claim that it represents *laion “lion” (§ 3.2.1).
292
The consonants
16. Chéhéry fibula [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E (or E : ditan) [III] sum(Óik) ik in complex III might represent the 1.sg.nom. pronoun ik, but this is very doubtful. No interpretations are available in the literature; Fischer and Lémant (2003:353) regard this sequence as a set of decorative marks, not runic text (see § 5.1). 17. Dischingen I fibula wig/nka This inscription is normally interpreted as a FN Win(i)ka or W¯ıg(i?)ka (§ 4.1; § 5.1). Most sources favour the former (with the stem either Win(i)- < PGmc *weniz “friend” or Wink-, of uncertain etymology); but Looijenga reads wigka and suggests a connection with *w¯ıg- “fight” (see § 4.1). The reading of g here is doubtful, but plausible. The terminal -ka is interpreted throughout the literature as the hypocoristic suffix /-ka/ < PGmc */-k¯on/ (§ 4.4.1; § 5.1). 18. Donzdorf fibula eho If this is a form of the “horse”-word (PGmc *exwaz), whether as a pers.n. or a “formula-word” (§ 5.1), then h represents a reflex of PGmc */x/. 21. Erpfting fibula lda·gabu lda might represent a FN Hilda (< PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle”), with initial *hi- omitted (§ 5.1). It is doubtful whether we are dealing with deletion of the segment /h-/ here. The orthographic non-representation of /h/ should also be treated with caution: the omission of Gmc */x-/ in Latin texts probably reflects the assimilation of foreign names to Romance phonology (with deleted initial /h-/). It cannot convincingly be invoked for a runic inscription (§ 2.5.1.4.2; see also Wagner 1989a). The interpretation of gabu as g¯abu “gift” (dat.sg. to a reflex of PGmc *g¯eb¯o) is undisputed (§ 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 5.1).
The obstruents
293
23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida That Âk represents an abbreviated form of the 2.sg.acc. personal pronoun Âik < PGmc *Âeke is accepted by almost all commentators on this inscription (§ 5.1). golida is most commonly interpreted as a pret. form of a weak verb < PGmc *g¯oljanan “to greet, make happy( ? )”; or possibly < *gl¯oo¯ janan “to glow”. Jänichen (1951:227) sees gol as a strong pret., to *galan < PGmc *galanan “to sing, enchant( ? )” (§ 4.1). In all of these interpretations, g is assumed to represent a reflex of */g/. 24. Fréthun I sword pommel h?e?( ? ) Although this inscription is scarcely legible, it may represent a pers.n. or other word in */xCe-/; Fischer (2007:72) suggests a connection with PGmc *xlammiz “noise( ? )”, with “primary” umlaut of */a/, but this is impossible to test (§ 5.1; § 6.1). Given the lack of evidence for i-umlaut in the corpus (§ 6.2), I think it unlikely. Alternatives are available, but unless a more reliable transliteration emerges, we cannot draw any reliable conclusions from this item. 25. Friedberg fibula ÂuruÂhild We can be confident that we are dealing with a dithematic FN in -hild < PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle” (compare 8. Bezenye I godahid). 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate lalgwu If, in spite of my misgivings (§ 7.1.1.1), we follow Arntz’ interpretation of gwu as g(i)bu “I give”, then g represents a reflex of */g/. Otherwise, the sequence should be considered uninterpretable (see § 4.1 for references). 28. Gomadingen fibula [I] (g) [II] iglug/n [III] ?… It is generally thought that complex II represents a pers.n., although the etymology is unclear (§ 4.1; § 5.1). Possible etyma (all with g representing a re-
294
The consonants
flex of PGmc */g/) include PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz “hedgehog”; *¯ıgwaz/ *¯ıxwaz “yew”; a meaningless( ? ) name-element Ig-; and the name-element Ing-, the etymology of which is uncertain (§ 5.1; § 7.2.2.1). If the final rune of this complex is g, then -ug may represent the patronymic suffix -u(n)g, although a reading -un M -¯un (oblique fem. n-stem suffix) is also plausible (§ 4.1). 29. Griesheim fibula [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru Complex I is most commonly interpreted as a MN Kolo < PGmc *kulan “coal, charcoal” (§ 4.1). Complex II probably contains a dithematic FN AgilaÂr¯uÂ. According to Nedoma (2004a:149–150), the prototheme is derived from the base Agi- < PGmc *agez/*agan “fear” (§ 5.1; compare 7. Bad Krozingen A agirike). 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). If Arntz’ reading is valid, rh is assumed to represent the deuterotheme of a MN Alisr(¯ı)h, to PGmc *r¯ıkz “ruler” or *r¯ıkjaz “noble”, with spirantisation of */k/ via the Second Consonant Shift (see 90. Wurmlingen dorih). As noted in earlier discussions (§ 5.1), the reading is very speculative, and the expansion of the text by insertion of vowels adds a further level of doubt to the interpretation. wihu is interpreted as a verb-form, 1.sg.pres. to PGmc *w¯ıgjanan/*w¯ıxjanan “to consecrate” (§ 4.1). If this is correct, h probably represents a reflex of */x/. 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi The unclear and partially obscured signs preceding arwi have been interpreted as representing the pronoun ik (see § 5.1); the uncertainty of the reading makes this doubtful. Although arwi can most plausibly be interpreted as a pers.n. < PGmc *arwaz “ready” (§ 4.1), it has been suggested that we might be dealing with a dithematic name Ar(a)w¯ı(h), with final /-x/ either unrepresented orthographically
The obstruents
295
or apocopated. Nedoma objects to apocope on the grounds that there are no runic parallels, except perhaps 49. Liebenau ra?zwi; Düwel (1972:139) mentions forms in Latin mss., but we should be cautious about inferring that these indicate apocope rather than orthographic omission (or scribal error?). Apocope of /-x/ does appear to occur in OS, but not consistently (§ 2.5.1.4.2). 35. Hitsum-A bracteate [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la The competing interpretations of complex II are glola M Gl¯ola (a pers.n. with a stem < PGmc *gl¯oo¯ janan “to glow”), vs. groba M gr¯oba, connected ultimately with PGmc *grab- “dig, carve( ? )” (§ 4.1). Both of these involve a reflex of */g/, but the difficulties with reading mean that we cannot be certain about either interpretation. 36. Hohenstadt fibula (…)(i)galu (i)ga can plausibly be interpreted as a FN with a stem connected with the name-element Ing- (with unrepresented nasal), or PGmc *¯ıgwaz/*¯ıxwaz “yew”, or possibly a meaningless Ig-. A further possibility is that (i)galu represents a name connected with *igilaz/*igulaz “hedgehog” (§ 5.1; § 6.1; compare 29. Gomadingen). All of these interpretations are based on the assumption that g represents a reflex of */g/. 39. Hüfingen II Kleinbrakteat (??? ?) ota ota probably represents a reflex of PGmc *¯oxt¯on “fear”. If this is the case, it is most likely an imitation of PNorse models (the same sequence appears on several Scandinavian bracteates – see § 4.1), so the apparent deletion of /h/ may not have a bearing on the present study. 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag hailag is interpreted without difficulty (leaving aside the question of authenticity) as hailag “holy” < PGmc *xailagaz/*xailigaz (§ 3.2.1), with h and g representing reflexes of */x/ and */g/.
296
The consonants
43. “Kent” fibula ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa The interpretation of the sequence which I label complex I is uncertain: Looijenga (2003a:244) reads gadu, representing an o¯ -stem related to PGmc *gad¯on “companion, spouse( ? )” (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1). If my reading gam(:)u is correct, then the sequence may (with some difficulty) be connected with PGmc *gamanan “game” (§ 4.1; § 7.2.2.1). Both of these interpretations assume that g represents a reflex of */g/, but both are open to serious doubt. Complex II provides us with a possible instance of the pronoun ik “I” (§ 5.1), though – as with other alleged cases like 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I, above – this is very uncertain. 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali Looijenga reads the last part of the inscription as gihiali M gihaili “heal, save” (2.sg.imp., to a reflex of PGmc *gi-xailjanan) or a related (and homophonous) noun “salvation” (< PGmc *gi-xail¯ın) (§ 3.2.1). If this is correct, then the swastika-like sign which Looijenga transliterates gi- represents the prefix *gi-/*ga-. This sign is, however, more plausibly interpreted as a paratextual symbol (see catalogue). Even without this sign, h?ali may still be connected with PGmc *xail“holy”. An alternative, though no less speculative, suggestion is that it represents a MN Hamali, parallel to 54. Neudingen-Baar II hamale (Meli 1988:119–120; see also Nedoma 2004a:375–376). 45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula arugis This inscription is probably to be interpreted as a dithematic MN in -g¯ıs < PGmc *g¯ısa- “arrow, spear” (§ 5.1). 46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade The interpretation of birg as a FN < PGmc *berg¯o “help, protection( ? )” is preferred in the literature, although it presents some morphological problems. It might alternatively represent a verbal imperative, “help!” (to a reflex of PGmc *berganan) (§ 5.1).
The obstruents
297
48. Lauchheim II comb ?dag dag might represent a MN Dag < PGmc *dagaz “day”; this could perhaps be a deuterotheme, with the preceding sign (g?) representing a prototheme which is not recoverable. On Schwab’s reading odag M o¯ dag “fortunate( ? )”, which I do not believe to be valid, see § 3.3.2. 49. Liebenau bronze disc ra … Alternative reading: ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138). In Düwel’s interpretation, the sequence represents a MN in -w¯ı(h) < PGmc *w¯ıxaz “consecrated” (§ 4.1; § 5.1). Looijenga (2003a:246) suggests alternatively that it may be connected with *w¯ıganan “to fight), with final /-x/ apocopated or omitted orthographically (compare 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi). 50. Mertingen fibula ieok aun ieok may be connected with PGmc *jeuk¯enan “to conquer, overcome( ? )” or with the related noun *jeuk¯o “fight”. If this is correct, k represents a reflex of */k/, although the reading and interpretation are speculative and present some difficulties (§ 3.1.1). 51. München-Aubing I fibula [I] segalo [II] sigila If segalo and sigila are pers.ns. with stems < PGmc *segez/*segaz “victory”, as is generally thought (§ 5.1), then g unproblematically represents a reflex of */g/. 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? klef may represent kl¯ef 3.sg.pret. < PGmc *klaib “climbed( ? ), hung( ? )” (§ 3.2.2; § 7.1.1.1). If this is the case, k represents a reflex of */k/. Although he prefers the reading klefil in complex III, Düwel (1990:8) mentions an alternative klefih, with ih possibly representing an enclitic 1.sg.nom
298
The consonants
personal pronoun ih < PGmc *ik/*ek(a). If this is the case, h would represent a reflex of */k/ affected by the Second Consonant Shift (or “pseudo-Consonant Shift”? See § 7.1.3.2.1) 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna The etymology of hamale M Hamale (dat. MN) is discussed in § 6.1; the most plausible explanation is that it is connected with PGmc *xamalaz “cropped”. All of the etymologies proceed from the assumption that h represents a reflex of PGmc */x/. Much more straightforward is the interpretation of bliÂgu as a FN in -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (§ 4.1), with the nasal unrepresented (§ 7.2.2.1). 55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? big- might be an abbreviated form of the verb biginnan < PGmc *bi-gennanan “to begin”; but this is doubtful (§ 5.1). 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The etymology of logaÂore remains uncertain; it is most popularly connected with PGmc *leug- “lie”; but other possibilities include *lug¯on/*lux¯on “flame” and *l¯og- “place” (§ 4.1). wigi/uÂonar is also assumed to contain a reflex of */g/, although here too the etymon represented by wigi/u- is a subject of disagreement: it is probably connected with PGmc *w¯ıxjanan/*w¯ıgjanan “to consecrate” or *w¯ıxanan/*w¯ıganan “to fight” (§ 4.1). 57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? Looijenga (2003a:251) suggests that io might represent j¯o(h) “and” < PGmc *j¯o xw¯e. If this is correct (which is doubtful), we may be dealing with apocope of /-x/ (as indicated by the OHG reflexes, jÕh ~ j¯a).
The obstruents
299
Looijenga’s reading of the final sequence as elk was mentioned in § 5.1. She states that the sequence “should be read elch < Gmc *elha- ‘elk’. Presumably, the rune U had the value [χ], being a result of the OHG sound shift of k > ch.” (ibid.). This explanation is simply impossible: as Looijenga herself shows us, the proto-form *elxaz/*elx¯on does not contain PGmc */k/ but */x/ (modE elk is not phonologically regular, and appears to have been remodelled in ME under the influence of Lat. alces (OED)). It is therefore not subject to the Second Consonant Shift, and a transliteration k is not plausible. 58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd Although the reading is uncertain, gba may be connected with PGmc *geb-, either as a verb-form “I give” or a noun “gift” (§ 5.1). 59. Oettingen fibula a?ijabrg As noted in § 7.1.1.1, brg is most plausibly interpreted as a parallel to 46. †Kleines Schulerloch birg and 79. Weimar I haribrig, i.e., as a name-element -b(i)rg/-b(e)rg < PGmc *berg¯o “protection”. Like Kleines Schulerloch birg, it could be an imperative verb-form birg “protect!” (to PGmc *berganan) (§ 5.1). 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? Krause’s interpretation of go? M God “God” < PGmc *gudz/*gudaz (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1) is undisputed. More problematic is the treatment of d?h as the 2.sg.acc. personal pronoun dih < PGmc *Âeke. Krause is here assuming that d represents a despirantised reflex of */θ/ (§ 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.2.2.3) and h a fricative < */k/ via the Second Consonant Shift. Schwerdt (2000:221–222) argues that /x/ < */k/ here is an example of “pseudo-Consonant Shift” (§ 7.1.3.2.1), although she does accept Krause’s interpretation of d. Arntz’ suggestion that furad? might be connected with PGmc *fraÂaz “strong” (§ 4.1) leaves h uninterpreted.
300
The consonants
61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun?(…) [II] ltahu·gasokun? It is universally accepted that aigil represents a MN, although there is some disagreement about the etymology of the stem: Düwel (1997c:282–283; 1999b:43–44) distinguishes it from Agila- < *agez/*agan “fear” (see below, and compare 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ), contrary to the view of Kaufmann (1968:23). Nedoma (1999b:100; 2004a:165) shares Düwel’s view, and connects Aigil to PGmc *aixa/*aiganan “to own” (§ 3.2.1; § 5.1). Düwel discusses (with justifiable scepticism) the possibility that the prototheme of aï/llrun M Ailr¯un might also be Agil- via a process of palatal assimilation of */g/: *agil- > *a il- > *ail- (presumably via *[ail-] > *[ajil-]) (Düwel 1994b:290; 1997c:283–284; 1999b:45). He analyses Aigil in a similar way, with /-g-/ restored by a secondary epenthesis. Nedoma points out that this analysis (which originates with Kaufmann 1968:23, 432) reflects Romance palatalisation processes, and there is no evidence for Romance phonological influence on the creator(s) of the Pforzen inscription. Furthermore, the supposed epenthesis of /-g-/ (or more accurately, /-gi-/) is unfounded and without parallels. Nedoma also rejects the notion that Aigil and Ailr¯un are etymologically identical with ON Egill and Olrún ˛ (Ol˛ < PNorse alu-; see § 4.1), though they may be variant forms of names for the same mythological characters (Nedoma 2004a:163, 168; 2004b:355). All of the various interpretations of ltahu/elahu treat h as representing a reflex of PGmc */x/. If elahu is the correct reading, the sequence can plausibly be connected with *elxaz/*elx¯on “elk, deer” (interpretations 1–2 in § 4.1). Alternatively, ahu might be a reflex of PGmc *axw¯o “water, river” (interpretation 3); or tahu might be connected with *tanxuz “tough”, perhaps as a derived adverb (interpretations 5–6). Interpretations 4 (ahu M ahu “point” < PGmc *axuz) and 7 (hu·ga M huga acc.sg. to PGmc *xugiz/*xuguz “mind, thought”) are more doubtful; but these too assume h to be a reflex of */x/. The interpretation of gasokun as gas¯okun, 3.pl.pret. to a cognate of OHG gisahhan “to condemn, quarrel( ? )” is unproblematic from a phonological point of view (§ 4.1). g here represents a reflex of PGmc */g/ in the prefix */ga-/ ~ */ge-/ (on the OHG variants, see BR § 71), and k a reflex of */k/ (apparently unshifted).
The obstruents
301
62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa gisali is thought to represent a MN based on either PGmc *g¯ıslaz “hostage” or *g¯ıslaz/*g¯ızlaz “arrow, spear” (see § 5.1). 63. Pleidelsheim fibula iiha If Düwel’s reading inha (1999a:15) is correct, we may be dealing with a pers.n. in In(n)-; although it is not clear what -ha signifies. Nedoma (2004a:349) tentatively suggests that we should read eha M Eha, a fem. parallel to 18. Donzdorf eho, with a stem < PGmc *exwaz (§ 5.1). 64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] (?)riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) Steinhauser’s reading of the beginning of complex I as kïn M k¯en “torch” (< PGmc *k¯e2na-) rests on the dubious claim that ï represents */¯e2/ (§ 5.1), and the reading of k is in any case questionable; so it cannot safely be used as evidence for the development of PGmc */k/. 65. †Rügen stone piece fgiu The only interpretation in the literature is that of Arntz, who sees giu as gi(b)u “I give”, and a parallel to 27. Geltorf II gwu. This interpretation of both inscriptions involves a hypothesis about the development of */b/ which I do not believe to be valid (see entry on Geltorf in § 7.1.1.1). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd This inscription contains two probable reflexes of */g/: alagu is a dithematic FN in -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (§ 4.1; compare 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ); while arogis is most plausibly interpreted as a MN in -g¯ıs < PGmc *g¯ısa- “arrow, spear”, although this leaves the terminal -d unexplained (§ 5.1; § 7.1.2.1).
302
The consonants
68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo All interpretations of wagadin agree that it is based on the pres.part. of PGmc *wagjanan “to move, shake” (either wag(j)a(n)d-, or an irregular wag(g)a(n)d-) (§ 5.1). It is likely that g here represents a geminate /g:/, produced by WGmc gemination < PGmc */-gj-/. 69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r It is doubtful whether the “rune-cross” represents g or is simply a “carrier” for the other runes (see § 4.1; § 6.1). Looijenga (2003a:257) reads gabar M Gabar, a hypocoristic form of a dithematic MN *Gabahari (with elided /-h-/, which Looijenga does not discuss). Klingenberg and Koch (1974:128–129) suggest gab M 1./3.sg.pret. gab “gave” (< PGmc *gab); or gaba M g¯aba “gift” (< *g¯eb¯o; again, see Erpfting entry in § 5.1); or gabar M ga(m)bar “powerful” (< PGmc *gamb(a)raz) (§ 6.1). 74. Soest fibula [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano Complex II, like 69. Schretzheim III, consists of a “rune-cross” which may or may not be intended as a g-rune. In this case at least, there seems to be a preference in the literature for treatment of the cross as a “carrier”. If it is g, we can read gatano M Gatano, a MN( ? ) of uncertain etymology, possibly connected with PGmc *gad¯on “companion, spouse( ? )” or with the ethnonym Gaut- < *gautaz/*gaut¯on (§ 6.1). 75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) Despite the difficulties with legibility, it is widely believed that this inscription contains a MN with a protheme derived from either *x¯usan “house” or *xusiz “young man, warrior” (§ 4.1). As noted in § 7.1.2.1, the uncertainties revolve around the interpretation of the vowels. Both interpretations treat h as /h/ < PGmc */x/.
The obstruents
303
76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f As noted in earlier discussions, amelkud has been interpreted as a FN with a deuterotheme -ku(n)d < gun (< PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle”). This involves an unrepresented nasal (§ 7.2.2.1) and despirantisation of */θ/ (§ 7.1.2.1) as well as devoicing of */g/. 77. Szabadbattyán buckle marŋs? Although the most popular interpretation connects this sequence with PGmc *m¯erjaz “famous”, an alternative etymon is *marxaz “horse” (§ 6.1). Nedoma raises a phonological objection to this: there is no motivation for the deletion of medial /-x-/. If the dialect of the inscription is EGmc, the evidence of Biblical Gothic indicates that /-x-/ after a liquid is preserved (e.g., filhan “to conceal, bury”). The few instances in which /-x-/ is omitted are probably attributable to scribal error (Nedoma 2004a:385–386). The same is true of the WGmc dialects (OE mearh, OHG marah- < PGmc *marxaz; also compare OE feorh, OFris ferch, OS OHG ferah < PGmc *ferxwan); however, /-x-/ is elided in inflected forms, at least in OE (e.g., nom./acc.pl. mearas). 79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· This inscription appears to contain two FNs beginning h- (both assumed to reflect PGmc */x/): haribrig M Haribirg, with the prototheme < PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army”; and hiba M Hiba, thought to be an abbreviated form of a name in Hild- < PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle” (for more detail, see § 5.1). If, as Arntz suggests (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:366–367), complex II is to be read hira, it may represent the 3.gen./dat.sg.fem. anaphoric pronoun hira (: OS OHG ira) (§ 5.1). To explain the initial /h-/, Arntz notes that Frankish sources often have her rather than the normal er for the 3.nom.sg.masc. pronoun, so perhaps a variant *hira vs. ira is possible. If this is the case, then it is likely we are dealing with a proto-form in */x-/, rather than with prothetic /h-/ (§ 2.5.3). The reconstruction of the anaphoric pronoun(s) in PGmc is, however, fraught with difficulties, because such a variety of forms appears in the dialects (see Lehmann 2005–2007 § 3.4.4; Ringe 2006:289).
304
The consonants
Complex I is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic name in -birg < PGmc *berg¯o “protection” (with metathetic spelling -ri- = /-ir-/) (§ 5.1). 80. Weimar II fibula [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: Complex I is commonly, though speculatively, interpreted as a pers.n. in Sig- < PGmc *segez/*segaz “victory”; or (reading right to left) one ending in -g¯ıs < PGmc *g¯ısa- “arrow, spear” (§ 5.1). As noted in earlier discussions, the sequence as a whole is difficult to decipher, and we cannot be confident that we are dealing with g rather than n here. Complex III is (probably) identical with 79. Weimar I hiba, above. 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: bigina is problematic: it may be a FN (of uncertain etymology), or part of the verb “to begin” (PGmc *bi-gennanan) (§ 5.1). It is generally accepted that hahwar represents a dithematic MN. The prototheme is usually thought to be H¯ah- < PGmc *xanxaz “horse” (§ 6.1), or perhaps *xauxaz “high” (though I consider the latter doubtful – § 3.3.2). 82. Weimar IV bead  wiu /w:ida:?e????a:hahwar:
Â/
Looijenga’s interpretation of Â/wiuÂ/w M Âiuw “servant” < PGmc *Âegwaz (§ 3.1.1; § 4.1) involves vocalisation of */g/ > *[] > *[w], assimilating to the following */w/ (compare 12. Bopfingen mauo). The transliteration is uncertain, however, so we must be cautious in accepting this interpretation. Arntz’ attempt to interpret this sequence as w¯ı(h)ju 3.du.pres. “consecrate” (to PGmc *w¯ıxjanan/*w¯ıgjanan) is not plausible (§ 4.1). We might attempt to treat wiu as a 1.sg.pres.ind. form of the same verb, *w¯ı(h)(i)u (compare Nebenstedt I-B bracteate (IK 128; KJ 133) uïu; Vimose buckle (KJ 24) wija); but this involves the omission of */-xi-/, which demands an explanation (§ 7.1.3.2.3). hahwar is identical to 81. Weimar III hahwar, and is presumably to be interpreted in the same way (see above).
The obstruents
305
83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la Complex I contains a dithematic FN Alirgu(n)Â/Aergu(n)Â, with the deuterotheme -gu M -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (§ 4.1), with g = /g/ < */g/. The interpretation of feha is highly problematic (§ 3.2.2). It may represent a FN or nominal based on PGmc *faixaz I “coloured” or *faixaz II “hostile( ? )”, or on a root in *fex-. Looijenga (2003a:263) suggests a connection with PGmc *fagan¯ojanan/ *fagen¯ojanan “to rejoice” (interpretation no. 4 in § 3.2.2). This involves the assumption that e represents “primary” umlaut of PGmc */a/, which I do not believe to be valid (§ 6.1; § 6.2). Looijenga does not address the question of why a reflex of */g/ would be spelled h here: is it supposed to represent a fricative *[]? There is certainly no possible motivation for devoicing of *[] > *[x]; nor of the Second Consonant Shift being involved (the shift of */k/ > /x/ precedes */g/ > /k/ – § 2.5.1.2.4). 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal This inscription contains two reflexes of */x/ (hari M hari < PGmc *xariz/ *xarjaz “army”, either a name-element or an independent noun (§ 5.1); hagal M hagal < PGmc *xaglaz/*xaglan “hail” (M “destruction”?) (§ 6.1)); one of */k/ (kunni M kunni < PGmc *kunjan “kin, people” (§ 4.1)); and one of */g/ (hagal). None of these presents us with any difficulties. 86. †Weser II bone lokom : her All commentators regard lokom as a verb-form (to PGmc *l¯ok¯ojanan “to look”, or possibly *lukk¯ojanan “to entice”), though there is disagreement about the inflection (§ 4.1). In either case, k is a reflex of */k/ (a geminate */k:/ if *lukk¯ojanan is the etymon). The interpretation of her as h¯er < PGmc *x¯e2r “here” is not controversial in itself, although Nedoma (2004a:326) objects to a directional interpretation “hither” (§ 5.1).
306
The consonants
87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede hari probably represents a reflex of PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army”, either as a name-element or as a common noun (§ 5.1). 88. Wijnaldum B pendant hiwi This is most plausibly interpreted as a pers.n. connected to PGmc *x¯ıwan “spouse( ? )”. For more detail, and discussion of an alternative etymon *xewjan “form( ? ), beauty( ? )”, see § 3.1.1. 89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi Complex I is uncontroversially treated as a mis-spelled form of a loanword from Lat scamellum/-us “footstool, step” (§ 5.1), with k representing /k/, although not in an etymon traceable to PGmc. lgu- in complex II is generally assumed to represent (a)lgu- < PGmc *algiz “elk, deer”. The compositional( ? ) vowel -u- presents some difficulties (discussed in detail in § 4.1). It is worth noting that where it is attested in the WGmc dialects, the “elk”-word has a root in /-x-/ (OE eolh, OHG elah(h)o), suggesting a protoform in */-x-/, as against ON elgr < *algiz (hence the vacillation in reconstructions between *algiz and *elxaz/*elx¯on). This does not by any means exclude the possibility of a form *alg- in a 5th-century dialect in the northern part of the Continental interior (or in the south, for that matter); but it should at least give us reason for caution. In § 4.1 I also discussed the possibility that lgu is connected with PGmc *laguz “lake” or *lagan “law”. This is not phonologically impossible, but it is semantically odd, whereas the “elk/deer” interpretation is more congruent with the pictorial design on the stool. The connection between skaÂi and PGmc *skaÂjanan “to harm” is not disputed, though the grammatical classification of the word represented here is uncertain (§ 5.1). For our present purposes, we can be confident that k represents a reflex of PGmc */k/.
The obstruents
307
90. Wurmlingen spearhead ?:dorih The hypothesis that the initial sign should be read as a k-rune representing the pronoun ik is no longer accepted (§ 5.1). dorih M DÕr¯ıh, a dithematic MN with a deuterotheme < PGmc *r¯ıkz “ruler” or *r¯ıkjaz “noble” (§ 5.1), is the only alleged runic witness to the Second Consonant Shift which is generally accepted in the runological literature and beyond: it is cited by Braune and Reiffenstein (§ 87b Anm. 5) as the earliest witness to the shift of */k/. Schwerdt (2000:237), however, identifies it as a case of “pseudo-Consonant Shift” (§ 7.1.3.2.1).
7.1.3.2 Summary 7.1.3.2.1 PGmc */k/ In four places we have h spellings which are alleged to represent the fricative arising from PGmc */k/ via the Second Consonant Shift: 30. Hailfingen I alisrh (Arntz’ reading) M Alisr¯ıh < -r¯ık; 57. Nordendorf II el? M elh < elk (Looijenga only); 60. Osthofen d?h M dih < Âik; 90. Wurmlingen dorih M DÕrr¯ıh < -r¯ık. Only the Wurmlingen example has gained general acceptance. Krause’s interpretation of Osthofen is much repeated, although it rests on a doubtful transliteration (see Arntz and Zeiss 1939:309–319). The other two cases are based on even more speculative transliterations; and as I have argued above, Looijenga’s treatment of Nordendorf el? is not plausible, even if her reading elk is correct. Schwerdt (2000:220–221), following Höfler (1957:295–313), ascribes all of the putative examples of /k/ > /x/ to a “pseudo-Consonant Shift” (the term was coined by Goosens (1968), not Höfler), an independent process by which reflexes of PGmc */k/ are lenited to fricatives in syllables not bearing primary stress. This “pseudo-Consonant Shift” particularly affects small functionwords such as personal pronouns and the conjugation OE ac ~ ah “but”; as well as the suffix OS -l¯ık ~ -l¯ıh ~ -l¯ıhc, OHG -l¯ıc~ -l¯ıch ~ -l¯ıh “like”. The process is (according to Höfler) attested in Go, Vand, OE, OS, OWN and OEN. Nedoma (2004a:286–287) rejects “pseudo-Consonant Shift” as an explanation for Wurmlingen -rih (contra Schwerdt 2000:237). His objections centre on Höfler’s claim that forms of EGmc MNs in -r¯ık spelled with Greek or Roman are evidence of the pseudo-shift. Nedoma notes that in
308
The consonants
Greek transliterations of Gothic names, is commonly used as the equivalent to Gothic in medial and final position, but only rarely for . In Latin sources, is the normal spelling. He allows that the alternate spellings might indicate that Go /k/ is aspirated or affricated; but not that it is a fricative. Nedoma argues further that the name-element -r¯ık is a heavy syllable and therefore carries secondary stress, whereas such function words as ik > ih, mik > mih are unstressed, and so Höfler’s appeal to lack of stress as a motivator for lenition does not hold for this element. Nedoma does not, however, mention the suffix -l¯ık > -l¯ıh, which is phonologically as close a parallel to -r¯ık as we could ask for. Schützeichel (1976:278–279), also citing Höfler, notes that forms in of -l¯ıch, as well as sich, ich, och, appear in a large area north of the Benrath line (and unshifted forms appear south of it); he infers that the Wurmlingen inscription could indeed be a product of the same process. Taking Schützeichel’s point into consideration, I hesitate to rule out the possibility that */k/ is subject to lenition in unstressed final syllables independently of the Consonant Shift.
7.1.3.2.2 PGmc */g/ We have a substantial number of probable reflexes of */g/ represented as g, and comparatively few cases – all of them open to doubt – where sound change might have intervened. The corpus contains two putative examples of k representing a reflex of */g/ devoiced via the Second Consonant Shift: 8. Balingen amilu? M amiluk M Amilu(n)k (< -ung); and 76. Stetten amelkud M Amelku(n)d (< -gunÂ). The Balingen example is the less plausible of the two: it is doubtful whether k is present at all, and amilu is plausibly interpretable as it stands (§ 4.1). Stetten is more promising, although the transliteration is certainly open to doubt, given the minute size and poor condition of the inscription. The relatively late date (see § 1.1.2, and catalogue) makes it possible to maintain that shifted /k/ < */g/ is present here, without making a similar claim for the rest of the corpus; see further § 7.1.2.2.3; § 7.1.4.1; § 8.2.1. In several places we may (according to some interpretations) have a reflex of */g/ = *[] assimilated by a following vocalic: *[-w-] > *[-ww-] (12. Bopfingen mauo; 82. Weimar IV Â/wiuÂ/w M Âiuw); *[ai-] > *[aji-] > *[ai-] (61. Pforzen I aigil, aï/lrun M aïlrun). The alleged examples of palatalisation in Pforzen are problematic, and I agree with Nedoma that we can more reasonably interpret the surface forms ai-, aï- as reflexes of PGmc */ai/
The obstruents
309
(§ 3.2.1.1; § 3.2.3.2). The assimilation of *[] by following *[w] – either at a very early stage, or as independent processes in the various Gmc dialects – is supported by the attested reflexes (Go mawi, Âius etc.); but Bopfingen mauo has other possible interpretations which are at least as plausible, while the Weimar example relies on a particular transliteration of two ambiguous runes (Âiuw is peculiar to Looijenga, the more popular reading in the literature being Âiu – see catalogue). If any of these cases is considered to be valid, the assimilation must point to an underlying fricative *[], not a plosive *[g]. This does not imply that the CRun dialects of the inscriptions themselves have a fricative allophone of /g/; but if /g/ is a plosive in all positions, then the generalisation of the plosive must postdate the vocalisation of *[]. The only other possible evidence we have for a fricative allophone of */g/ in the corpus is 7. Aschheim II ahi, if this is related to names in Agi- (which is very doubtful).
7.1.3.2.3 PGmc */x/ Wherever we can be certain that we have a reflex of */x/ in the corpus, it is represented h. The only possible exceptions are those cases where an etymological */x/ (> /h/) has been deleted (or omitted in the orthography): 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I arwi M Ar(a)w¯ı(h); 39. Hüfingen I ota M o¯ hta 49. Liebenau ra … M ra?zwi M Ra(u)zw¯ı(h); 57. Nordendorf II io M j¯o(h); 69. Schretzheim III gabar M Gaba(ha)r(i); 82. Weimar IV Â/wiu M wiu M w¯ı(h)ju (my modification of Arntz’ implausible interpretation). All of these except arwi present difficulties independent of the question of absent */x/; and arwi can readily be interpreted without assuming etymological */x/. Hüfingen ota is likely to be an imitation of the identical sequence on Scandinavian bracteates, so we have good reason to doubt that we are dealing with a Continental word: if it represents a reflex of *¯oxt¯on, then it would appear that */x/ has been deleted; but this probably reflects assimilation in PNorse (*/¯oxt-/ > */¯ot:-/) rather than any similar process in CRun. Although /h/-deletion does occur before /t/ in OS, there do not seem to be any parallels in OHG. If o¯ ta < *¯oxt¯on is a Continental WGmc form, it would appear to have fem. gender (on the n-stems and the question of gender assignment, see Findell 2010). Liebenau ra?zwi and Weimar wiu- are uncertain transliterations of sequences which are not easily legible. Likewise, Nordendorf II is widely regarded as uninterpretable. Schretzheim III is a “rune-cross” which can be read in a variety of ways, and the cross itself may be simply a “carrier” for the other runes and not a g at all.
310
The consonants
If, despite these reservations, we take these sequences seriously as possible examples of */x/-omission (or h-omission), three of them involve a reflex of */x/ in postvocalic final position (arwi, ra?zwi M -w¯ı(h) < *-w¯ıx-; io M j¯o(h) < *j¯o-x-). Two are intervocalic (wiu < w¯ı(hj)u; gabar < Gaba(ha)r(i)); in both cases, the vowel following */x/ is similar to that preceding it, and may be assimilated (*/w¯ıxju/ > */w¯ıju/ > */w¯ıu/?; */gabahari/ > */gaba.ari/ > */gabari/). In the remaining example, */x/ precedes */t/ (ota M o¯ ta < *¯oxta-). These are all contexts in which is omitted in some OHG and/or OS witnesses (§ 2.5.1.4.2). On the other hand, the -omissions in OHG are not consistent, which might suggest that OHG /h/ is lenited in these positions, but has not been systematically deleted. None of the putative instances of h-omission can be shown to be impossible; but none of them can be upheld with any confidence. If any of them is correct, the most reasonable explanation of the absence of h would be that it is an orthographic omission, perhaps reflecting a conditioned lenition – but not true deletion – of */x/. We have no parallel examples of final */-x/ or of the cluster */xt/ against which to test a hypothetical process of omission. Intervocalic h is present in 4. Aschheim II ahi; 10. Bezenye I godahid; 18. Donzdorf eho; 61. Pforzen I ltahu/elahu; 83. Weingarten I feha; but in none of these cases do we have -vowels of similar quality, as in w¯ıhju, Gabahari.
7.1.4 Conclusions on the obstruents 7.1.4.1 The Second Consonant Shift The evidence for the Second Consonant Shift is scant, and most of the alleged examples are based on problematic readings. Excluding those which we can reject with confidence (§ 7.1.2.2.2; § 7.1.3.2.1; § 7.1.3.2.2), we are left with the following possible (though in most cases unlikely) witnesses: /d/ > /t/: 19. Eichstetten muni M munt /g/ > /k/: 8. Balingen amilu? M Amilu(n)k 76. Stetten amelkud M Amelku(n)d /k/ > /x/: 30. Hailfingen I alisrh (Arntz’ reading) M Alisr¯ıh 60. Osthofen d?h M dih 90. Wurmlingen dorih M DÕrr¯ıh Aside from these, the reflexes of the PGmc obstruents are generally spelled as we would expect without the Consonant Shift: */t/ = t; */k/ = k; */b/ = b; */d/ = d; */g/ = g (we have no data for */p/). If any part of the the shift is active in the
The obstruents
311
dialects of the inscriptions, it is not normally reflected in runic orthography. As mentioned in the introduction to the chapter, this does not necessarily mean that the obstruents have not undergone phonetic changes which do not need to be marked orthographically: if */p t k/ are affricated in certain environments, or indeed in all environments, there is no need for a carver to distinguish them from an unaffricated stop. The same can be said for devoicing of */b d g/. Of the cases under consideration, only Wurmlingen dorih is accepted by the runological community at large; and even this is rejected by Schwerdt (2000:220–221) as a case of “pseudo-Consonant Shift” (§ 7.1.3.2.1). She concedes that Stetten -kud, being datable to the late 7th century, may be allowable as a witness to the Medienverschiebung (in this case */g/ > /k/); but she maintains that the Consonant Shift had not begun in the period when most of the inscriptions were produced (2000:238). Stetten and Wurmlingen are undoubtedly the most promising candidates, and it is important to note that both of them involve relatively late stages of the Consonant Shift. If there is some UG dialect in the late 7th century in which */g/ > /k/ in morpheme-initial position, indicated by -kud M -gu(n)Â, then the relative chronology of the shift (§ 2.5.1.2.4) would require us to infer that in this dialect at least, the preceding stages (shift of */g/ in other positions; shift of */b d/; and the Tenuisverschiebung as a whole) had also taken place. The interpretation of -kud as witness to the shift of */g/ is certainly compatible with that of Wurmlingen -rih as witness to the shift of */k/ (see further § 8.2.1). Nevertheless, it is difficult to reconcile this with the overwhelming preference for representing obstruents as if they were unshifted, even in relatively late inscriptions (e.g., 7. Bad Krozingen A boba vs. *bopa > *popa, leub vs. *leup, agirike vs. *akirihe; 55. Niederstotzingen liub vs. *liup; 62. Pforzen II aodli vs. *aotliÂ/*aotlid). To accept the Stetten and/or Wurmlingen examples, we would have to accept that at least in some dialects, the entire Consonant Shift takes place between c.600 and c.680/690; or that at least some of the shifted consonants are present in the 6th century but are not represented orthographically. If we do not accept either of these hypotheses, then we must find some alternative explanation for the apparent shifted consonants of Stetten and Wurmlingen. We could dispute the accepted transliteration of the former (which is not unreasonable, given its small size); or we could follow Nedoma (2004a:182–184) in doubting the existence of a runic inscription. This type of approach carries the potential danger of trying to explain away data simply because they appear to show something we do not expect. It would be easier to reject Stetten as a witness to the Consonant Shift if such an interpretation were demonstrably implausible, or if an equally plausible interpretation could be found without invoking the Consonant Shift (and, in this case, the despirantisation of */θ/); this possibility is explored in § 7.1.2.2.3.
312
The consonants
We could interpret Wurmlingen -rih as a case of “pseudo-Consonant Shift”, if we believe in such a process. Another possibility, mentioned in § 5.1, would be to accept dori as a pers.n. DÕri; but this leaves us in the position of having to explain away the extraneous h as a Begriffsrune or other abbreviation – an assertion which is not testable. If our aim is to seek an explanation without the Consonant Shift, these alternatives seem to throw up as many difficulties as they solve. In assessing the evidence for the Second Consonant Shift, then, we are left with three possible explanations of the data: 1. All the apparent witnesses to the Consonant Shift are red herrings of one kind or another, and there is no Consonant Shift in the “runic” period. 2. Stetten and/or Wurmlingen contain shifted consonants, while earlier parallels (-gun in 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂgu and 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ; -r¯ık in 7. Bad Krozingen agirike) do not. Because they attest to relatively late stages of the Second Consonant Shift, the whole process would appear to have taken place during the 7th century. 3. Stetten and/or Wurmlingen contain shifted consonants; and the shift is present at an earlier stage, but is obscured by conservative or archaic spelling practices.
7.1.4.2 Spirantenschwächung We have no compelling evidence for the existence of voiced allophones of */f s θ/, or for the allophony of */x/. Reflexes of */f/ are invariably spelled f (§ 7.1.1.2.3), and those of */x/ are invariably h (§ 7.1.3.2.3). The possible f-spellings of reflexes of */b/ (§ 7.1.1.2.2) would, if taken at face value, imply that both */b/ and */f/ can be realised as voiced fricatives; but none of them is entirely convincing. The two possible cases of z M *[z] < */s/ (§ 7.1.2.2.4) are both in relatively early inscriptions (35. Hitsum; 49. Liebenau), and are more plausibly to be explained as reflexes of */z/ (§ 7.1.2.2.5). The evidence relating to */θ/ is more complicated (§ 7.1.2.2.3): several d spellings may indicate the presence of a voiced fricative *[ð] or a plosive *[d] < */θ/; but all of the examples are problematic. The lack of positive evidence for Spirantenschwächung or for the despirantisation of */θ/ does not, of course, mean that the voiced allophones do not exist: but if we are to postulate that these variants are present in at least some CRun dialects, then we must claim that orthographic practice renders them invisible but for occasional – and ambiguous – hints.
The sonorants
313
7.1.4.3 Initial and final devoicing We have only two instances of spellings which might reflect a final devoicing process independent of the Consonant Shift (§ 2.5.1.4.1): Balingen amilu? M amiluk; Eichstetten muni M munt (I am excluding the possible reflexes of */t/ spelled d, as these are more plausibly explained in terms of assimilation to a preceding consonant than as examples of final devoicing – § 7.1.2.2.1). In both cases, the reading of the devoiced consonant is doubtful, and it must be considered alongside more reliable witnesses with */-b -d -g/ M -b -d -g (e.g., 20. Engers leub; 3. Arlon rasuwamud; 79. Weimar I haribrig). In order to maintain that any such sound change is present, we would have to argue that the majority of spellings are not representative of the phonetic reality.
7.2 The sonorants As noted in § 2.5.2, the sonorants undergo no significant changes in the later dialects, apart from the delabialisation of */m/ > OHG OS /n/. We may find evidence for this process and/or for the various assimilations affecting the sonorants (and in particular, the question of orthographic non-representation vs. phonetic assimilation of nasals); and we can look to the runic data for evidence bearing on their phonetic character.
7.2.1 The “liquids” (PGmc */l r/) 7.2.1.1 Data 1. Aalen neckring noru This inscription probably contains a pers.n. < PGmc *n¯oraz “little” (§ 4.1). A less plausible etymon, favoured by Kaufmann, is *nori- : Skt narya- “manly”. On the inflectional suffix, see § 4.1; § 4.4.2. 2. Aquincum fibula [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia The interpretations of ?lain are discussed in § 3.2.1. ?l is widely regarded as uninterpretable, but Grønvik (1985:179) connects ?lain with PGmc *klainiz
314
The consonants
“fine, pure( ? )” M “pretty”. Looijenga (2003a:227) interprets ?l as the termination of a pers.n. 3. Arlon capsule godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…) Although it is widely agreed that ( ? )ulo represents a weakly inflected MN, its identity and etymology are not recoverable (§ 4.1). rasuwamud is a dithematic MN in R¯asuwa- < PGmc *r¯eswa- “counsel” (§ 4.1). The transliteration of woÊro is uncertain: the sequence is thought to represent a MN, with a stem W¯or- < PGmc *w¯oragaz/*w¯origaz “weary”; or W¯oÂ-r-, related to PGmc *w¯odaz “mad” (§ 4.1). 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ The consensus is that madali is a MN < PGmc *maÂlan “assembly( ? )”, perhaps via a Verner’s Law alternant *madla- (§ 5.1; § 7.1.2.1). 7. Bad Krozingen A fibula [I] boba:leub [II] agirike leub is uncontroversially connected with PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (§ 3.1.1). Also unproblematic is the interpretation of agirike as a dat. form of a dithematic MN in -r¯ık < PGmc *r¯ıkz “ruler” or *r¯ıkjaz “noble, princely” (§ 5.1). 8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? In spite of difficulties with transliteration, dnlo is treated throughout the literature as a MN D(a)n(i)lo (although alternatives D¯un-, D¯on- have been mentioned), with the dim. suffix /-il-/ < PGmc */-il-/ (§ 5.1). amilu? is thought to be connected to the royal family name Amil/Amal. The etymology is unclear (§ 5.1), but -il- is again likely to represent the dim. suffix.
The sonorants
315
9. Beuchte fibula [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso In complex II we have a MN BŒriso (or a FN B¯uris¯o?) with a stem < PGmc *b¯uran “dwelling( ? )” or *buriz “son” (§ 4.1). 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid godahid represents a FN in -hi(l)d < PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle”, with */l/ not represented (compare 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild). Krause (1966:309; 1971:34–35) cites parallels in OHG Adalhid, Albhid; and in the Scandinavian runic tradition, Kjølevik stone (KJ 75) hagustadaz vs. Valsfjord rock carving (KJ 55) hagustaldaz. Krause suggests that the omission might be motivated by the articulatory similarity between the two consonants, but he does not go so far as to posit a regular process of assimilation. No-one else has suggested that the omission of l is phonetically or phonologically significant. 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun Complex I probably contains a pers.n. in Arsi-, but the etymology of this element is uncertain (§ 5.1; § 7.1.2.1). 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? fridil is most plausibly interpreted as a MN with a stem Fr¯ıd- < PGmc *fridjanan “to take care of ” (§ 5.1); a connection with OHG fri(u)dil “friend, beloved, husband” is widely accepted, but problematic (§ 7.1.2.1). The termination -il- is probably a nominalising suffix (< PGmc */-il-az/) added to a verbal base (§ 5.1). The preceding fri- may reflect reduplication of the same stem as fridil, or may be connected with the adjective fr¯ı < PGmc *fr¯ıjaz “free” (§ 5.1). If l is present in complex III, it remains uninterpreted.
316
The consonants
15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) [II] :uÂfnÂai:id [III] dan:liano [IV] ïia [V] k r liano is usually assumed to be a MN Liano, of unknown etymology. Alternative (but doubtful) interpretations are lai(h)nÕ (3.pl.opt.) “may they grant”, to PGmc *laixwn¯on (Gutenbrunner, cited by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:191); and laion “lion” = Go *laion Opitz (1987:115–116) (§ 3.2.1). 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) The initial sequence is normally regarded as illegible, but Fischer (2007:133) suggests a reading danil, representing a MN similar to 8. Balingen dnlo (§ 5.1). Opitz (1982:485–486) reads the final sequence as wiwol M w¯ı wol “how well”, with wol < PGmc *wel¯o(n)/*wal¯o(n) (§ 4.1). Schwerdt (2000:207–208) accepts this transliteration and suggests that -wol? might represent a MN in -wolf < PGmc *wulfaz “wolf ”. Neither of these interpretations is phonologically problematic, but the reading of l here is uncertain. 20. Engers fibula leub That this inscription contains a reflex of PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (probably a zero-inflected pers.n. Leub) is not controversial (§ 3.1.1). 21. Erpfting fibula lda·gabu It is possible that lda represents a FN (Hi)lda, but this is very uncertain (§ 5.1; § 7.1.3.1). 22. Ferwerd comb case ?( ? )ura mur (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:371). ura may be a pers.n. < PGmc *¯uruz “aurochs”. If the correct reading is mura, it might be connected with PGmc *murr¯ojanan “to murmur” (§ 5.1).
The sonorants
317
23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida There is no doubt that wraetruna is to be interpreted as wrait r¯una “wrote rune(s)” (§ 3.2.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.3.1). golida is usually interpreted as 1./3.sg.pret. to PGmc *g¯oljanan “to greet, make happy”. Other possible etyma are *gl¯oo¯ janan “to glow” (wk.) and *galanan “to sing, enchant( ? )” (§ 4.1). 24. Fréthun I sword pommel h?e?( ? ) This inscription is barely legible, but it may represent a pers.n. in Hle-, perhaps Hlem- < PGmc *xlammiz “noise( ? )”. This is a tentative speculation (§ 5.1; § 6.1); we cannot be confident that l is present. 25. Friedberg fibula ÂuruÂhild This inscription is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic FN with a prototheme < PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/*Âr¯uÂij¯o “strength” (§ 4.1) and a deuterotheme < PGmc *xeldiz/*xeldj¯o “battle” (§ 5.1). Nedoma (2004a:413) infers from the presence of an anaptyctic vowel that /r/ has a velar/uvular articulation, since anaptyctic vowels do not appear between homorganic consonants (BR § 69b Anm.4). It seems to me that we are here dealing with a problem arising from the traditional identification of a class of “dental” consonants, including both those which are probably alveolar or postalveolar (PGmc */t d s z n/ and perhaps */r/ – § 2.4.3; § 2.5.2.1.1) and those which are interdental or postdental (*/θ/). If we break with this tradition and classify these consonants more precisely, it can be seen that /θ/ is not homorganic with an apical */r/. The articulation of the cluster */θr-/ = *[θɾ] / *[θr] involves not only a change in the place but also the manner of articulation, as well as voicing onset. I would suggest that there is ample articulatory distance between the components to motivate vowel epenthesis, without positing a back articulation of */r/. The “standard” OHG reflex of PGmc */θ/, by contrast, is /d/, which is alveolar and therefore homorganic with apical /r/; so it is entirely unsurprising that no epenthetic vowel appears in OHG /dr-/. None of this is positive evidence for an apical articulation of */r/; but Nedoma’s argument for dorsal [r] on the strength of the anaptyctic vowel is not valid.
318
The consonants
Although the name-element *Âr¯uÂ- is well attested (compare 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ; see also Förstemann 1900:422–427), there are no other witnesses with vowel-anaptyxis. A possible parallel is 56. Nordendorf I logaÂore, although this has other interpretations (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1). It is also possible that the alternation wr- ~ ur- indicates reanalysis of */w/ as an anaptyctic vowel between */θ/ and */r/ (§ 4.2.5). 27. Geltorf II-A bracteate lalgwu Although this inscription is usually regarded as uninterpretable, Arntz (1937:7) mentions the possibility that al should be expanded to the “formula-word” alu “ale/magic/protection”, here glossed “amulet” (§ 4.1; § 7.1.1.1). I consider this extremely doubtful. 28. Gomadingen fibula [I] (g) [II] iglug/n [III] ?… iglug/n may be a pers.n. connected with PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz “hedgehog” or *¯ıgwaz/*¯ıxwaz “yew”; or with the etymologically obscure name-element Ing-; or a meaningless stem Ig-. If the “hedgehog”-word is not the etymon, then l may belong to a suffix */-il-/, of uncertain identity (meaningless stemalternant? diminutive?) (see § 4.1; § 5.1). 29. Griesheim fibula [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru Complex I probably represents a MN Kolo < PGmc *kulan “coal, charcoal”; other possibilities have been raised, but these are doubtful (§ 4.1). In complex II we have a dithematic FN with a deuterotheme < PGmc *Âr¯uÂiz/ *Âr¯uÂij¯o “strength” (§ 4.1). The prototheme is probably an extension of the base Ag- < PGmc *agez/*agan “fear” with a meaningless suffix */-la-/ (§ 5.1). 30. Hailfingen I sax alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). Arntz’ interpretation of the initial sequence as a MN Alis-r¯ıh (Alis- < PGmc *al(l)as “of all” (gen.sg.masc./neut.), or *aliz¯o/*alis¯o “alder”; r¯ıh < PGmc *r¯ıkz “ruler” or *r¯ıkjaz “noble” via Second Consonant Shift) is discussed in detail in § 5.1.
The sonorants
319
If Arntz’ reading is accepted, a second reflex of */l/ appears in laÂa M laÂa, acc.sg. to PGmc *la¯o “invitation, invocation” (§ 6.1). 32. †Hainspach pendant lÂsr (Krause 1935c:122–123). On Krause’s expansion of l M l(a)Â(a) “invitation, invocation”, see § 6.1 (and compare 31. Hailfingen I, above). 33. Heide-B bracteate alu That we are dealing with the “formula-word” alu “ale/magic/protection” is universally accepted, although it is far from certain that the dialect is WGmc (§ 4.1). 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I belt fitting ( ? )?arwi arwi probably represents a pers.n. < PGmc *arwaz “ready” (§ 4.1). A connection with *arbjan “inheritance” is not plausible; a credible (though not unproblematic) alternative is that we are dealing with a dithematic name in Ar-, which might be still be a reflex of *arwaz, or perhaps of *ar¯on “eagle” (compare 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis; 67. Schretzheim I arogis). 35. Hitsum-A bracteate [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la The alternative readings of complex II are: glola, a pers.n. with a stem < PGmc *gl¯oo¯ janan “to glow” and the dim. suffix */-il-/; and groba, connected with PGmc *gr¯ob¯o “hole, pit”, or with some other variant of the root *grab-/*gr¯ob- “dig, bury” (§ 4.1). 36. Hohenstadt fibula (…)(i)galu Pieper (2010:3) treats alu as the “formula-word” alu “ale/magic/protection” (§ 4.1). It is possible that (i)gal- represents a name-element < PGmc *igilaz/ *igulaz “hedgehog”, but the form -a- makes this unlikely (§ 6.1).
320
The consonants
37. Hoogebeintum comb [I] ?nlu [II] (ded) The l in complex I is uninterpretable: the complex may represent a pers.n. (compare the similar termination of 8. Balingen amilu). 38. Hüfingen I Kleinbrakteat [I] VVIT (????) [II] alu Complex II clearly represents the “formula-word” alu “ale/magic/protection” (§ 4.1). As I suggested in the earlier discussions, this may be a case of simple script-imitation. 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula [I] aunr?d [II] d The transliteration of complex I as aunrad M Aunr¯ad, a MN with a deuterotheme < PGmc *r¯edaz/*r¯edan “counsel, advice” (or from the related adjective) is widely accepted (§ 5.1). 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag That hailag is a reflex of PGmc *xailagaz “holy” is not disputed (though the doubtful authenticity of this item limits its usefulness) (§ 3.2.1). 44. Kirchheim/Teck I fibula bada( ? )h?ali h?ali may be connected with *xailagaz “holy”, or with a derived verb *(ga-)xailjanan “to heal, save”, or a noun *xail¯ın “salvation” (Looijenga 2003a:245). Looijenga’s transliteration is questionable, however (§ 3.2.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1).
45. Kirchheim/Teck II fibula arugis We are dealing here with a dithematic MN Arugis, with a prototheme probably < PGmc *arwaz “ready”, or perhaps < *ar¯on “eagle” (compare 67. Schretzheim I arogis) (§ 4.1).
The sonorants
321
46. †Kleines Schulerloch cave wall inscription birg : leub : selbrade This inscription contains two reflexes of */r/ (birg M Birg < PGmc *berg¯o “protection”, or perhaps birg, 2.sg.imp. to PGmc *berganan “to protect”; -rade M r¯ade, dat.sg. to PGmc *r¯edaz “counsel”) and two of */l/ (leub M leub < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely”, possibly as a substantive or pers.n.; selb- M Selb- < PGmc *selbaz/*selb¯on “self ”). These interpretations (with the variants mentioned) are generally accepted, though they are not without difficulties (§ 5.1). 49. Liebenau bronze disc ra … Alternative reading: ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138). If Düwel’s transliteration and interpretation as a dithematic MN Ra(u)zw¯ı are accepted, the prototheme is probably a reflex of PGmc *rausan/*rauzan “reed” M “spear, sword” (§ 3.3.2). Nedoma (2004a:398–399) is cautious about this interpretation, but allows that we are probably dealing with a pers.n. with initial */r-/. 51. München-Aubing I fibula [I] segalo [II] sigila Both complexes are believed to contain pers.ns. with a stem < PGmc *segez/ *segan “victory”. The -il- of sigila can be interpreted as the dim. suffix */-il-/; but this is less plausible for the -al- of segalo. Nedoma (2004a:406–407) interprets both names as abbreviated forms of dithematic names with a deuterotheme in */l-/. Looijenga’s attempt to connect the names with OE sigle “brooch” is doubtful (§ 5.1). 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? Although the transliteration is uncertain, Düwel’s interpretation of klef as 1./3.sg.pret. to PGmc *kl¯ıbanan “to stick( ? ), to climb( ? )” is generally accepted (§ 3.2.2; § 7.1.1.1). The following sequence (with f treated as a haplograph) may be fil M fil or filli “garment”, possibly < PGmc *faldan “fold”, or *falÂanan “to fold”, or *fellan “skin”, or possibly *feltaz “felt” (§ 5.1; § 7.1.2.1).
322
The consonants
54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna There is little doubt that imuba represents a FN (§ 4.1; § 5.1), but the etymology of Im- is uncertain: it may be related to names in Irmin- (< PGmc *ermenaz/*ermunaz “great, tall( ? )”), with assimilation of */r/. This type of assimilation before a consonant is attested in OHG pers.ns. (§ 2.5.2.1). lbi is usually assumed to be an abbreviated form of l(iu)b¯ı “love” < PGmc *leub¯ın (3.1.1). We have two further reflexes of */l/ in the pers.ns. hamale M Hamale (dat.) and bliÂgu M Bl¯ıÂgu(n)Â. The etymology of Bl¯ıÂ- < PGmc *bl¯ıÂ(j)az “blithe, happy” is unproblematic (§ 5.1). The most plausible etymon for Hamale is PGmc *xamalaz “cropped”; Opitz’ attempt to treat the name as a hypocorism in */-al-/ to a base Hama < PGmc *xam¯on “skin, dress” is unconvincing (§ 6.1). Two reflexes of */r/ are present in uraitruna M wrait r¯unł “wrote rune(s)” (§ 3.2.1; § 4.1). 55. Niederstotzingen strap end [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? The only clearly intelligible part of this inscription is liub M liub < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (§ 3.1.1). 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? The etymology of logaÂore is much debated: log- is probably connected with PGmc *leug- “lie” or *lug¯on/*lux¯on “flame”, or possibly *l¯og- “place”; and -Âor- possibly < *Âurisaz “giant, demon” or *Âur¯enan “to dare”, or an agentive suffix */-θra-/ (§ 4.1; § 5.1). That Âonar = Âonar < PGmc *Âunraz “thunder” (or the identical theonym) is not disputed. leub is identified with PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely”, usually interpreted as the prototheme of a pers.n. Leubwini (nom.?/acc.?/dat?) (§ 3.1.1; § 5.1).
The sonorants
323
57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? All interpretations of this inscription are uncertain, but birl? may represent a pers.n. in Bir- < PGmc *ber¯on “bear”, or perhaps *berxtaz “bright” or *berilaz “pot( ? )” (< *beranan “to carry”). If the latter is the case, l belongs to the nominalising suffix */-il-/, whereas in the “bear” interpretation (Looijenga 2003a:251), it belongs to the dim. */-il-/ (§ 5.1). The interpretation of the second l is even more uncertain: Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:305) speculates that el? may be a pers.n. Eling (of unknown etymology). Looijenga’s reading elk M elk “elk” is implausible (§ 7.1.3.1). 58. Oberflacht spoon gba:/idulÂafd That dul represents a reflex of PGmc *dulÂiz “festival” is generally accepted (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1). 59. Oettingen fibula a?ijabrg Although the beginning of the inscription is only partially legible, -brg is invariably interpreted as a deuterotheme -b(i)rg < PGmc *berg¯o “protection” (§ 5.1). 60. Osthofen fibula go?:furad?hdeofile? The interpretations of fura M fura “before, in front of ” < PGmc *fura or furad M furad < *fraÂaz “strong” are discussed in § 4.1; § 7.1.2.1. The former seems to me more plausible, but still uncertain. It is generally accepted that deofile represents the loanword from Lat. diabolus or LLat *diuvalus “Devil”; the proposed connection with the MN Theophilus is doubtful (§ 3.1.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1).
324
The consonants
61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun? [II] ltahu·gasokun? aigil is a MN Aigil, probably with the nominalising suffix */-il-/ (compare 14. Bülach fridil) (§ 5.1). A connection with Agila- (see 29. Griesheim agilaÂruÂ) can be rejected with some confidence (§ 3.2.1). If aï/lrun represents a name in Ail-, the most plausible etymon is PGmc *ailan “fire”. It has, like aigil, been interpreted as a reflex of Agila-, but this is unlikely (§ 7.1.3.1). The other possible readings are (i) all- M All- < PGmc *allaz “all” (or possibly allrun M alr¯un “mandrake” < PGmc *ala-r¯un¯o?); and (ii) allu- M alu < PGmc *alu “ale/magic/protection”, or alu- < PGmc *alb- “white” (doubtful – see § 7.1.1.1), or a variant of alis < PGmc *alis¯o/*aliz¯o “alder” (§ 4.1; § 6.1). The sequence with l in complex II is also ambiguous: if it is read elahu, it is probably derived from < PGmc *elxaz/*elx¯on “elk, deer” (§ 5.1). Schwab (1999b:64–67) suggests a compound in eli- < PGmc *aljaz “foreign, other” or e¯ l- < *¯elaz “eel”, but neither of these is phonologically plausible (§ 5.1; § 6.1). Interpretations based on the reading lt- include Wagner’s aŋil- M Angil- < PGmc *ang(i)laz “Angle”, or *ang¯on “hook” with a dim.( ? ) suffix */-il-/ (§ 5.1); and Nedoma’s ltahu M a RN (I)lt-ahu/(A)lt-ahu, to *Il-/Al- “water, river” (§ 5.1; § 7.1.2.1). 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa Reflexes of */l/ are present in gisali M G¯ısali (< PGmc *g¯ıslaz “hostage” or *g¯ıslaz/*g¯ızlaz “arrow, spear”); and aodli M Aodli(n) (deuterotheme < PGmc *lenÂaz/*linÂijaz “mild”) (§ 5.1). The sequence preceding gisali contains two l-runes, but is uninterpretable (§ 4.1). urait:runa contains two clear reflexes of */r/, in wrait r¯unł “wrote runes” (§ 3.2.1; § 4.1).
The sonorants
325
64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] ( ? )riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) Steinhauser (1968a:7) interprets ( ? )riŋ as a MN Iring, with a stem Ir- of unknown etymology. This name is certainly attested, but Steinhauser’s transliteration is questionable and his mythological interpretation of the text as a whole even more so (§ 5.1). 66. Saint-Dizier sword pommel alu We have here another witness to the “formula-word” alu < PGmc *alu “ale/ magic/protection” (§ 4.1). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd alagu is invariably interpreted as a dithematic FN in Al(l)a- < PGmc *allaz “all” (§ 6.1), and leuba as a weakly inflected FN Leuba < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (§ 3.1.1). arogis is generally assumed to be a parallel to 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis, with a prototheme < PGmc *arwaz “ready” or *ar¯on “eagle” (§ 4.1). 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo Complex II is generally interpreted as a weakly inflected MN < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (with a fem. parallel in 67. Schretzheim I leuba) (§ 3.1.1). 69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r It is not clear whether we have r in this inscription. Interpretations which incorporate r include: arab M Ara(n)b(erht) (with Ara- < PGmc *ar¯on “eagle”); abar M Abar < PGmc *abraz “strong”; abar M abar- (abbreviation of the Mediterranean magical formula Abrasax/Abraxas); gabar M ga(m)bar < PGmc *gamb(a)raz “powerful”; gabar M Gaba-hari (deuterotheme < PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army”) (§ 6.1).
326
The consonants
70. Schwangau fibula aebi leob (Meli, cited by Düwel 1994b:277; Schwab 1998a:412). The reading leob M leob < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” has generally been rejected in favour of aebi (see catalogue; on the interpretation of aebi, see § 3.2.1). 71. Sievern-A bracteate rwrilu The emendation of wrilu M writu M wr¯ıtu “I write” (to PGmc *wr¯ıtanan) is undisputed. The preceding r is invariably treated as an abbreviation for the object of wr¯ıtu, PNorse r(¯un¯o) “rune, runic inscription” (acc.sg.) or r(¯un¯oz) “runes” (acc.pl.). If the text is WGmc (which, on formal grounds, it could be), then the expanded form would probably be *r(¯una) (acc.sg.), *r(¯un¯a) (acc.pl.) (§ 4.1). On the inflections of the o¯ -stems, see § 4.4. 72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid alawin and alawid are interpreted as zero-inflected MNs (PNorse voc.? WGmc nom.?) in Ala- < PGmc *allaz “all” (§ 4.1; § 6.1). 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu We have two probable reflexes of */l/ here: niuwila is thought to be a MN with the dim. suffix */-il-/ on a stem Niuwi- < PGmc *neujaz “new”; and lÊu is the formulaic element l(a)Âu < PGmc *la¯o “invitation, invocation” (§ 4.1). 74. Soest fibula [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano rada is probably a pers.n. (or possibly a formulaic “wish-word”) < PGmc *r¯edaz “counsel” (§ 5.1).
The sonorants
327
75. Steindorf sax ?husi?ald??( ? ) If we accept the very uncertain reading and interpretation of this inscription, it might contain a MN in -bald < PGmc *balÂaz/*baldaz “bold” or -wald < *waldanan “to rule” (§ 4.1). 76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f If we are correct in interpreting this as a FN Amelku(n)d, the prototheme is Amel-/Amal-, with */-el-/ apparently a meaningless( ? ) extension to a base Am- < PGmc *ama- “persist( ? ); annoy( ? )” (§ 5.1). On the deuterotheme, see § 4.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1. 77. Szabadbattyán buckle marŋs? The preferred interpretation of marŋ is as a MN M¯ar(i)ng, with a stem < PGmc *m¯erjaz “famous” (§ 5.1); although the etymon may be *marxaz “horse” or *mariz “sea, lake” (§ 6.1). 78. †Trier serpentine object [I]wilsa [II] wairwai In Schneider’s (dubious) interpretation, wilsa is an imp. form of the denominal verb *willis¯on “to desire greatly” (< PGmc *welis¯ojanan < *welj¯on?). If my alternative reading wilja is valid (and if the item is genuine), then we might be dealing with a pers.n. < *welj¯on “will” (§ 4.1). It is possible, though again questionable, that Schneider is correct in identifying wair- as a reflex of PGmc *waiza- “stalk; seaweed( ? )”, though his semantic extension “penis” is unjustified (§ 3.2.1). 79. Weimar I fibula [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· We have two reflexes of */l/ in liub(i) and leob, both < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” (the former possibly representing the ¯ın-stem *liub¯ın “love”) (§ 3.1.1); and two of */r/ in haribrig M Haribirg (Hari- < PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army”; -birg < *berg¯o “protection”).
328
The consonants
81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: hahwar is a dithematic MN, with the deuterotheme probably either -war < PGmc *waraz “wary” or -w¯ar < *w¯eraz “true” (§ 5.1; § 6.1). Despite the uncertain transliteration, leob is interpreted throughout the literature as a reflex of *leubaz “dear, lovely” (§ 3.1.1). 82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w That ?e?? should be read leob M leob < PGmc *leubaz “dear, lovely” is possible but uncertain (§ 3.1.1). The MN hahwar M H¯ahwłr is identical to that on 81. Weimar III, above. 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la The r of ali/er- is invariably interpreted as a reflex of PGmc */z/, either in alir< *alizo/*aliso “alder” or aer- < *aiz¯o “honour” (§ 7.1.2.1). There is no doubt that writ- represents the present stem of a reflex of *wr¯ıtanan “to write, carve” (§ 4.1). The following material is illegible, but several transliterations involving l have been proposed: writxla M wr¯ıtu alu “I carve protection” (Schwab 1998a:418; 1999a:14; Beck 2001:315–316); writ[i]la M Wr¯ıtila “(female) carver” (§ 4.1; § 4.4.3.3). These transliterations must be considered speculative. 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal latam in complex I is normally interpreted as part of the verb < PGmc *l¯etanan “to let”, although the inflectional ending is a topic of debate (§ 3.2.2). hari is uncontroversially connected with PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz “army”, either as a common noun or a name-element (§ 5.1). On the assignment of case, see § 3.2.2.
The sonorants
329
The interpretation of hagal as a reflex of PGmc *xaglaz/xaglan “hail” presents no difficulties (§ 6.1). 86. †Weser II bone lokom : her lokom is taken to be part of a verb < PGmc *l¯ok¯ojanan “to look”, or perhaps *lukk¯ojanan “to entice”, though – as with 85 †Weser I latam – there is some dispute about the inflection (§ 4.1). her is probably a reflex of PGmc *x¯e2r “here”, possibly in a directional sense “hither” (§ 5.1). 87. †Weser III bone ulu:hari dede Pieper (1987:240; 1989:182–183) identifies ulu as the prototheme of a MN Uluhari; the etymological connections he discusses (PGmc *uwwal¯on “owl”; or *wulÂuz “splendour”) are both phonologically problematic (§ 4.1). Nedoma (2004a:329) rejects both etymologies and tentatively suggests that ulu is the end of a pers.n. (compare 8. Balingen amilu). hari represents the “army”-word < PGmc *xariz/*xarjaz, as on 85. †Weser I; again, it could be the common noun “army” or a name-element (§ 5.1). 89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi Although the spelling has unusual features (metathesis and doubling of l), complex I probably represents a loanword from Lat. scamellum/-us “stool” (§ 5.1). lgu- is interpreted as (a)lgu- < PGmc *algiz “elk, deer” (with the initial vowel omitted and a curious compositional vowel); it is doubtful, though not impossible, that the sequence could represent a reflex of PGmc *laguz “lake” or *lagan “law” (§ 4.1).
330
The consonants
90. Wurmlingen spearhead ?:dorih r is normally treated as a haplograph in the dithematic MN DÕr-r¯ıh (etymology of DÕr- uncertain (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1); -r¯ıh < PGmc *r¯ıkz “ruler” or *r¯ıkjaz “noble” (§ 5.1; § 7.1.3.1)). If we accept Steinhauser’s (1968b:18–19) interpretation d¯o r¯ıh “make rich/powerful”, then only one reflex of */r/ is present (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1).
7.2.1.2 Summary and conclusions As is to be expected, there are few indications that the “liquids” are subject to any significant sound change. We have one credible example of assimilation of */r/ to a following consonant (55. Neudingen-Baar II imuba M */im:-/ < */irm-/). The omission of l in 10. Bezenye I godahid probably does not indicate that */l/ has been assimilated or deleted – compare 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild and perhaps 21. Erpfting lda. These are the only witnesses to the cluster */ld/; other clusters of */l/ + obstruent appear (with overt l) in 46. †Kleines Schulerloch selbrade; 58. Oberflacht dulÂ; (possibly) 61. Pforzen I ltahu; 89. Wremen lgu-; and perhaps 76. Stetten amelkud, although here a morpheme boundary intervenes. As we can see from the nasals (§ 7.2.2.2), orthographic omission before a homorganic obstruent is not obligatory. The later witnesses (OS hild(i), OHG hilt(i)a) indicate that /l/ is present. Its omission in the Bezenye inscription might indicate that it has a velarised or vocalised allophone *[ ] ~ *[w], similar to those found in some varieties of modG (Keller 1961), and the postvocalic “dark l” of modE. The dialects in which Keller identifies velarised or vocalised /l/ are Swiss and Upper Austrian varieties; while the Bezenye fibulae are traditionally defined as Langobardic (see catalogue). We might, then, hypothesise that godahid reflects a “Langobardic”( ? ) variety in which */l/ = *[ ] ~ *[w] in certain contexts (postvocalic?), and in which this feature has survived to the present day. Such a hypothesis can only be extremely tentative. The data provide us with no clues regarding the phonetic character of */r/. The only comment on this issue which I have encountered is Nedoma’s assessment of Friedberg ÂuruÂ-, which I do not consider valid. The appearance of an anaptyctic vowel does not constitute evidence for (or against) a dorsal as against an apical realisation of /r/. One type of evidence adduced by Penzl in support of a dorsal [r] in OHG is the fact that it triggers monophthongisation of /ai/. The runic evidence for
The sonorants
331
the development of */ai/ is, however, ambiguous and problematic (§ 3.2.3): it is far from clear that the OHG conditioned monophthongisation is underway at all, and our only possible case of a monophthong or “pre-monophthongal” diphthong before /r/ (in this case < PGmc */z/) is 83. Weingarten I aer- (if this is the correct reading – see entry in § 3.2.1).
7.2.2 The nasals (PGmc */m n/) 7.2.2.1 Data The nom.sg. n-stem endings /-o -a/ < PGmc */-¯on-/ (and/or */-an-/? See § 4.2.3.2) are excluded from this survey. 1. Aalen neckring noru This inscription is thought to represent a pers.n. < PGmc *n¯oraz “small, narrow” (§ 4.1). 2. Aquincum fibula [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia The interpretation of ?lain is very uncertain: it may contain a reflex of PGmc *ainaz “one; single” or *klainiz “fine, pure( ? ), pretty( ? )”. Looijenga (2003a:227) emends n to g (§ 3.2.1; § 7.1.3.1). kŋia is also problematic: it may be an abbreviated form of a reflex of PGmc *kuningaz/*kunungaz “king”, with an unrepresented or syncopated second syllable (§ 4.1); or a j¯on-stem *kingja, related to ON kinga “brooch( ? )”; or a surface form kinga with a metathetic spelling (and the same meaning) (§ 5.1). 3. Arlon capsule godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…) Two pers.ns. are accepted uncontroversially in this inscription: godun is an oblique (probably dat.) n-stem FN with the suffix /-¯un/ (§ 4.1); and rasuwamud is a dithematic MN in -mu(n)d < PGmc *mund¯o “hand, protection” or *munduz “guardian” (§ 4.1), with /n/ unrepresented before the homorganic obstruent /d/ (§ 2.6.2).
332
The consonants
5. Aschheim III fibula dado That this inscription contains a MN is generally agreed, but it is unclear whether we are dealing with Dado, D¯ado or Da(n)do. The same sequence appears on 84. Weingarten II (see below) (§ 5.1; § 6.1). Whichever alternative is preferred, the etymology remains uncertain: it may be a “lall-name” (see entry on Weingarten II in § 5.1). That we are dealing with an unrepresented nasal is possible, but unprovable. 6. Bad Ems fibula [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ Complex I is thought to contain a MN with a stem < PGmc *maÂlan “assembly”, or a Verner’s Law alternant *madl- (§ 7.1.2.1). Complex II is usually expanded to u(mbi/a)-bada “consolation” (umbi/umba < PGmc *umbi “around”) (§ 4.1). An unrepresented nasal is inferred here, with b or ba acting as a haplograph: *umbiba- M *u{}biba- M *ub{}a-; or *umbaba M *u{}baba M *u{}ba. Arntz appears to be alone in advancing an interpretation without the unrepresented nasal: uba M Uba, a MN of uncertain etymology (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:200). 8. Balingen fibula a?uzdnloamilu? dnlo is most commonly interpreted as a MN D(a)n(i)lo, with a stem < PGmc *daniz “Dane”, although since this rests on the insertion of unrepresented vowels, other expansions are possible (§ 5.1). amilu? is generally assumed to be a pers.n. related to Amal-/Amel- (possibly < PGmc *ama- “persist( ? ); annoy( ? )”) (§ 5.1). It is most plausibly interpreted as a FN Amilu (on the inflectional ending, see § 4.1; § 4.4.1); but another possibility is that the final rune is k and that -uk represents the patronymic suffix /-unk/ < PGmc */-ung-/, with the nasal unrepresented according to the orthographic rule described in § 2.6.2. While this rule is based on a number of examples where n or m are omitted, there are no direct parallels to indicate that ŋ can be treated in the same way; although if ŋ represents the velar allophone of */n/ = *[ŋ], then there is no need to object to its omission here. The accepted view among runologists is that ŋ represents not just the velar nasal but the cluster */ng/ = *[ŋg] (see introductory notes to catalogue). If
The sonorants
333
this is correct, then we might reasonably doubt whether a carver would consider it an appropriate spelling for */nk/. It is also conceivable that amilu might be an oblique n-stem FN with omission of the final nasal (see § 7.2.2.2). 10. Bezenye I fibula [I] unja [II] godahid The interpretation of unja as (w)un(n)ja (acc.sg.) or (w)un(n)j¯a (acc.pl.), to PGmc *wunj¯o “joy” is accepted throughout the literature (§ 4.1). 11. Bezenye II fibula [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun segun is normally interpreted as a loanword from Lat. signum “mark, sign” (compare OHG segan) (§ 4.1). If this is the case, then n reflects the mapping of Lat. /n/ to a reflex of PGmc */n/. 12. Bopfingen fibula mauo The various interpretations of this inscription are discussed in § 3.2.1. Possible etyma are PGmc *maguz “kinsman” (or the derived *magwj¯o “girl”); *maiwjanan “to mew” (or the related *maiwaz/*maiwiz “seagull”). None of these etymological associations is without difficulties (although those difficulties have no bearing on the initial */m/): on *maguz and *magwj¯o, see § 7.1.3.1; on *maiw-, see § 3.2.1. 14. Bülach fibula [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? Krause (1966:307) reads m? as mik M mik (1.sg.acc. personal pronoun) < PGmc *mek/*mik (§ 5.1; on the protoform, see § 2.2.1). The presence of k is not supported by more recent microscopic examinations of the fibula. 15. Charnay fibula [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) [II] :uÂfnÂai:id [III] dan:liano [IV] ïia [V] k r u in complex II probably represents the preposition u(n)Â(a) or preverbal particle u(n)Â(a)- < PGmc *unÂa (or *unda; see § 7.1.2.1), with the nasal unrepresented orthographically (§ 4.1).
334
The consonants
If uÂ- is a particle, it is assumed to be affixed to the verb fnÂai M -f(i)nÂai, 3.sg.opt. to PGmc *fenÂanan “to find”. The presence of */θ/ vs. */d/ is thought to indicate EGmc linguistic identity (§ 5.1). On Antonsen’s reading faÂai M fa¯e “husband” (dat.sg.), see § 3.2.1. id dan is normally interpreted as an oblique n-stem MN Iddan (possibly < PGmc *idiz “activity, deed”; see § 5.1). liano may represent another weakly inflected (nom.) MN, but its etymology is unknown (§ 5.1). On the alternative interpretations as lai(h)nÕ “may they grant”, or *laion “lion”, see § 3.2.1. 16. Chéhéry fibula [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E (or E : ditan) [III] sum(Óik) If the transliteration ditan is correct, then it may represent an oblique form of an n-stem MN, although the etymology of the stem is uncertain (§ 5.1; § 7.1.2.1). The sequence containing m and possibly Ó in complex III is uninterpretable. 17. Dischingen I fibula wig/nka If the correct reading is winka, we are probably dealing with a FN Win(i)ka < PGmc *weniz “friend” with a dim. suffix /-ka/ < PGmc */-k¯on/. A stem Wink-, of uncertain etymology, is also possible (§ 4.1; § 5.1). 19. Eichstetten sheath fitting ?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) Looijenga’s treatment of the initial sequence as fiagin M FiaginÂ, a FN with the deuterotheme a variant of -gun < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle”, is not credible (§ 4.1). The most common interpretation of muni is as part of a verb “think, remember( ? )”, related to PGmc *muniz “thought”; although it could represent a related noun (possibly as a pers.n. Muni) (§ 4.1). Opitz (1982:486) reads munt M munt “hand, protection” < PGmc *mund¯o (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1).
The sonorants
335
22. Ferwerd comb case ?( ? )ura meura/meur (Looijenga 2003a:303). If Looijenga is correct in reading a bind-rune me, then this may represent the 1.sg.dat. personal pronoun m¯e < PGmc *miza; or it could be em M 1.sg.pres. em “am” < PGmc *immi (§ 5.1). This reading is doubtful, however. 23. Freilaubersheim fibula [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida There is no doubt that runa represents either r¯una (acc.sg.) or r¯un¯a (acc.pl.) to PGmc *r¯un¯o “rune” (§ 4.1). daÊïna is generally interpreted as a FN, with a stem of uncertain etymology (§ 5.1; § 6.1) and a name-forming suffix /-¯ın-/ < PGmc */-¯ın-/ (§ 5.1). 26. Gammertingen capsule [I] ado [II] ad/mo ado is usually interpreted as a MN Ado (possibly < PGmc *aÂalaz “noble” – see § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1); but it may be A(n)do < PGmc *and¯on “breath( ? ); zeal( ? ); hatred( ? )”, with an unrepresented nasal. If complex II is read amo rather than a repetition of ado, this may be related to the Amal-/Amel- names < PGmc *ama- “persist( ? ); annoy( ? )” (see 8. Balingen amilu?) (§ 6.1). 28. Gomadingen fibula [I] (g) [II] iglug/n [III] ?… Complex II is interpreted throughout the literature as a MN. The stem could be Ig(i?)l- < PGmc *igilaz/*igulaz “hedgehog”; Ig- (meaningless?); or I(n)g(etymology uncertain; see 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari) (§ 4.1; § 5.1). If the termination of the sequence is -ug, this may represent the patronymic suffix (< PGmc */-ung/) with unrepresented nasal. If, on the other hand, it is -un, then it could represent an oblique fem. n-stem suffix (§ 4.1).
336
The consonants
31. Hailfingen II fibula [I] (a)????( ? ) [II] ( ? )daan? daan? may represent a pers.n. Dłn(n)a (compare 8. Balingen dnlo); Opitz (1987:113) reads daannl and interprets it as a “Germanised” form of the name Daniel (§ 5.1). Jänichen (1962:156) reads an? M auna, representing either a FN Auna or a (related?) “formula-word” auna < PGmc *aunaz/ *aunuz “prosperous” (see 41. Igling-Unterigling aunr?d; 47. Lauchheim I aono) (§ 3.3.1). The inscription is in such poor condition that we cannot be confident about any of these possibilities. 36. Hohenstadt fibula (…)(i)galu Pieper (2010:3) treats (i)ga as a FN I(n)ga (to the name-element Ing-; see 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari), with an unrepresented nasal; here, as in the case of the formally similar 28. Gomadingen iglug/n, interpretations without the nasal are also possible (§ 5.1). 37. Hoogebeintum comb [I] ?nlu [II] (ded) Complex I is uninterpretable; -nlu may represent the termination of a pers.n. (compare 8. Balingen amilu) (§ 4.1). 41. Igling-Unterigling fibula [I] aunr?d [II] d Complex I is generally interpreted as a dithematic MN with the prototheme Aun- < PGmc *aunaz/*aunuz “prosperous” (§ 3.3.1). 42. †Kärlich fibula wodani : hailag wodani is usually interpreted as a dat. form of the theonym W¯odan < PGmc *w¯odanaz, with */-an-/ (agentive suffix?) affixed to the base *w¯od- “mad” (§ 3.2.2; § 4.1).
The sonorants
337
43. “Kent” fibula ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa (my transliteration). If m, rather than d, is present in complex I, then gam(:)u might be connected with PGmc *gamanan “game”. As noted in § 4.1, this interpretation requires us to explain a missing */n/, which might be achieved by appeal to syncope followed by assimilation (*/gaman-¯o/ > */gam-Ø-n-u/ > */gam:-u/), or to orthographic abbreviation or error. These are no more than speculations, however. 47. Lauchheim I fibula aonofada aono- represents a name-element < PGmc *aunaz/*aunuz “prosperous”; it is variously treated as an independent n-stem Aono, or as the prototheme of a FN Aonofada (§ 3.3.1). 50. Mertingen fibula ieok aun Although the transliteration and interpretation are very uncertain, aun may be connected with the adjective aun- < PGmc *aunaz/*aunuz “prosperous” (§ 3.3.1; compare 47. Lauchheim I aono-). 53. Neudingen-Baar I fibula [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? Complexes I–II probably represent the same word, a reflex of either PGmc *medjaz “middle” or *m¯e2d¯o “reward” (§ 4.1; § 5.1). 54. Neudingen-Baar II wooden stave lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna We have here two reflexes of */n/, one unrepresented (-gu M -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle”) and one overt (runa M r¯unł “rune(s)” < PGmc *r¯un¯o) (§ 4.1). Reflexes of */m/ appear in two pers.ns., although in neither of them is the etymology clear. hamale is most plausibly interpreted as Hamale (dat. MN) < PGmc *xamalaz “cropped” (§ 6.1). imuba is more problematic: it may con-
338
The consonants
tain the element Im(m)- < PGmc *ermenaz/*ermunaz “great, tall( ? )”, with /m/ geminated as a result of the total assimilation of */r/ (§ 5.1; § 7.2.1.1). If this is correct, b may be a product of dissimilation (/m:/ > /mb/), although there is a lack of supporting evidence for this: the assimilation of /nb/ > /mb/ > /m:/ is attested in OHG and OS (§ 2.5.2.2), but the reverse process is not. More credible explanations are that imuba represents an abbreviated form of a dithematic name with the prototheme Im- (etymology uncertain) and a deuterotheme in */b-/; or that it contains a stem < PGmc *imbiz “multitude” (§ 5.1; § 7.1.1.1). Given the phonetic similarity of /m/ and /b/, and the attested propensity of /b/ to assimilate to a neighbouring /m/, the apparent presence of an anaptyctic vowel is curious (§ 4.2.5). Nedoma (2004a:348) attempts to solve the problem by positing a labiodental realisation of /m/ = [ ]. This seems to me rather arbitrary: if a bilabial [m] is the unmarked form of /m/, then a labiodental variant would only appear via assimilation to a neighbouring sound (e.g., modE emphasis M [ ε fəsis]; or, as an allophone of /n/, modG fünf M [ fy f]). Since no such conditioning environment exists in /imba/ (unless we suppose that /b/ is realised as labiodental [v], which would bring [ ] and [v] to the same place of articulation and eliminate the motivation for epenthesis), there is no motivation for a labiodental realisation of /m/. An alternative interpretation of -u- as a Murmelvokal is discussed in § 4.2.2. 56. Nordendorf I fibula [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? */n/ is present in the theonyms wodan M W¯odan < PGmc *w¯odanaz < *w¯odaz “mad” (see 42. †Kärlich) and Âonar M Áonar < PGmc *Âunraz “thunder”, as well as in wini? M -wini- < PGmc *weniz “friend” (probably a name-element, either independent or the deuterotheme of a dithematic Leubwini). It is possible that wigi/u- represents an element wi(n)g- with an unrepresented */n/ (= *[ŋ]), although the sequence is more straightforwardly interpreted as a reflex of PGmc *w¯ıxanan/*w¯ıganan “to fight” or *w¯ıxjanan/*w¯ıgjanan “to consecrate” (§ 4.1). 57. Nordendorf II fibula birl?ioel? Both of the runes transliterated here as ? might be nasals (respectively n, Ó). Opitz (1987:236) and Looijenga (2003a:251) both read the first sequence as birln-, which Opitz interprets as birlni M birilin, dat.sg.fem. (to nom. *birili) “giver” (§ 5.1). Looijenga treats the birln as a MN Birl(i)n, with -ln repre-
The sonorants
339
senting the dim. suffix */-l¯ın/ (§ 5.1). Both interpretations are plausible, but I am not at all confident that n is present here. More uncertain still is Arntz’ reading of el? M el ŋ, representing a MN Eling (§ 5.1). The etymology of the stem is unknown, but -ŋ is interpreted as the patronymic suffix */-ing/. 61. Pforzen I buckle [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun? [II] ltahu·gasokun? This inscription contains three reflexes of */n/ which pose no problems: andi M andi “and” < PGmc *andi (§ 5.1); -run M -r¯un (deuterotheme of FN) < PGmc *r¯un¯o “rune” (possibly originally in the sense “counsel, advice”?) (§ 5.1); gasokun M gas¯okun “fought( ? ), quarrelled( ? ), scolded( ? )” (3.pl.pret., with the suffix < PGmc */-un/) (§ 4.1). Wagner (1995:105; 1999a:93–95) treats the “cross-hatched” marks following complex I as a triple bind-rune aŋi. He reads this together with the beginning of complex II: aŋiltahu M Angiltahu, a FN with the prototheme possibly < PGmc *ang(i)laz “Angle” or *ang¯on “hook”, or the name-element Ing-, or perhaps Lat. angelus “angel” (§ 5.1). The runic character of these marks is very doubtful. 62. Pforzen II ivory ring [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa aodli is uncontroversially interpreted as a FN in -li(n) < PGmc *lenÂaz/ *linÂijaz “mild”, with an unrepresented /n/ (§ 5.1). Overt /n/ is present in runa M r¯una (acc.sg.)/r¯un¯a (acc.pl.), to PGmc *r¯un¯o “rune” (§ 4.1). 63. Pleidelsheim fibula iiha If Düwel’s reading inha is correct, then the inscription probably represents a FN, but the etymology is uncertain: possibly In- < PGmc *end(À) “within” and/or “inn” (cf. OE inn) (§ 5.1).
340
The consonants
64. †Rubring stone piece [I] ?ïndo? [II] ( ? )riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) The only available interpretation of ?ïn is that of Steinhauser (1968a:5–9): kïn M k¯en “torch, pine” M “lightning” < PGmc *k¯e2na- (§ 5.1). In complex II he reads ( ? )riŋ as a MN Iring, with the patronymic suffix */-ing/. The stem Ir- is well attested, but its etymology is unknown, and the mythological interpretation which Steinhauser constructs around it is scarcely credible (§ 5.1). 67. Schretzheim I capsule [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd alagu can be interpreted unproblematically as a FN in -gu(n) < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” (§ 4.1), with /n/ unrepresented. dedun is thought to be 3.pl.pret. “made” < PGmc *dÀdun (§ 4.1; § 5.1). 68. Schretzheim II fibula [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo Complex I probably involves two unrepresented reflexes of */n/: si M si(n) < PGmc *senÂaz “journey, way” (§ 5.1); wagad- M wag(g)(j)and- with -adrepresenting the participial suffix < PGmc */-and-/ (see § 4.1 for details). The terminal -in is variously interpreted as the fem. suffix < PGmc */-inj¯o/; or as an inflectional suffix, dat.sg.masc. /-in/ (weak adjectival inflection), or dat.sg.fem. /-¯ın/ (with the participle forming the base of an ¯ın-stem noun) (§ 4.1). 69. Schretzheim III spatha (g)abau/r Of the numerous interpretations proposed in the literature, several involve an unrepresented nasal (see § 4.1; § 6.1): • uaba M wa(m)ba (FN?) < PGmc *wamb¯o “belly, womb” (Nedoma 2004a:198). • gabar M ga(m)bar “powerful” < PGmc *gamb(a)raz (Klingenberg and Koch 1974:128–129). • arab M Ara(n)b(erht) (Ara- < PGmc *ar¯on “eagle”) (Düwel 1981b:159–160; 1984:325; 1994b:268).
The sonorants
341
None of these is implausible, but the difficulty of identifying the intended reading of the “rune-cross” limits its usefulness as a witness. 71. Sievern-A bracteate rwrilu r almost certainly stands as an abbreviation for the acc.sg. or pl. form of *r¯un¯o “rune” (§ 4.1). The reader is evidently supposed to infer a word containing /n/, but we are not dealing here with the type of orthographic non-representation described in § 2.6.2. 72. Skodborg-B bracteate aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid alawin and alawid are MNs, the former with the deuterotheme -win < PGmc *weniz “friend”. The identity of the element -wid is unknown; several etyma have been suggested, and it is possible that it represents -wi(n)d (extension of *weniz; or < *Wenedaz “Wend”; and/or < *wendanan “to twist, wind”) (§ 4.1; § 5.1). 73. Skonager III-C bracteate [I] niuwila [II] lÊu That niuwila represents a pers.n. < PGmc *neujaz “new” is not disputed, although the form in -w- presents some difficulties (§ 3.1.1). 74. Soest fibula [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano If complex II contains a MN At(t)ano, it may be based on the root of PGmc *aÂalaz “noble”; the stem alternant Athan- is certainly attested (§ 6.1; § 7.1.2.1); */-an-/ seems to be treated in the onomastic literature as a meaningless extension to the root */aθa-/. The same extension could in principle be applied to PGmc *att¯on “father, ancestor( ? )” (although Nedoma insists that this cannot be the stem of atano); or to *gad¯on “spouse”, if we read gatano and interpret t as a reflex of */d/ (§ 7.1.2.1).
342
The consonants
76. Stetten pin-head( ? ) amelkud f amelkud is thought to be a dithematic FN Amelku(n)d: Amel- possibly < PGmc *ama- “persist(?); annoy(?)” (see 8. Balingen amilu?); -ku(n)d < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle”, with unrepresented */n/ (§ 4.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1). 77. Szabadbattyán buckle marŋs? That we are dealing with a MN with the patronymic suffix < PGmc */-ing/ is not disputed. The stem can be interpreted as M¯ar- < PGmc *m¯erjaz “famous”, or perhaps *marxaz “horse” or *mariz “sea, lake” (§ 6.1). 80. Weimar II fibula [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: Complex I is only partly legible, but if the third rune is n, it may contain a pers.n. in SinÂ- < PGmc *senÂaz “journey, way” (see 68. Schretzheim II siÂ-). 81. Weimar III buckle [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: bigina is most commonly treated as a FN with the feminising suffix */-¯ın-/ added to a base BÃg-, of unknown etymology (§ 5.1). Klingenberg (1976c:370–371) interprets it as a form of the verb “to begin” (PGmc *bi-gennanan), but his identification of the form as imperative is not plausible (§ 5.1). hahwar is interpreted throughout the literature as a dithematic MN. The prototheme is generally thought to be H¯ah- < PGmc *xanxaz “horse” (§ 6.1) (a possible alternative being *xauxaz “high” – § 3.3.2). If this is the case, we are dealing with an underlying */n/, but one which has been assimilated in lPGmc (*/xanxaz/ > */x¯axaz/) (§ 2.2.2). awimund is uncontroversially interpreted as a MN in -mund < PGmc mund¯o “protection” (§ 4.1), with */n/ marked orthographically (compare 3. Arlon rasuwamud). idun is probably an oblique form of the n-stem FN Ida (< PGmc *idiz “activity, deed”), the rect form of which is attested in complex I (§ 4.1; § 5.1).
The sonorants
343
82. Weimar IV bead Â/ iuÂ/ :ida:?e????a:hahwar: w w The sequence hahwar M H¯ahwłr is identical to that on 81. Weimar III, above, and may contain a reflex of lPGmc */¯a/ < */anx/. 83. Weingarten I fibula [I] ali/erguÂ:?( ? ) [II] feha: writ? … i/la Complex I contains a dithematic FN in -gu(n)Â < PGmc *gunÂz/*gunÂij¯o “battle” with unrepresented nasal (compare 54. Neudingen-Baar II bliÂguÂ; 67. Schretzheim I alaguÂ) (§ 4.1). 84. Weingarten II fibula dado This inscription appears to be a direct parallel of 5. Aschheim III dado (see above), containing a MN Dado/D¯ado/Da(n)do, of uncertain etymology. The latter interpretation involves an unrepresented nasal, but we have no way of discriminating between the three possibilities (see § 5.1; § 6.1). 85. †Weser I bone [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal latam is everywhere treated as a form of the verb “to let, allow” (< PGmc *l¯etanan) (§ 5.1). The suffix is most commonly identified as 1.pl.pres.opt. */-¯am/ < PGmc */-aim(a)/; but Nedoma (2004a:326) rejects this in favour of 1.pl.pres.ind. */-am/ < PGmc */-am(-az)/ (§ 3.2.2). kunni represents kunni (nom./acc.sg.) < PGmc *kunjan “kin, kind”, with the unusual use of a double rune for the geminate /n:/ (< simple */n/ via WGmc gemination) (§ 4.1). The two â-like signs transliterated (ŋ) are probably best interpreted as wordseparators (see catalogue); but if we treat them as ŋ-runes, both may represent the name-element Ing-: ŋhari M Inghari; ŋ?e M ŋwe M Ingwe : ON Yngvi (§ 5.1). The latter interpretation relies on the questionable reading of the penultimate rune as w (§ 4.1).
344
The consonants
86. †Weser II bone lokom : her lokom may be a 1.sg.pres.opt. form of a verb < PGmc *l¯ok¯ojanan “to look” or *lukk¯ojanan “to entice( ? )” (§ 4.1). The inflectional ending can plausibly be equivalent to OHG /-¯om/, OS /-on/ (< */-¯om/), attested variants of OHG /-¯o-¯em/, OS /-o-ijan/ < PGmc */-¯o-aim(a)/ (§ 3.2.2; § 4.1). 89. Wremen footstool [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi As has been discussed in earlier entries (see § 5.1), ksamella is probably a loanword from Lat. scamellum/-us “footstool, step”, with m representing /m/ (although not etymologically PGmc */m/).
7.2.2.2 Summary and conclusions We find no evidence of the shift of /m/ > /n/ in inflectional endings (§ 2.5.2.2). Our only witnesses to endings in /-m/ are 85. †Weser I latam and 86. †Weser II lokom. The Weser bones (if we are happy to accept them as genuine) are probably of relatively early date (see catalogue), so we cannot be certain about the state of these endings in the 6th – 7th centuries; but we have no reason to claim that the reflex of inflectional */-m/ in this period is anything other than /-m/. We also have no evidence for the types of assimilation in consonant clusters described in § 2.5.2.2. The orthographic practice of omitting a nasal before a homorganic consonant (§ 2.6.2) is quite well attested in the corpus. The following are fairly reliable examples: • /mb/ M b: 6. Bad Ems uba • /nd/ M d: 3. Arlon -mud; 68. Schretzheim II -wagadin. • /nθ/ M Â: 15. Charnay uÂ-; 54. Neudingen-Baar II -guÂ; 62. Pforzen II -liÂ; 67. Schretzheim I -guÂ; 68. Schretzheim II siÂ; 83. Weingarten I -guÂ. To these we can add several possible cases, made uncertain by difficulties in transliteration and/or interpretation: • /nd/ M d: 5. Aschheim III dado; 26. Gammertingen ado; 72. Skodborg -wid; 76. Stetten -kud (/d/ < */θ/?); 84. Weingarten II dado.
The sonorants
345
• /nk/ M k: 8. Balingen amilu? (doubtful). • /ng/ M g: 28. Gomadingen iglug/n (bis?); 36. Hohenstadt (i)ga; 54. Nordendorf I wigFor all of these except Stetten -kud, alternative interpretations without an unrepresented nasal are available. That we have no reliable examples for the velars is perhaps to be expected, since the fuÂark contains the grapheme ŋ to represent the cluster /ng/.3 It is open to question whether /nk/ could be spelled *ŋk; I am not aware of any examples. ŋ is present in 2. Aquincum kŋia; 64. †Rubring ( ? )riŋ; 77. Szabadbattyán marŋs. Possible, though uncertain, examples are 55. Nordendorf II el? (Arntz’ reading); 85. †Weser I (ŋ)hari, (ŋ)?e. In all of these except the Rubring case (which is problematised by uncertain reading of the preceding material, by Steinhauser’s questionable interpretation, and by the item’s doubtful authenticity), ŋ appears to stand not just for the cluster /ng/, but for the syllable /ing/. We have several sequences with an orthographically represented nasal preceding a homorganic obstruent: • /nd/ M nd: 61. Pforzen I andi; 81. Weimar III -mund. • /nθ/ M nÂ: 15. Charnay -fnÂai (unless Antonsen’s reading faÂai is correct). Possible, but less certain examples are: • /nt/ M nt: 19. Eichstetten muni • /nd/ M nd: 64. †Rubring ?ïndo? The reliable witnesses with an overt nasal indicate that the orthographic rule is not absolute; but the number of cases where the nasal is omitted – especially in the name-element -gun M -gu – suggests that they are not simple errors. Orthographic omission does not seem to be restricted to N+T clusters: Arlon rasuwamud and Gammertingen ado – the only examples which Nedoma cites explicitly in his discussion of the topic (2004a:15) – omit a nasal before a voiced/lenis obstruent. It is unlikely (but not impossible) that this pattern might represent real phonetic assimilation, perhaps of the type which characterises OS and the other “coastal” WGmc dialects (§ 2.5.2.2). All of our witnesses are located in 3 Antonsen (1975:12) notes two examples of /ing/ spelled ig in Scandinavian inscriptions: igaduz (Svarteborg medallion, An 36; IK 181; KJ 47), igijon (Stenstad stone, An 37; KJ 81); and one example of ing (rather than *(i)ŋ): idringaz (Reistad stone, An 41; KJ 74).
346
The consonants
UG territory; we should be cautious about drawing any conclusions about dialect from this, but there is certainly no positive evidence that any of these inscriptions was created in the north. The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that we are dealing with a purely orthographic practice, also found in other epigraphical traditions reflecting dialects where a nasal is not assimilated by a preceding vowel (although that vowel may well become nasalised) (§ 2.6.2). There are several cases where I have suggested that -u might represent an oblique fem. n-stem suffix (: OHG /-¯un/) with the final nasal unrepresented: 8. Balingen amilu; 36. Hohenstadt (i)galu; 61. Pforzen I ltahu. The first of these is perhaps the most promising: if -il- represents the dim. suffix */-il-/ (§ 5.1), a weak inflection is to be expected (but compare Nedoma’s analyses of 14. Bülach fridil and 61. Pforzen I aigil, with the nominalising suffix */-il-/ which does not require weak inflection). An omission of this type would not conform to the orthographic “rule” for non-representation of nasals; and other sequences positively identifiable as oblique n-stems (3. Arlon godun; 15. Charnay iddan; 81. Weimar III idun; possibly also 16. Chéhéry ditan and 28. Gomadingen iglug/n) contain overt -n. The possibility of an absent -n in Balingen, Hohenstadt and/or Pforzen cannot be ruled out (and it is hard to see how it could be a falsifiable claim), but all of these sequences have other, less problematic interpretations without an unrepresented /-n/.
347
Vocalics
8. The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic” From the analyses of the data in §§ 3–7, we can attempt to reconstruct the phonological system(s) attested in the inscriptions. Inevitably, the reliability of these reconstructions is limited by the small size of the dataset, and by the difficulty of reading and interpreting inscriptions. We must also ask ourselves whether there is any sense in reconstructing a phonological system for “Continental Runic”, which was at the outset constructed as a vague label covering all the dialects of the Continental interior over a period of as much as 300 years. While it is almost certainly the case that the actual dialects spoken in this broad span of space and time showed some variation, the data do not provide us with evidence for positing either synchronic dialectal boundaries or diachronic phases. Such evidence as might be present has been discussed in the earlier chapters; but the data – although they surely do not give us an accurate picture of the range of variation which existed in spoken language during the period in which the inscriptions were created – point to a high degree of systematic homogeneity. The systems proposed below, then, represent a synthesis of what can be reconstructed from the data, reflecting the common ground among a set of natural language varieties whose actual structure remains beyond the scope of this type of reconstruction.
8.1 Vocalics 8.1.1 Short vowels 8.1.1.1 Stressed syllables In stressed syllables, we have very little evidence for any change in the distribution of the short front vowels. With respect to the inventory of phonemes, we appear to have the expected five-member system: lPGmc */i/ */e/
*/u/ */a/
CRun /i/ /e/
/u/ /o/ /a/
348
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic”
Our only evidence for the phonologisation of /u o/ is the loss of thematic */a/ (attested in, e.g., 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis and 67. Schretzheim I arogis; 48. Lauchheim II dag; 56. Nordendorf I wodan, -Âonar); the apparent counter-examples to the complementary distribution of /u/ and /o/ are ambiguous (§ 4.2.1.1). The reflexes of */e/ and */u/ are for the most part sensitive to the height of the vowel in the following syllable (§ 4.2.1.1; § 5.2.1.1): where a high vowel follows, reflexes of */e/ are represented i and reflexes of */u/ u; where the following vowel is mid or low, the spellings are consistently e and o. Reflexes of */i/ are represented i in all environments. We have only one entirely reliable witness to the raising of */e/ before a nasal (§ 2.2.1): 68. Schretzheim II siÂ. All the other possible instances of PGmc */e/ before a tautosyllabic nasal are in i- or j¯o-stems, where the raising can plausibly be ascribed to umlaut (§ 5.2.1.1).
8.1.1.2 Unstressed syllables From the available evidence, it seems that reflexes of unstressed */i u a/ are consistently represented as i, u and a, respectively (§ 4.2.1.2; § 5.2.1.2; § 6.2). We have no evidence for unstressed reflexes of */e/. These findings are consistent with Braune’s three-member system for OHG, /i a u/ (§ 2.3.2.1). We do, however, have some evidence for /e o/ derived from unstressed long vowels, diphthongs or syllabicated semivowels, which would restore a five-member system if these vowels are short (§ 8.1.2.2). lPGmc */i/ */e/
*/u/ */a/
CRun /i/ (/e/?)
/u/ (/o/?) /a/
8.1.1.3 Anaptyxis The corpus contains sufficient evidence for anaptyxis 1 that we can be confident that it has taken place (§ 4.2.2; § 6.2) – hardly a surprising finding, given that this process is presumed to belong to a stage of development earlier than the period of our inscriptions (§ 2.3.5). In the majority of cases, the epenthetic vowel is /a/, the exceptions being 25. Friedberg ÂuruÂhild, with /u/ (if this qualifies as anaptyxis 1); and 56. Nordendorf I logaÂore, with /o/ (if we accept the interpretation as an adjective in PGmc *-Âra-; see entry in § 4.1).
349
Vocalics
We have slight evidence for anaptyxis 2 in 3. Arlon rasuwa and 61. Pforzen I ltahu (if we construe it as elahu M elah(h)u). There are no witnesses to anaptyxis 3 in the corpus. We have one sequence (54. NeudingenBaar II imuba) which appears to contain an anaptyctic vowel in a context not corresponding to any pattern known in OHG or OS.
8.1.2 Long vowels 8.1.2.1 Stressed syllables The system of stressed long vowels is inherited from NWGmc, which is itself unchanged from lPGmc except for the shift of */¯e1/ > */¯a/: lPGmc */¯ı/ */¯e2/ */¯e1/
*/¯u/ */¯o/ */¯a/
CRun /¯ı/ /¯e/
/¯u/ /¯o/ /¯a/
8.1.2.2 Unstressed syllables The only long vowels with unstressed reflexes attested in the corpus are */¯ı/ and */¯o/. */¯ı/ is preserved and consistently represented as i (the only exception being ï in Freilaubersheim daÊïna) (§ 5.2.2.4). Reflexes of */¯o/ appear in the following contexts: 1. Weak pers.ns. in -o and -a, if the proto-form is PGmc */-¯on/ (§ 4.2.3.2). 2. Unstressed reflexes of final */-¯o/ are consistently represented as u (except where apocopated), reflecting the raising of PGmc */-¯o/ > NWGmc */-¯u/ (§ 4.2.3.2). 3. Oblique o¯ -stems (PGmc acc.sg. */-¯on/; gen.sg. */-¯oz/, both > /-ł/ M -a) (§ 4.4.3).1 We have no direct evidence for the quantity of these vowels in the inscriptions, although apocope in the long-stemmed nom. o¯ -stems gives us some indication that the unstressed reflexes of the long vowels may be short, at least in final position (§ 4.4.2; § 4.4.5). On the other hand, apocope seems to be re1 Our only witness to the gen. suffix is 11. Bezenye II arsiboda, if we accept Nedoma’s interpretation.
350
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic”
stricted to certain suffixes: the dat.sg. o¯ -stem and 1.sg.pres. verbal suffixes are also */-¯o/ in lPGmc, but neither is subject to apocope, regardless of the length of the preceding stem. If 71. Sievern wrilu M wr¯ıtu is admissible as evidence for a CRun, rather than PNorse, then it appears that an overt ending is present here too, even after a long stem-syllable. If the reflexes of unstressed */¯ı o¯ / are long, they may form a system of unstressed long vowels with the monophthongal reflexes of */ai au/ (§ 8.1.3.2).
8.1.3 Diphthongs 8.1.3.1 Stressed syllables For each of the PGmc diphthongs, we have alternations between two or three digraphic representations: */eu/ M eu ~ iu ~ eo; */ai/ M ai ~ aÿ ~ ae; */au/ M au ~ ao (with aw a related form) (§ 3.1.2; § 3.2.1.1; § 3.3.1.1). Of these sets of alternants, only the reflexes of */au/ match the conditions for the changes attested in the later dialects (in this case, monophthongisation); and even here, the small quantity of data limits the strength of this conclusion. As I pointed out earlier (§ 2.3.1.4.1), the attempts of linguists to combine the monophthongisations of the a-diphthongs have encountered considerable problems. Because the conditions for the OHG monophthongisation of */au/ are the same as those governing the UG distribution of the reflexes of */eu/ (§ 2.3.1.1), we might look for a common phonetic explanation. The runic data are of limited use for this purpose: reflexes of */au/ are attested only before alveolars (where the surface form [ao]( ? ) > /ɔ¯ / is regular in OHG), while we have reflexes of */eu/ only before labials and velars (where the surface form in UG is /iu/). The only reflex of */eu/ which cannot plausibly be accounted for as a product of umlaut is Niederstotzingen liub (and even this is open to question, the co-text being unintelligible). If the */eu/ data can be explained without reference to consonant conditioning, and if there is no direct overlap between the consonantal environments of the attested reflexes of */eu/ and */au/, then we do not have grounds to advance a hypothesis in which their distributions can be viewed as part of a single process. This is not to say that (aside from Mertingen ieok) the data are inconsistent with a hypothesis in which */eu au/ > *[iu au] before labials and velars and *[eo ao] before dentals and /h/ in UG dialect territory (*/eo/ appearing only where it is motivated by umlaut).
351
Vocalics
It is curious that */eu/ is the only diphthong which shows evidence of umlaut effects (and it should be noted that in the inscriptions some of this evidence depends on the assumption that word-boundaries are transparent to the assimilatory influence of a following vowel). If the off-glide of */eu/ is lowered before a non-high vowel (following the same pattern as monophthongal */u/), why does */au/ not have a form *[ao] in the same context? Or if it does, why is it not marked orthographically when *[eo] is? This observation implies that the diphthongs are monophonemic in the dialects of the inscriptions; their behaviour does not correspond simply to that of their component monophthongs.
8.1.3.2 Unstressed syllables We have no data for */eu/ or */au/ in unstressed position. The monophthongisation of unstressed */ai/ in stage 1 is well supported, although there appears to be some variation between e and i in the representation of the resultant monophthong (§ 3.2.2.1). This variation might be allowable as weak evidence that the reflex of unstressed */ai/ is short /e/ (~ /i/?) rather than long /¯e/ (~ /¯ı/), since there is no evidence for any parallel alternation in the unstressed reflexes of the long front monophthongs; the only unstressed long front vowel attested in the data is */¯ı/, which is consistently represented as i (§ 5.2.2.4; § 8.1.2.2). With these points in mind, we can tentatively posit the following subsystem: lPGmc */ai/
*/au/
CRun /e/ (~ /i/?)
*/o/
If, on the other hand, these vowels remain long, they may form a four-member subsystem of unstressed long vowels with the reflexes of */¯ı/ and */¯o/ (§ 8.1.2.2): lPGmc */¯ı/ */ai/
*/¯o/, */au/
CRun /¯ı/ /¯e/
/¯u/ (< final */-¯o/) */¯o/
352
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic”
8.1.4 Semivowels We have good reason to believe that the inherited semivowels become syllabic in word-final or compositional position, as in OHG and OS (§ 2.3.2.4). 45. Kirchheim/Teck II arugis and 67. Schretzheim I arogis are the only plausible examples for */w/ > /u/ (§ 4.2.5). For */j/ > /i/, on the other hand, the evidence is abundant (§ 5.2.3). In the reflexes of *wr¯ıtanan, the alternation ur- ~ wr- can be explained as evidence for the syllabication of inherited /w/ between consonants (or after a heavy syllable?), a process not identified in OHG or OS. It is possible that resyllabicated forms like */u.rait/ might represent a precursory stage to the eventual deletion of the glide in /wl wr/ (§ 4.2.5).
8.2 Consonants The data seem to point to a consonant system little different from that of lPGmc (except for the elimination of the labiovelars and the loss of */z/): Obstruents:
Nasals: Approximant: Lateral approximant:
/p/ /b/ /f/ /m/
/θ/
/t/ /d/ /s/ (/z/?) /n/ /r/ /l/
/k/ /g/ /x/
I am notating the reflex of PGmc */x/ here as /x/, rather than /h/ (see § 7.1.3.2.3).
8.2.1 Obstruents There is slight evidence for the retention of the */z/-*/r/ contrast in root syllables as late as the 5th century, in some northerly parts of the study area (§ 7.1.2.2.5). The key witnesses (49. Liebenau ra?zwi and 81. Weingarten I alir-/aer-) are widely separated both chronologically and geographically. We cannot safely infer that the contrast is present throughout the area in the 5th century; nor that the merger has taken place across the whole area by the end of the 6th.
Consonants
353
Evidence on the allophony of the obstruents is scarce and problematic: we cannot rule out the possibility that */b d g/ may be realised as fricatives or devoiced plosives in some contexts, or that */f θ s/ can be voiced; but we have no runic witnesses which unambiguously indicate that these variants exist. The consonant system outlined above is one in which the Second Consonant Shift is not underway, and the reflex of */θ/ remains a fricative. If the most credible witnesses (76. Stetten -kud; 90. Wurmlingen -rih) are accepted as evidence for the Consonant Shift, they attest to its later stages, according to current models of the relative chronology of the shift (§ 2.5.1.2). If Wurmlingen -rih represents /-r¯ıx/ < PGmc */-r¯ık-/, and if we regard this change as part of the Consonant Shift rather than “pseudo-Consonant Shift” (§ 7.1.4.1), then the text must belong to a dialect in which the Tenuisverschiebung is complete for all three places of articulation, at least after vowels (long and short). The reconstructible state of */p t k/ in other positions, of */b d g/, and of */θ/ depends on the interpretation of dor-: if d- = /d-/ < */d-/, then either the Medienverschiebung is absent (*/b d g/ are unchanged); or the Tenuisverschiebung is complete and the Medienverschiebung at an early stage, with */d / unaffected in initial position (meaning that initial */b- g-/ are also unaffected), but possibly affected in other positions: lPGmc */Vp/
*/Vt/
*/Vk/
“Wurmlingen system A” (d- = unshifted /d-/) /Vx/ */Vf/ */Vs2/
If, on the other hand, d- = /d-/ < */θ-/, this implies that the Tenuisverschiebung and the shift of */d/ > /t/ (in all positions) are complete; again, we cannot be certain that */b/ and */g/ are affected, as it is hypothetically possible that */d/ > /t/ and */θ/ > /d/ before the shift of */b/ begins. This reconstruction would be at odds with the normal view that the Medienverschiebung is complete before */θ/ is despirantised, so it is reasonable to hypothesise that */b/ and */g/ have undergone the shift: lPGmc */p/
*/t/
*/k/
*/b/
*/d/ */θ/
*/g/
“Wurmlingen system B” (d- = despirantised /θ-/) */kx/ */pf/ */ts2/ /x/ */f/ */s2/ */p/( ? ) */t/ */k/( ? ) /d/
354
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic”
If Stetten -kud M /-kund/ < */-gunθ-/, the entire Consonant Shift must be complete (morpheme-initial */g-/ > /k-/ being the final part of the process), and */θ/ must be despirantised > /d/. The reconstructible system is identical to “Wurmlingen system B”, but we can be more confident of the reconstruction: lPGmc */p/ */b/
*/t/
*/k/
*/d/ */θ/
*/g/
“Stetten system” */pf/ */ts2/ */f/ */s2/ */p/ */t/ /d/
*/kx/ */x/ /k/
If systems like these exist in the late 6th – late 7th-c., we would expect them to reflect a major division between dialects which are relatively progressive and relatively conservative with respect to the Consonant Shift (although these need not correspond to the attested OHG dialects). We are also obliged to account for majority of the data by either assigning them to dialects entirely unaffected by the shift, or by denying their veracity as phonological evidence and claiming that they belong to spoken dialects in which the shift has taken place to at least some degree, but is obscured by conservative orthography. The evidence is too sparse and too uncertain for us to posit any dialect boundaries, and it is entirely possible that all of the putative witnesses to the shift are chimerae resulting from errors in transliteration and/or transcription.
8.2.2 Sonorants The runic data give us no reason to dispute the traditional view that in respect of the sonorants, CRun differs very little from lPGmc. We have abundant evidence that the final nasal of nom. n-stems has been assimilated, but even this may already be the case in PGmc (§ 2.4). The omission of nasals (and possibly of */l/) before a homorganic obstruent is well attested, but is best interpreted as an orthographic practice, rather than an indicator of the type of assimilation characteristic of the “coastal” WGmc dialects.
8.3 Theoretical and methodological considerations 8.3.1 Grapheme and phoneme The attempt to reconstruct phonological systems from epigraphical data relies on an assumed correlation between orthographic and phonological
Theoretical and methodological considerations
355
contrasts. In the vowel systems proposed above, we have 14 vowel phonemes (5 short monophthongs, 5 long monophthongs and 4 diphthongs) but only 6 vowel runes, one of which (ï) is redundant. The reconstruction of fivemember systems for the monophthongs is dependent on an inventory of 5 graphemes. If any other contrasts existed in the dialects of the inscriptions, they are undetectable unless the later dialects show a divergent development. The fuÂark has, for example, no resources for marking the distinction between open and close mid vowels [Ô] vs. [e], [ɔ] vs. [o], whatever their phonological status; nor for marking vowel quantity. In order to identify a vowel as long or short, we must consult external sources – pirmarily the OHG and OS mss. – which are themselves subject to similar constraints, in that they have only 5 graphemes (not counting digraphs and/or diacritics) with which to represent the entire vocalic system. When dealing with the consonants, we face a similar problem, in that many phonological changes begin with allophonic variation which is not necessarily reflected in the orthography, and which it may be beyond the scope of the orthography to represent. If */b d g/ are realised in at least some contexts as devoiced *[b d g], it is not safe to assume that carvers will spell ˚ ˚ to˚ the Tenuisverschiebung, does the apparent abthem *p t k. With regard sence of the shifted affricates indicate that the shift has not taken place, or that carvers do not see it as necessary to distinguish them from the plosives? Since the Consonant Shift begins as a set of allophones, a contemporary reader would be able to reproduce the phonetic form from its environment, without needing to distinguish them graphically. The phonologised products of the Consonant Shift – like the vowels – constitute a system whose complexity exceeds that of the grapheme inventory: for example, the UG system contains a set of four voiceless/fortis “dental” obstruents /t ts s s2/ for which only two runic graphemes (t s) are readily available. Many scribes of the OHG period had no resources to distinguish between /ts/ and /s2/, and we cannot assume that rune-carvers fared any better. In attempting to analyse inscriptions, we are inescapably reliant on the interpretations of inscriptions in the runological literature, which are themselves based on assumptions about the relationship between grapheme and phoneme. Without starting from the assumption that, all things being equal, b represents /b/ (and so forth), the attempt to decipher a runic text would be impossible. In the same way, variations in spelling must be considered as at least potential indicators of real phonetic and/or phonological variation. If this is not the case, our attempt to reconstruct a phonological system from a corpus of written data is severely undermined. When we introduce concepts such as “archaic” spelling (see below) or free variation, we assert that written forms
356
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic”
differ in arbitrary ways from spoken forms. If, for example, i and e do not necessarily mark a contrast between high and mid front vowels, or if t and d do not reflect a contrast between voiceless/fortis and voiced/lenis “dental” plosives, our ability to interpret sequences containing these runes is weakened, and a multitude of alternative interpretations must be taken into consideration. If the spelling difference between Kirchheim/Teck II arugis and Schretzheim I arogis, for example, does not reflect a phonological difference in an unstressed reflex of PGmc */w/ or */¯o/ (/arug¯ıs/ vs. /arog¯ıs/), then why should the same not apply to 13. Borgharen bobo vs. 80. Weimar II bubo? Nedoma’s argument that bobo and bubo are not identical depends on the supposition that u cannot represent a reflex of stressed */¯o/ – a supposition not shared by Arntz, Förstemann, Haubrichs or Krause (see Weimar II entry in § 4.1). While I support Nedoma’s argument, it is worth pointing out that if we allow a decoupling of orthographic differences from phonological contrasts in one instance, then we must be prepared to allow it elsewhere: if Weimar II u can represent a reflex of stressed */¯o/, then could the same apply to, for example, 60. Osthofen fura M *f¯ora “condition, situation”( ? ) (< PGmc *f¯orj¯on > ON ó-fœra “dangerous situation”; OHG un-gi-fuora “unfavourable condition”)? The appeal to “archaic” or “conservative” spelling presents us with a dangerously easy way to dispose of anomalies. As the discussion of the obstruents in § 8.2.1 illustrates, it is even hypothetically possible to invoke such conservatism to dismiss all of the data except for one or two unusual cases. We must maintain a healthy suspicion of attempts to explain away inconvenient data as conservative forms, since we have no reliable way to distinguish between orthographic conservatism and “genuine” phonological evidence. The issue of conservatism also raises questions about the cultural context in which the runic script is being used: Who is enforcing the “conservative” orthography, and by what means? Manuscripts of the OHG/OS period have known orthographic conventions which can be transmitted through the institutions of the scriptoria. We have no evidence for the existence of comparable institutions governing the production of runic inscriptions, yet the script must have been transmitted by some means.
Theoretical and methodological considerations
357
8.3.2 Phonological theory I stressed at the outset that this study is intended to be a description and analysis of a dataset, rather than a contribution to phonological theory. The dataset is too small for the application of quantitative methods to be meaningful. Nonetheless, analysis cannot proceed without accepting some theoretical assumptions (even if they are only as basic as the assumption that the phoneme is a real linguistic unit). In analysing and attempting to model sound change, we are faced with a tension between the atomistic descriptions in the handbooks, which tend to concentrate on the surface facts of (in this case) OHG and OS, and often overlook distinct stages of sound change (as well as tending to conflate orthographic and phonological variation); and the synthesising impulse of rulebased theories in the generative tradition, which attempt to account for data using an economical set of apparatus, and thereby risk obscuring the messy details of the ways in which speech communities address and resolve linguistic problems. The former approach is exemplified in the treatment of the OHG reflexes of */eu/ (§ 2.3.1.1). The handbooks typically describe the distribution of the variants /iu/ and /eo/ as a set of surface facts, without making it clear that we are dealing with two processes which are quite distinct both systematically and chronologically. The synthesising approach gives us (for instance) the various attempts to unify the monophthongisations of */ai/ and */au/ (§§ 2.3.1.3–2.3.1.4). Both approaches tend to unify the umlaut processes under the contrast between /i u/ and /e o a/ as sounds which produce a relatively high or relatively low vowel in the preceding syllable (a contrast expressible in generative phonology terms as a feature [±high]). Both imply that we are dealing with a single process; but how sure can we really be that the surface distribution of variants is not actually the result of two separate processes, one conditioned by the high front and the other by the high back vowels? Linguistic theories must be founded on the rigorous analysis of carefullyobserved data. A perennial problem in runology is that of agreeing on what the data represent, given that we have relatively little material, and that much of what we do have is defective. If the orthography cannot be relied upon to reflect phonological variation in non-arbitrary ways (§ 8.3.1), then the task of inference becomes significantly more difficult. In this study I have intentionally avoided any claims to advance phonological theory. What I hope I have done is to highlight some of the difficulties in this particular dataset and to challenge some of the assumptions about the relationship between written and spoken forms which underlie our efforts to interpret the data. When we
358
The phonological system(s) of “Continental Runic”
are attempting to reconstruct the systems of a dead spoken language from written data, it is easy to lose sight of the fundamental gap in transmission. Texts are not products of a perfect system; they are created by people who do not necessarily share the modern scholar’s concern for accuracy or clarity. Working directly from the data, we can detect only those contrasts which carvers (or writers) choose to mark. The quality of the data is constrained, therefore, not only by the limited resources of the writing system, but by the phonetic and phonological sensitivity of the individuals who produced the texts.
Notes on catalogue entries
361
Notes on catalogue entries Designation of items Where multiple inscriptions are associated with the same site, I have retained the numbering used in my sources. Occasionally there is disagreement about the numbering of items (as in the case of the items from Neudingen-Baar and Schretzheim) or the naming of the find-site (the Bezenye finds are referred to in the older literature by the German name Pallersdorf, for example). Where necessary, I have added a note below the heading. My numbering and labelling are for reference purposes, and are not intended to imply any ideological stance in relation either to the inscribed objects or to the secondary literature.
Concordance For items which appear in existing catalogues, catalogue numbers are given here. For items from Looijenga (2003a), I give the chapter number in Roman numerals, followed by the item number within the chapter.
Find-site This section includes latitude and longitude co-ordinates, rounded to the nearest minute.
Context Where information is available about the context of the find, brief comments and references are given here.
362
Catalogue
Provenance This section includes information about the cultural/ethnic classification of the region and the find-site; the place of manufacture of the object; and/or the possible linguistic classification of the inscription. These types of information are frequently conflated in the literature (especially in older sources). I have attempted to be as clear as possible about the type of evidence being presented.
Datings The date-ranges proposed for a find are arranged in chronological order of source (on the grounds that more recent authors have access to more information, and in some cases to more precise and reliable methods of dating). Here, as in the Provenance section, we find a certain amount of ambiguity about evidence: many sources do not state explicitly whether the proposed dating refers to a burial, or to the manufacture of the object, or to the production of the inscription. Where additional information about the dating is available, I have commented on it briefly.
Readings Where I am quoting transliterations from different authors, I adhere for the most part to their own formats and divisions of the text. However, I have normalised the transliteration of . as ï (although the sources use a wide range of symbols, reflecting the disagreement about the original value of the rune – see § 5.2.4); 0 as z; and á as ŋ (where some authors (e.g., Antonsen 1975) use ng to reflect the view that that the rune represents two segments /ng/ = [ŋg]).1 In my own transliterations, I use the following conventions: ] or [ – physical break in the inscribed surface; ? – illegible sign (where some sources use x or other marks); … – unknown amount of illegible material; dot below – uncertain or disputed reading; parentheses – uncertain whether a rune is present or not; capitals – Roman letters. 1 In dealing with various authors’ treatment of this rune, we should bear in mind that here more than elsewhere, runologists have been inconsistent in distinguishing between form, transliteration, and phonemic and phonetic value (Barnes 1994:18–19).
Notes on catalogue entries
363
Where multiple readings exist for an inscription, I have listed them in chronological order. In the main text I use my own “diplomatic” reading. In general, I favour the majority transliteration of disputed signs, unless the majority view has been discredited, or on the few occasions where I am confident that it is open to serious doubt. In these cases, the rune is transliterated with a dot below to indicate that the reading is not certain. Where I see no strong basis for a decision, I follow the practice of (inter alios) Nedoma (2004a) and give the alternatives superscripted and subscripted, divided by a stroke, e.g., x/ . y In my own diplomatic readings, text-dividers and other paratextual marks are represented as a single dot where the source has a single dot, and otherwise with a colon. The sources use various signs such as ’ = for various paratextual marks. I have not attempted to distinguish between these; for a rigorous treatment of these signs, see Graf (2010).
Images In addition to the various drawings and photographs available in the published literature, I have also had access to high-resolution digital photographs of some items, kindly provided to me by Michelle Waldispühl at the Universität Zürich, who with her colleagues has been engaged in detailed re-examination of many of the items. At the time of writing, none of these images has been published. In the individual catalogue entries, I refer to them as “Waldispühl (pers.comm.)”.
364
Catalogue
Aalen
365
1. Aalen Concordance L VII.1. Object Silver gilt neckring with almandine inlay. Find-site Aalen, Ostalbkreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48°50’ N, 10°06’ E). The precise find-spot is unknown. Context Stray find (Looijenga 2003a:226; Nedoma 2004a:389). Provenance Martin (2004:173) notes that the object is atypical in Alamannia; a similar neckring (without runes), dated to the 5th century, was found in a woman’s grave at Herrenberg (Kr. Böblingen). According to Looijenga, neckrings of this sort, “Celtic and classical Roman in origin” (2003a:226), were known across Europe and centred on the Main (see also Wamers 2000). The inscription could plausibly be PNorse or WGmc (§ 4.1). Datings 400–450 or mid-5th century (Düwel 1987; 1994b:295). Possibly late 5th or early 6th century. The object shows signs of having been in use for some time before it found its way into the ground (Nedoma 1999a:11; 2000:24; 2004a:390). 400–450; almandine inlay added some time in 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:226). Location of inscription Inner edge (Looijenga 2003a:226). On the back, opposite the clasp, running left to right (Düwel 1987:12; Martin 2004:173; Nedoma 2004a:389). Readings noru (Düwel 1987:12; 2000b:19; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:226; Nedoma 1999a:11; 2000:24).
366
Catalogue
References Düwel (1987; 2000b); Looijenga (2003a:226); Martin (2004:173–174); Nedoma (1999a; 2000; 2004a:389–394); Wamers (2000). Images Looijenga (2003a plate 14a) (photograph); Wamers (2000, passim) (drawings and photographs).
2. Aquincum Concordance An 102; KJ 7; O 1; L VII.2; RMR F4. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Near the entrance to the amphitheatre at Aquincum (Budapest, Hungary) (47° 30’ N, 19° 05’ E). Context Part of a hoard, excavated in 1940. The hoard included a matching fibula with various non-runic signs carved on the back (Krause 1966:23). Provenance Looijenga (2003a:226), following Krause (1966:26), designates the item “probably Langobardic”. Martin rejects this on stylistic and chronological grounds, and states that it is typical of bow fibulae manufactured in the Danube region and therefore of “East Germanic” origin (2004:170). Antonsen (1975:102) classifies the inscription as WGmc, though he does not state his reasons (linguistic or otherwise). Datings c.530 (Krause 1966:23). 500–550 (Looijenga 2003a:226; Opitz 1987:7; Roth 1981a:65). Martin does not date the Aquincum fibulae directly, but the finds he offers as parallels (see Provenance) are dated mid-late 5th century (2004:170). Early 6th century? (McKinnell et al. 2004:88).
Arlon
367
Location of inscription On the back. Complex II is to the right of the pin-holder; complex I runs parallel to it. Looijenga (2003a:227) states that the pin-holder was added after the runes were cut. She concludes that the inscription might have been made during the production process, and that the first part of it is covered by the pin-holder. Both complexes are read left to right. Readings [A] fuÂarkgw [B] jlain:kŋia (Grønvik 1985:177; Kiel; Krause 1966:23; McKinnell et al. 2004:88; Opitz 1987:7). fuÂarkgw ]?laig : kingia (Looijenga 2003a:226). The n-rune in complex II seems sufficiently clear to me (from Krause’s photograph) that I am content to reject Looijenga’s reading g. The ŋ-rune in this inscription has the so-called “lantern” form +. Diplomatic reading: [I] fuÂarkgw [II] ?lain:kŋia References Antonsen (1975:76); Grønvik (1985:177–179); Krause (1966:23–26); Looijenga (2003a:226–227); McKinnell et al. (2004:88); Opitz (1987:7, 181–182). Images Krause (1966 Taf. 4) (photograph); Grønvik (1985:178) (drawing); Martin (2004:169 Abb. 1) (drawing).
3. Arlon Concordance AZ 42; KJ 146; L VII.3; O 2; RMR D6. Object Silver capsule. Find-site Arlon, Prov. Luxembourg, Belgium (49° 41’ N, 5° 49’ E). Context Female grave (no. 17) in a small row-gravefield, excavated in 1936 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:431; Krause 1966:286). The inscription was discovered in 1938, after the capsule had been cleaned (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:432).
368
Catalogue
Provenance Designated Frankish by Arntz and Zeiss (1939:431), Krause (1966:286), and Fischer and Lémant (2003:242, 244). Datings 650–700 (Werner, cited by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:432 (Zeiss does not commit himself to any more precise dating than 7th century); Opitz 1987:8). 600–633 (Roosens and Alenus-Lecerf 1965:15, 76; McKinnell et al. 2004:63 (rounding off the end of the range to 630)). Mid 7th century. (Krause 1966:287; Fischer and Lémant 2003:244). This dating is based on comparison with other capsules from the Middle Rhine region. 600–650 (Looijenga 2003a:227). 667–700 (Nedoma 1992:1; Roth 1981a:65). Location of inscription Running around the middle of the capsule, left to right. Readings godun : ulo : Âes : rasuwa(.)mu(un, nu)d(:?)worÂ(Âr)o … g (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:435). godun : xulo : Âes : rasuwa mudworoÂxxx(x)x (Krause 1966:286; McKinnell et al. 2004:63; Opitz 1987:8). godun o e srasuwa(m)ud wo?g(t) (Looijenga 2003a:227). godun – – e srasuwa – udwo?o (Fischer and Lémant 2003:245). godun:xulo:Âes:rasuwa mudwoÂroÂ[---]? (Nedoma 1992:1–2; 2004a:306). godu(n) ' [0–1?](u)lo ' Âe(0–1?)s ' rasuwa(1–2? u)d(0–1?)wo(1–2?) oÂ[ ? ](0–1?) (Kiel). The suggestion that a bind-rune un/nu follows rasuwam is peculiar to Arntz. Krause mentions that the stave is crossed by a diagonal mark, but he dismisses it as meaningless or accidental (1966:286). I have transliterated the later bind-rune as Âr rather than r or a simplex r in accordance with the opinio communis, rather than as an assertion of my own (see Nedoma 1992 for further discussion). Diplomatic reading: godun : ( ? )ulo : Êes : rasuwamud( ? )woÊroÂ(…)
Aschheim II
369
References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:431–438); Fischer and Lémant (2003); Krause (1966:286–287); Looijenga (2003a:227–228); McKinnell et al. (2004:63); Nedoma (1992; 2004a:306–310, 366–369, 395–397, 417–422); Opitz (1987:8, 175–176); Roosens and Alenus-Lecerf (1965). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 38) (photographs); Fischer and Lémant (2003:264) (drawings).
4. Aschheim II [Aschheim I is a bow fibula with an uninterpretable inscription – see Appendix 1]. Concordance None. Object Silver disc fibula. Find-site Aschheim, Kr. München, Bavaria, Germany (48° 10’ N, 11° 43’ E). Context Female grave (no. 221) in the Aschheim-Bajuwarenring row-gravefield. Graves 220 and 221 form a double burial (Düwel 2003c:13 notes that this gravefield contains numerous multiple burials, which may be the graves of plague victims). Provenance No specific comments in the available literature. The site is in Bavarian territory. Datings Mid-late 6th century (Düwel 2003c:11). Undated, but probably c.550 (Nedoma 2004a:271). Location of inscription On the back of the fibula, running left to right.
370
Catalogue
Readings kahi (Düwel 2003c:11; Kiel). References Düwel (2003c:11–12); Nedoma (2004a:271). Images Düwel (2003c:11) (drawing).
5. Aschheim III Concordance None. Object Silver S-fibula. Find-site See 4. Aschheim II. Context Female grave (no. 49) in the same gravefield as Aschheim II. Graves 48–50 form a triple burial. Provenance See Aschheim II. Datings Mid-late 6th century (Düwel 2003c:12). Nedoma (2004a:271) notes that no definite date has been established. c.550–580 (Bauer 2010:1). Location of inscription On the back of the fibula, running left to right. Readings dado (Düwel 2003c:12; Kiel; Nedoma 2004a:271). miado (Bauer 2010:1). Düwel and Nedoma both regard the reading dad- as reasonably reliable, even though the metal is badly corroded.
Bad Ems
371
References Bauer (2010:1); Düwel (2003c:12–13); Nedoma (2004a:271–272). Images Düwel (2003c:12, 13) (drawings).
6. Bad Ems Concordance AZ 12; KJ 142; L VII.4; Ma B6; O 14; Sch F. Object Fragment of a silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Bad Ems, Rhein-Lahn-Kreis, Rheinland Pfalz, Germany (50° 20’ N, 7° 43’ E). Context Found by workmen in 1878. The precise circumstances are not known; Zeiss speculates that a row-gravefield may have existed in the area (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:193). Provenance Designated Frankish by Arntz and Zeiss (1939:193), and by Krause (1966:281). Datings Arntz and Zeiss (1939:193) cite various datings in earlier and contemporary literature, ranging from 6th – 8th centuries. c.600 (Krause 1966:282). 600–650 (Krause and Werner 1935:329; Kühn 1981:71; Opitz 1987:18). Nedoma (2004a:369) describes this dating as erroneous, but does not explain why. 567–600 (Looijenga 2003a:228; Nedoma 2004a:369; Roth 1981a:65; Schwerdt 2000:208). Location of inscription On the back of the footplate, either side of the pin; both complexes run left to right.
372
Catalogue
Readings [I] ]madalix [II] ubada[ (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:194–196; Krause 1966:282; Krause and Werner 1935:330; Looijenga 2003a:228; Opitz 1987:18; Schwab 1998b:139; Schwerdt 2000:208). [I] ?]madali= [II] ubada[? (Nedoma 2004a:370). madali(1?):ubada (Kiel). The sign here marked x (Nedoma =) is a small cross, which Krause identifies as a word-separator (1966:282). It is about a third the height of the preceding runes, so unlikely to be a g (as proposed by Klingenberg 1974:126 Anm.40). Looijenga (2003a:228) suggests that it might be a Christian symbol. Opitz (1987:18) does not mark this sign in his reading, but he later suggests that it is either a Christian cross or a Greek letter X for XITO (1987:133–134). With the orientation of the symbol and its reduced size in mind, I share Nedoma’s (2004a:370) scepticism about the cross-interpretation; Opitz’ suggestion of a Greek abbreviation (partial Christogram?) is likewise unjustified. Diplomatic reading: [I] ]madali? [II] ubada[ References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:193–201); Krause (1966:281–282); Krause and Werner (1935); Looijenga (2003a:228–229); Nedoma (2004a:369–375); Opitz (1978; 1987:18, 127–134); Schwab (1998b); Schwerdt (2000:208–209). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 10) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 61) (photographs); Krause and Werner (1935:329, 331) (drawing and photographs).
7. Bad Krozingen A [The paired fibula (Bad Krozingen B) has a single sign (f-rune?) on the back; see Appendix 1.] Concordance None. Object Almandined silver gilt disc fibula.
Bad Krozingen A
373
Find-site Bad Krozingen, Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 55’ N, 7° 42’ E). Context Female grave (no. 172) in a small gravefield (Fingerlin 1998:200; Fingerlin et al. 2004:226). The quality of the fibulae and other grave-goods indicate that the woman was of high social standing (Düwel 2002b:14; Fingerlin et al. 2004:226). Provenance The design of the fibulae suggests that they were manufactured in the Frankish Rhineland; the woman who owned them may have been a migrant from that region, or have married into a small Frankish elite ruling a predominantly Alamannic population (Düwel 2002b:14; Fingerlin 1999:30; Fingerlin et al. 2004:226, 242–243). Datings The grave is dated to c.600 (Düwel 2002b:14; Fingerlin et al. 2004:226; Nedoma 2004a:152). On stylistic grounds, the fibulae have been assigned to the period c.580–600 (Fingerlin et al. 2004:228). Location of inscription On the back of the fibula. Complex II is upside-down relative to complex I and above it (as the fibula is oriented in Düwel’s drawing). Both complexes run left to right. Readings [I] boba:leub [II] agirike (Düwel 2002b:15; Fingerlin et al. 2004:235–237; Kiel; Nedoma 2004a:152). References Düwel (2002b:14–16); Fingerlin (1998; 1999); Fingerlin et al. (2004); Nedoma (2004a:151–158, 244). Images Düwel 2002b:15 (drawing); Fingerlin et al. 2004:231 (drawings) Taf.1 (photographs).
374
Catalogue
8. Balingen Concordance AZ 7; KJ 160; L VII.5; Ma F1; O 3; Sch A. Object Gold disc fibula on a silver backing-plate. Find-site On the eastern side of the Kleiner Heuberg, Balingen, Zollernalbkreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 17’ N, 8° 51’ E). Context From a row-gravefield excavated by amateurs in 1872 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:121; Nedoma 2004a:184). The inscription was not discovered until 1887 (v. Grienberger 1908:257). Provenance Zeiss identifies the gravefield as Alamannic, but typologically the fibula is believed to have been manufactured in Burgundia or eastern Francia (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:121). Datings 600–650 (Krause 1966:303; Opitz 1987:9). 600–633 (Roth 1981a:65). 567–600 (Stein in Düwel 1994b:277; Looijenga 2003a:229; Nedoma 2004a:185; Schwerdt 2000:201). c.600 or before (Martin 2004:181). Location of inscription On the back, running right to left. Readings aïkdnloamuluŋ (v. Grienberger 1908:274). a + 3(2?) signs + dnloam + 1 sign lu [+ 2(1?) sign(s)] (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:128). The sign following m is probably i, but it is angled towards the m, so it is possible that a bind-rune mu was intended (see v. Grienberger 1908). Arntz favours the reading mi. axudnloamiluk (Krause 1966:302). asuzdnloamiluk (Opitz 1987:9; Schwerdt 2000:201). a u/r zdnloamiluk (Looijenga 2003a:229).
Beuchte
375
?uzdnloamilu? (Nedoma 2004a:185) a(suz)dnloam(1?)lu(k) (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: a?uzdnloamilu? References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:120–133); von Grienberger (1908); Klingenberg (1973); Krause (1966:302–303); Looijenga (2003a:229); Nedoma (2004a:184–189, 273–276); Opitz (1987:9, 78, 112–121); Söderberg (1890). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 6; Taf. 39)) (photographs); v. Grienberger (1908:257) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 70) (photograph); Looijenga (2003a plate 14b) (photograph); Nedoma (2004a:187) (photographs).
9. Beuchte Concordance An 106; KJ 8; L VII.6; Ma D2; O 4; RMR F5. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Near Beuchte, Kr. Goslar, Niedersachsen, Germany (51° 59’ N, 10° 31’ E). Context From a richly appointed female grave (no. 1), part of a small gravefield discovered in 1955 (Düwel 1992a:353). Provenance Krause infers from the form of the j-rune (which is similar to forms found in Scandinavian inscriptions such as Fonnås (KJ 17)) that the rune-carver might have been an Angle or a Warn (1966:28). The fibula is of a Scandinavian type, possibly a Continental imitation. The other grave-goods are similar to material found in Thuringia and the lower Elbe (Looijenga 2003a:229). It has also been argued that the gravefield better fits the Saxon cultural model (Nedoma 2004a:261, citing Siegmund 2000). Linguistically, Antonsen (1975:78) classifies the inscription as WGmc.
376
Catalogue
Datings 550–600 (Antonsen 1975:78; Krause 1966:28; Opitz 1987:10). Krause’s dating is based on rune forms (see Provenance). Mid 6th century (Roth 1981a:65). 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:229). c.550 (Nedoma 2004a:261, citing Roth (op.cit.)). This dating is an estimate for the grave; the fibula is believed to have been manufactured sometime in the first half of the 6th century. c.500–550 (Düwel 1992a:354; 2008:18; McKinnell et al. 2004:88). This is a date-range for the gravefield as a whole. Noting that the fibula shows many signs of wear, while the runes are clear and in good condition, Düwel concludes that the inscription was carved shortly before the burial. He suggests a date of c.500 for the manufacture of the fibula (1992a:355). 534–566 (Siegmund 2000:365). This is a dating for the interment burials in the gravefield (compare Düwel’s dating, above). Location of inscription On the back of the headplate, both complexes running left to right. Readings [I] fuÂarzj [II] buirso (Antonsen 1975:78; Kiel; Krause 1966:26–27; Looijenga 2003a:229–230; McKinnell et al. 2004:88; Nedoma 2004a:261; Opitz 1987:10). Below complex II is an hourglass-shaped symbol, which is not read as a d-rune on account of its size (it is much larger than the runes, being about as wide as the whole of complex II). References Antonsen (1975:78); Düwel (1991:278–279; 1992a:353–356; 2008:18–19, 57–58); Krause (1966:26–29); Looijenga (2003a:229–230); McKinnell et al. (2004:88–89); Nedoma (2004a:261–266); Opitz (1987:10, 181). Images Düwel (2008:58) (drawing); Krause (1966 Taf. 5) (photographs); Looijenga (2003a:230) (drawing of the inscription).
Bezenye I
377
10. Bezenye I [aka Bezenye A, Pallersdorf A]. Concordance AZ 27; KJ 166; L VII.7; Ma B4a; O 5. Object Silver bow fibula. Bezenye I and II (no. 12, below) are a pair. Find-site Bezenye, Kom. Mosony, Hungary (47° 58’ N, 17° 13’ E). Context Female grave (no. 8) in a row-gravefield excavated in 1885 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:320). Provenance Both Zeiss (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:321) and Krause (1966:310) identify the site as Langobardic. Datings The find “belongs … to the first decades after the Langobardic migration (568)”2 (Zeiss in Arntz and Zeiss 1939:321). On archaeological grounds (unspecified) Krause places the find in the “Pannonian phase” of Langobardic settlement, 530–568 (Krause 1966:310). 533–566 (Roth 1981a:65). Mid-6th century (Opitz 1987:11; Looijenga 2003a:230). Location of inscription On the back of the fibula, complexes I and II either side of the pin-holder, both running left to right. Readings godahid | unja (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:323–324; Kiel; Krause 1966:308; Opitz 1987:11). (| is how Krause represents the pin-holder). godahid unj? (Looijenga 2003a:230).
2 “… gehört … in die ersten Jahrzehnte nach der langobardischen Einwanderung (568)”
378
Catalogue
[I] uxxa/n (*unja?) [II] godahid (Nedoma 2004a:203). Nedoma notes that complex I is badly damaged, and expresses reservations about the earlier readings. Diplomatic reading: [I] unja [II] godahid Although I have followed Nedoma’s ordering of the complexes, I do not at this stage wish to commit to reading them in this order rather than the one used by the other sources. References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:320–322); Krause (1966:308–310); Looijenga (2003a:230–231); Nedoma (2004a:202–205, 310–32); Opitz (1987:11, 183–185); Schwab (1998a:416). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 24) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 71) (photographs).
11. Bezenye II [aka Bezenye B, Pallersdorf B] Concordance AZ 28; KJ 166; L VII.9; Ma B4b; O 6. Object Silver bow fibula, the pair of 10. Bezenye I. Find-site Bezenye, Kom. Mosony, Hungary (47° 58’ N, 17° 13’ E). Context See Bezenye I. Provenance See Bezenye I. Datings See Bezenye I.
Bopfingen
379
Location of inscription On the back, complexes I and II either side of the pin-holder, both running left to right. Readings karsiboda segun (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:326–329). karsiboda | segun (Krause 1966:308; Opitz 1987:11). ?arsiboda segun (Looijenga 2003a:230). [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun (Nedoma 2004a:203). (k)arsi(1?)oda | segun (Kiel). The first sign is read by Arntz and Krause as a k in the “roof-form” ^, i.e., the normal S rotated through 90°. Nedoma regards it not as a rune but as a paratextual symbol marking the beginning of the text (2004a:203–204). Diplomatic reading: [I] ?arsiboda [II] segun References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:320–322, 326–333); Krause (1966:308–310); Looijenga (2003a:230–231); Nedoma (2004a:202–209); Opitz (1987:11, 183–185); Schwab (1998a:416). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 25) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 71) (photographs).
12. Bopfingen Concordance L VII.9; Ma G1; O 7. Object Gilt bronze/silver( ? ) “four-footed” disc fibula (Vierpaßfibel) (Martin 2004:203; Nedoma 2004a:386). Find-site Bopfingen, Kr. Heidenheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 51’ N, 10° 21’ E).
380
Catalogue
Context Female grave (no. 115) in a row-gravefield. Provenance Alamannic (Düwel 1994b:277). Datings 6th century (Opitz 1987:12). 600–633 (Roth 1981a:65). 576–600 (Düwel 1994b:277, citing Matthias Knaut without references). End of 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:231). Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. Readings mauo (Düwel 1994b:277; Looijenga 2003a:231; Kiel; Nedoma 2004a:386; Opitz 1987:12). References Düwel (1994b:277); Looijenga (2003a:231); Martin (2004:203); Nedoma (2004a:386–389); Opitz (1979:367–368; 1987:12). Images Opitz (1979:367; 1987:298) (photograph).
13. Borgharen Concordance L IX.18 Object Bronze belt-buckle. Find-site Archaeological site “Op de Stein”, just outside Borgharen, Gem. Maastricht, Linburg, Netherlands (50° 53’ N, 5° 41’ E).
Bülach
381
Context Male grave (no. 7) in a small row-gravefield, excavated in 1999 (Dijkman 2003:216–218; Looijenga 2003a:322, 2003b:232, 2003c:389). Provenance Looijenga identifies the gravefield as Merovingian, and associates it with a Merovingian runic tradition (2000:12; 2003a:322; 2003b:231; 2003c:393). Datings c.600 (Dijkman 2003:218; Looijenga 2003b:232, 2003c:390). This is a date for the burial, based on typology of the grave goods and on coin evidence. 576–600 (Looijenga 2003a:322). Nedoma cites Looijenga’s (2003b; 2003c) record of the accompanying finds, which include a coin that would give a terminus post quem of 550–585 (Nedoma 2004a:245). Location of inscription On the front, running left to right. Readings bobo (Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:322; 2003b:233; 2003c:389; Nedoma 2004a:245). References Dijkman (2003); Looijenga (2000; 2003a:322; 2003b; 2003c); Nedoma (2004a:244–250). Images Looijenga (2003a plate 27a) (photograph).
14. Bülach Concordance AZ 10; Graf 11; KJ 165; L VII.11; Ma E6; O 9; Sch B. Object Silver disc fibula with almandine inlay. Find-site Bülach, Kanton Zürich, Switzerland (47° 31’ N, 8° 32’ E).
382
Catalogue
Context Female grave (no. 249) in a row-gravefield excavated in 1927. The inscription was discovered during restoration of the fibula in 1933 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:168–169). Provenance In Zeiss’ view (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:168) both the fibula and the inscription are Alamannic. Krause identifies the text Alamannic (likewise Seebold et al. 2001:16); but he also cites the view of Werner (1953:10–11) that the fibula is of Frankish manufacture (Krause 1966:308). Nedoma too refers to Werner’s opinion that the object was made in the Middle Rhine region; the inscription could have been made in the same region, or at a later date in Alamannia (Nedoma 2004a:297; Schwerdt 2000:203). Datings 600–650, based on the decoration, which shows evidence of Langobardic influence (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:169; Opitz 1987:13). Beginning of 7th century (Krause 1966:308; Klingenberg 1976b:308). 567–600 (Roth 1981a:65; Stein 1987:1392–1393, cited by Düwel 1994b:277; Graf 2010:146; Looijenga 2003a:234; Nedoma 2004a:297; Schwerdt 2000:203). End of 6th century (Schweiz. Landesmus. 2006:151). Location of inscription On the back of the fibula, in three rows, all running left to right. Readings [I] frifridil [II] du [III] ftmik (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:169–170; Krause 1966:307; Klingenberg 1976b:310; Opitz 1987:14; Schwerdt 2000:202). Both Arntz and Krause note that in complex III i and k are close together and k is retrograde, so they could plausibly be read as u. Krause and Klingenberg both see two stray l-runes in the vicinity of complex III (see below). frifridil du a f tmu (Looijenga 2003a:235). [I] frifridil [II] du [III] lftd/mi/u = (Nedoma 2004a:298). = represents a comb-like mark above the line (see Graf 2010:146–150). frifridil du ift mikl (Schweiz.Landesmus. 2006:151). frifridil(0–1?) | d(u) | ftm(ik 0–1?) | (0–2?) (Kiel). Microscopic analysis cited by Nedoma (2004a:298) shows no trace of the sign read by Krause as an l-rune to the right of complex III, nor of the mark seen by Klingenberg at the end of complex I and read as a small horizontal l
Charnay
383
(1976b:310) (both of these are interpreted as Begriffsrunen, for *laukaz “leek” M “prosperity, fertility”; see Krause 1966:246–249). In complex III, the material preceding t is obscured by damage to the object, and what is visible does not look to me like an f. Following d/m is a clear stave (i-rune?) followed by a cluster of marks resembling disembodied “twigs”. The reading mik does not seem at all justified. For further discussion of these signs, see Graf (2010:147). Diplomatic reading: [I] frifridil [II] du [III] (lf)tm? References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:167–172); Graf (2010:146–155); Klingenberg (1976a; 1976b); Krause (1966:307–308); Looijenga (2003a:234–235); Martin (1977); Nedoma (2004a:297–303); Opitz (1987:13–14, 195–197); Schweiz.Landesmus. (2006:151); Schwerdt (2000:202–205); Werner (1953). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 8) (photographs); Graf (2010:146) (photograph); Krause 1966 Taf. 70 (photographs); Nedoma 2004a:299 (photographs); Schweiz.Landesmus. 2006:151 (photographs).
15. Charnay Concordance An 105; AZ 11; KJ 6; L VII.12; Ma D1; O 10; RMR F3. Object Silver bow fibula. Find-site On the banks of the Saône near Charnay-lès-Chalon, Dép. Saône-et-Loire, Bourgogne, France (46° 56’ N, 5° 06’ E). Context Row-gravefield, excavated in the 1830s; further details of the site and the inventory are not available (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:174; Krause 1966:20). The inscription was not discovered until 1857 (Düwel 1981a:373). Provenance According to Krause (1966:22–23), the fibula is of Frankish or Alamannic manufacture, and the inscription has characteristically “South Germanic” rune-
384
Catalogue
forms (double-barred h; z with two pairs of twigs, ö); but the text has EGmc features (§ 3.2.1). Arntz and Zeiss (1939:174–175) draw similar conclusions, although where Krause explains the EGmc linguistic forms as fossils in the language of 6th-century Burgundians, Arntz’ view is that the text is Ostrogothic. Roth (1981b:372) remarks that the only identifiably “Burgundian” characteristic of the archaeological record at Charnay consists of large silverplated belt fittings. According to Roth, the population of Burgundia was chiefly “native” Gallo-Roman, ruled by a Burgundian military elite from 443AD until its defeat by the Franks in 534. Formally, the fibula resembles Scandinavian bow fibulae and their Continental imitations; fibulae of this type (though not close parallels for Charnay) have been found at Anglo-Saxon, Thuringian, Frankish and Alamannic sites, while the decoration is comparable to that on fibulae from Frankish and Langobardic territory, as well as having some similarities with 2. Aquincum, which Martin (2004) classifies as typologically East Germanic. The Charnay item is most likely of Frankish manufacture (Düwel 1994b:278; Roth 1981b:373). Following Martin (1981:257), Düwel (1994b:279) suggests that fibulae of this sort found in Burgundia belonged to women who had migrated to that region from northern Francia. All of this implies that neither the maker nor the owner of the fibula is likely to have been a Burgundian. In his work on names in Continental inscriptions, Nedoma disregards Charnay on the grounds that the pers.n. liano is probably EGmc (2004a:364). Antonsen, on the other hand, is confident that it is WGmc (1975:77–78). Datings c.600 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:175). 551–600 (Krause 1966:23; Antonsen 1975:77). 533–566 (Roth 1981a:65; 1981b:373; Düwel 1994b:278; Looijenga 2003a:235). 550–570 (McKinnell et al. 2004:87). Location of inscription On the back, complexes I–III around the border of the headplate, complexes IV–V on the footplate (see readings; the numbering of complexes in the diplomatic reading is mine). All of the complexes are read left to right. Readings [headplate: top] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem [right-hand side] : uÂfnÂai : id [left-hand side] dan:liano [footplate:border] ïia [below the pin-holder] k r (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:180–188; Krause 1966:20–21; McKinnell et al. 2004:87; Opitz 1987:14).
Chéhéry
385
[I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem [II] : uÂfaÂai : : id [III] dan : liano (Antonsen 1975:77). [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpstbem. :uÂfnÂai:id dan:liano [II] ï/lia [III] k r (Düwel 1981a:373–374). [headplate] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstb??? :uÂfnÂai:id dan:liano [footplate] ïia (Looijenga 2003a:236). fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem | ' uÂf(1?)Âai ' id | dan ' (l)iano | ïia | (1?)r (Kiel). The l in complex III resembles the “Anglo-Frisian” k-rune T, but its identification as a form of l is generally accepted. A similar form is also found on 29. Griesheim. Krause (1966:22) claims that similar forms of l are found in bracteate inscriptions, an assertion which Düwel regards as uncertain (1981a:374). The k and l runes in the fuÂark have the more normal forms, respectively S and Ü (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:180; Looijenga 2003a:236). Diplomatic reading: [I] fuÂarkgwhnijïpzstbem( ? ) [II] :uÂfnÂai:id [III] dan:liano [IV] ï/lia [V] k r References Antonsen (1975:77–78); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:173–192); Düwel (1981a; 1994b:278–279); Krause (1966:20–23); Looijenga (2003a:235–236); McKinnell et al. (2004:87–88); Opitz (1987:14–15, 112–121); Roth (1981b). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 9) (photographs and drawing); Düwel (1996b:547) (photographs); Krause 1966:21 Abb. 1 (drawing); Roth 1981b Taf.20–21 (photographs).
16. Chéhéry Concordance L VII.51; Ma K1. Object Gold disc fibula with almandine and filigree decoration (Fischer and Lémant 2003:244; Martin 2004:184). Find-site Chéhéry, Dép. Ardennes, Champagne-Ardenne, France (48° 39’ N, 4° 52’ E).
386
Catalogue
Context Richly-appointed female grave in a small gravefield excavated in 1978 (Fischer and Lémant 2003:243–244). Provenance The archaeological evidence indicates that Chéhéry was under Frankish control by the early 6th century (Fischer and Lémant 2003:242). From the point of view of the material record, the occupant of the grave is culturally Frankish, but Fischer and Lémant suggest that she came originally from the Rhineland or Alamannia (2003:244, 257). Datings 551–600 (Düwel 1991:277; 1994b:235). c.600 (Fischer 1999:12). Early 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:264). The burial dates from the early 7th century, the grave-goods from the late th 6 (Fischer and Lémant 2003:244). The fibula shows signs of long use and repair, and Fischer and Lémant infer that its manufacture predates the burial by at least 30–50 years (2003:255). 551–600 or c.600 (Nedoma 2004a:280). I assume these datings are drawn respectively from Düwel and Fischer. Location of inscription On the back. Complex II is immediately below and parallel to complex I; complex III is below and at an angle relative to complexes I–II. Fischer reads complexes I and III left to right, complex II right to left (i.e., boustrophedon), presumably because this allows a continuous reading of all the Roman letters. Düwel reads all the complexes left to right. Readings DEOS:DE / E:ditan / sum? (Fischer 1999:12; Fischer and Lémant 2003:249; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:264). The strokes here represent divisions between the complexes. [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E [III] sumÓik (Düwel 1994b:236). DEOS ' DE | E ' dita(n) | s(um)[1–2?] (Kiel). The inscription is badly worn in parts, which leads Fischer and Lémant to suggest that these parts were carved at an earlier date than those which are in better condition. The fibula appears to have been repaired at least once, and the Latin inscription may have been added after the pin mechanism was re-
Dischingen I
387
placed. The Latin and runic inscriptions show signs of having been carved with different types of tool (Fischer and Lémant 2003:249). Diplomatic reading: [I] DEOS : DE [II] htid : E / E : ditan [III] sum(Óik) References Düwel (1991:277–278; 1994b:235–236); Fischer (1999:12–13); Fischer and Lémant (2003); Looijenga (2003a:264); Nedoma (2004a:280). Images Fischer (1999:13) (drawing); Fischer and Lémant (2003:263) (drawing); Martin (2004:183) (drawings).
17. Dischingen I [aka Dischingen A]. Concordance KJ 155; L VII.13; Ma C1a; O 11; Sch C. Object Silver gilt bow fibula, one of a pair. The other (Dischingen II (or Dischingen B) – see Appendix 1) also has an inscription, for which only Begriffsrune interpretations have been proposed. Find-site Dischingen, Kr. Heidenheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 42’ N, 10° 22’ E), excavated in 1954. Context Female grave (unnumbered) in a row-gravefield to the south of the modern town (Krause 1966:297; Nedoma 2004a:414). In contradiction to Krause’s description of the site as a gravefield, Opitz (1987:16) describes this burial as an isolated grave. Provenance Alamannic (Krause 1966:297).
388
Catalogue
Datings 7th century (Krause 1966:297; Opitz 1987:16; Schwerdt 2000:205). Mid-6th century (Looijenga 2003a:236; Roth 1981a:65). c.550 (Nedoma 2004a:414, citing Roth (op.cit.)). Location of inscription On the back, next to the pin-holder, running left to right. Readings winka (Kiel; Krause 1966:297; Opitz 1987:16; Schwerdt 2000:205). wigka or winka (Looijenga 2003a:236). wig/nka (Nedoma 2004a:415). Diplomatic reading: wig/nka. References Krause (1966:297); Looijenga (2003a:236–237); Nedoma (2004a:414–417); Opitz (1987:16, 107–109); Schwerdt (2000:205–206). Images Arntz and Jänichen (1957 Taf. 64–65) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 66) (photograph).
18. Donzdorf Concordance L VII.14; Ma D4; O 15; Sch D. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Donzdorf, Kr. Göppingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 41’ N, 9° 49’ E). Context Richly-appointed female grave (no. 78) in a row-gravefield (Düwel and Roth 1977:409; Jänichen 1967b:234). For a more detailed report on the gravefield, see Kokkotidis (1999:40–44).
Donzdorf
389
Provenance The gravefield is classified as Alamannic, but the style of the fibula, the single-barred h in the inscription and the “tremolo” style of decoration all point to a Scandinavian origin (Düwel 1994b:237; Düwel and Roth 1977:409–410, 412; Fischer 2004:292; Jänichen 1967b:234). Peterson (1994:144) and Reichert (1987:246) classify the fibula as Jutish. Datings 500–550 (Opitz 1987:17; Looijenga 2003a:237). 500–520 (Düwel and Roth 1977:410; Düwel 1994b:237; Schwerdt 2000:206). This is a dating based on the fibula style. Mid 6th century (Roth 1981a:65). 526–550 (Nedoma 2004a:288). The above datings are estimates for the manufacture of the fibula. The grave has been assigned various dates in the period 550–600 (Nedoma 2004a:288). Jänichen (1967b:234) dates the grave to the 7th century, but does not propose a more specific dating for the fibula. Location of inscription On the back, incorporated into a field of decoration consisting of lines, crosses and V-shapes. The inscription is not incised, but made using the “tremolo” style (Düwel and Roth 1977:410; Jänichen 1967b:234; Nedoma 2004a:288). It is read left to right. Readings eho (Düwel and Roth 1977:411; Jänichen 1967b:234; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:237; Nedoma 2004a:289; Opitz 1987:17; Schwerdt 2000:206). h is single-barred !. References Düwel (1994b:237); Düwel and Roth (1977); Fischer (2004:292–293); Jänichen (1967b:234); Looijenga (2003a:237); Nedoma (2004a:288–292); Neuffer (1972); Opitz (1987:17, 169–170); Peterson (1994:144–145); Schwerdt (2000:206–207). Images Düwel (1997a:493) (photograph); Düwel and Roth (1977 Abb.35) (photographs); Jänichen (1967b Taf.43.2) (photograph); Looijenga (2003a plate 15a) (photograph); Nedoma (2004a:289) (photograph).
390
Catalogue
19. Eichstetten Concordance Graf 12; Grün H3; IRF 34; L VII.15; Ma Wa3; Sch E. Object Silver fitting for the mouth of a spatha sheath. Find-site Eichstetten, Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 05’ N, 7° 44’ E). Context Male grave (no. 186) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1980 (Sasse 2001). Provenance No comments about ethnic or linguistic origin are made in the literature on the inscription. The gravefield is identified as Alamannic (Kokkotidis 1999:45–50). Datings Mid-6th century (Düwel 1994b:237; Looijenga 2003a:238; Schwerdt 2000: 207). 526–600 (Martin 2004:185; Graf 2010:156). This dating is based on archaeological context and follows Sasse (2001). 533–566 (Grünzweig 2004:126). 520–560 (Fischer 2007:133, also citing Sasse 2001). 551–600 (Graf 2010:156). Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. The joint of the fitting immediately follows the sign read by Düwel as a chi-rho and by Looijenga as nÂ. Readings (a)a[chi-rho]i[chi-rho] munt/iwiwol (Opitz 1982:484–485; Sasse 2001: 80–81). ?a?i? muni (or munt)wiwol (Düwel 1994b:268; Schwerdt 2000:207). fiagin muni wiwogan (Looijenga 2003a:238). Looijenga has drawn the bind-rune nÂ, but has transcribed it without marking it as a bind-rune. -ani- muniwiwol (Fischer 2007:133). Fischer offers several possible readings of the first sequence: danil/hanil/manil.
Eichstetten
391
fiagiw | muniwiwoi/gi/a (Graf 2010:158). I have added | to indicate the join of the fitting. (1?)a(1?)i(1?)[ ? ]mun(1?)wiwol (Kiel). The object is badly scratched, rendering the first part extremely difficult to read. I am inclined to favour the reading muni over munt (I can see no trace of side-twigs on this stave). The sign which Looijenga reads as g in fiagin resembles the “star-rune” #, which appears at different times and places with a number of values: it is j in the Anglo-Saxon fuÂorc (Page 1999:39; Parsons 1994:201–204); A (in contrast to I M a˛ M [ã]) in Scandinavian inscriptions assigned to the later part of the Older FuÂark period (e.g., Gummarp, KJ 95 (Krause 1966:205–209)); and h in the long-branch forms of the Younger FuÂark (see also 42. Kärlich). In Looijenga’s reading, the other g (in wiwogan) is a normal X. Looijenga’s reason for transcribing the “star-rune” as g seems to be that in Anglo-Saxon and Frisian inscriptions it seems to stand for the palatalised allophone of OE /g/, e.g., Dover jïslheard; Westeremden A adujislu jisuhldu (Looijenga 2003a:238, n.2).3 Graf (2010:160–162) argues that the first sequence (before mun-) was added later and is a piece of script-imitation rather than linguistically meaningful text. Diplomatic reading: ( ? )?a?i [chi-rho/nÂ/nw] muniwiwo?(??) References Düwel (1994b:237, 268); Fischer (2004:308; 2007:130–133); Graf (2010: 156–162); Grünzweig (2004:126, 133–135); Looijenga (2003a:238–239); Martin (2004:184–185, 205); Opitz (1981; 1982:481–486); Sasse (2001:80–81, 206–207); Schwerdt (2000:207–208). Images Fischer (2007:133) (drawing); Graf (2010:156) (photograph); Looijenga (2003a:238) (drawing); Martin (2004:185) (drawings); Opitz (1982: 482–483) (drawings and photographs); Sasse (2001:81, Taf. 138.21) (drawings and photograph); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
3 On the question of whether this rune is historically a form of j, a variant g or an additional rune for palatalised /g/, see Parsons 1999:124–126.
392
Catalogue
20. Engers Concordance AZ 13; KJ 143; L VII.16; Ma C4; O 15; Sch G. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Kaltenengers, Kr. Mayen-Koblenz, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany (50° 25’ N, 7° 33’ E). The object is customarily identified with Engers, which is on the opposite (east) side of the Rhine (Nedoma 2004a:354). Context Female grave in a row-gravefield (unnumbered), excavated by amateurs in 1885 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:202). The fibula was stolen and melted down in 1922 (Krause 1966:283). Provenance Frankish, based on an evaluation of the whole gravefield (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:202; Krause 1966:283). Datings c.600 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:203). End of 6th century (Krause 1966:283). Beginning of 7th century (Opitz 1987:19; Schwerdt 2000:208). 567–600 (Looijenga 2003a:239; Nedoma 2004a:354; Roth 1981a:65). Location of inscription On the back, between the headplate and the pin-holder. Readings leub (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:204; Kiel; Krause 1966:283; Looijenga 2003a:239; Nedoma 2004a:354; Opitz 1987:19; Schwab 1998a:412; Schwerdt 2000:209). References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:201–206); Fingerlin et al. (2004); Krause (1966:282–283); Looijenga (2003a:239); Nedoma (2004a:353–357); Opitz (1987:19); Schwab (1998a:412–417); Schwerdt (2000:209–210).
Erpfting
393
Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 11) (drawings); Looijenga (1999:148; 2004a:239) (reproduction of a drawing by Henning).
21. Erpfting Concordance None. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Erpfting, Kr. Landsberg am Lech, Bavaria, Germany (48° 02’ N, 10° 50’ E). Context Female grave (no. 104) in a gravefield (Düwel 2003c:13–14). Provenance No comments are made in the literature. Datings 526–550 or 533–566 (Düwel 2003c:14). Location of inscription On the back of the footplate. Readings lda·gabu (Düwel 2003c:14; Kiel). Düwel (2003c:15) mentions another mark resembling a u-rune, which in his view is probably a probatio pennae. References Düwel (2003c:13–16); Wührer (2004). Images Düwel (2003c:14) (drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
394
Catalogue
22. Ferwerd Concordance AZ 14; L IX.2. Object Comb case made of antler (Looijenga 2003a:303) or bone (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:207). Find-site Terp Burmania I, to the southwest of Ferwerd, Gem. Ferwerderadeel, Friesland, Netherlands (53° 20’ N, 5° 50’ E). Context Found in the terp during commercial digging in 1916 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:206; Looijenga 2003a:303). No further information about the circumstances of the find is available. Provenance The object may be an import from the Rhine region (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:206); in Arntz’ opinion, the inscription was probably made in Friesland. Datings 6th – 7th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:207; Looijenga 2003a:303), based on comparison with similar combs and comb-cases found in Germany. Location of inscription On one side of the case, on the border above the main portion of the case (which is decorated with geometric designs). The inscription is read right to left. Readings tlur (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:208–209). mur (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:371). me ura or me ur (Looijenga 2003a:303). The transliteration of I as presupposes that the dialect of the text has undergone first fronting. If this is so, Ferwerd cannot be classified as “Continental” in the narrower sense (§ 1.2.2) and should be excluded from the present study. However, I have retained it because there are no textual reasons for its exclusion (such as the presence of any additional “Anglo-Frisian” runes, or runesequences which can only represent Frisian words).
Freilaubersheim
395
Diplomatic reading: ?( ? )ura References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:206–210); Düwel and Tempel (1968/1970:370–371); Looijenga (2003a:303–304). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 12) (photographs); Düwel and Tempel (1968/ 1970:372) (photograph).
23. Freilaubersheim Concordance AZ 15; KJ 144; L VII.18; Ma B1; O 16; Sch H. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Freilaubersheim, Kr. Bad Kreuznach, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany (49° 48’ N, 7° 54’ E). Context A relatively well-appointed female grave (unnumbered) in a small row-gravefield excavated in 1873/74 and 1876 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:211). Provenance Rhine Frankish (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:213; Krause 1966:283, 284). This appears to be based on the location of the find combined with the identification of the language as “German” in the widest sense. Datings c.575 (Krause 1966:284). 550–600 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:215; Opitz 1987:19). 567–600 (Looijenga 2003a:241; Roth 1981a:65). 520–560 (Stein 1987:1395–1396. This dating is accepted by Düwel 1994b:238; Martin 2004:179; Nedoma 2004a:250; Schwerdt 2000:210).
396
Catalogue
Location of inscription On the back of the footplate, complexes I and II either side of the pin-holder. Both are read left to right. Readings [I] boso:wraetruna [II] Âk:daÊïna:golida (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:224–231). [A] boso : wraetruna : [B] Âk : daÂïna : golida : (Krause 1966:283; Opitz 1987:19; Schwerdt 2000:210). [I] boso:wraetruna [II] Âkd?ïna: golida (Looijenga 2003a:241). [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida (Nedoma 2004a:250). boso ' wraetruna ' | Âk ' da(1?)ïna ' go(0–3? da) (Kiel). In some of the earlier literature, the initial d of daÊïna was read as m (see Arntz and Zeiss (1939:223, 226–228); this reading is no longer accepted (Nedoma 2004a:279). Both of the d-runes in complex II resemble the AngloSaxon form. Alternative readings to li are discussed by Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:228–229). These are not accepted in subsequent literature. Diplomatic reading: [I] boso:wraetruna: [II] Âk·daÊïna:golida References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:210–231); Fischer (2004:283); Krause (1966:283–284); Looijenga (2003a:241); Nedoma (2004a:250–256, 279–280); Opitz (1987:19–20, 198–199); Schwerdt (2000:210–211). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 13, 40) (photographs and drawings); Düwel (1996b:546) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 61) (photograph).
24. Fréthun I [Another sword pommel from the same site (Fréthun II, IRF 12) has a single rune( ? ), å] Concordance IRF 11. Object Gilt copper alloy sword pommel (Fischer 2007:71).
Friedberg
397
Find-site Fréthun, Dép. Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France (50° 55’ N, 1° 50’ E). Context Male grave (no. 11) in the “Carrière-des-Morts” gravefield, excavated in 1993 (Fischer 2007:68–70). Provenance Frankish (Routier 1996). Datings c.560 (Fischer 2007:72, citing Routier 1996:547). Location of inscription On one side of the pommel, running left to right. Readings h?e-- (Fischer 2007:72). The second rune has a discernible twig pointing down to the left of the stave. Fischer suggests the rune could be k, l, n, r or s (2007:72). Diplomatic (normalised) reading: h?e?( ? ) References Fischer (2007:68–73); Routier (1996). Images Fischer (2007:71) (photograph and drawing).
25. Friedberg Concordance AZ 16; KJ 141; L VII.19; Ma E2; O 17; Sch I. Object Silver disc fibula.
398
Catalogue
Find-site On the southern slope of the Wartberg, just to the south of Friedberg, Wetteraukreis, Hessen, Germany (50° 21’ N, 8° 46’ E). Context Female grave (no. 10) in a small gravefield excavated in 1886 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:232; Krause 1966:281; Nedoma 2004a:412). The fibula was lost during the Second World War (Looijenga 2003a:197; Nedoma 2004a:412). Provenance Both the gravefield and the fibula are identified as Frankish (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:232, 233; Krause 1966:281). Datings End of 6th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:233). c.600 (Krause 1966:281). Beginning of 7th century (Opitz 1987:21). 567–600 (Roth 1981a:65; Düwel 1994b:277 (followed by Looijenga 2003a:241 and Nedoma 2004a:412)). 533–600 (Schwerdt 2000:212). 526–550 or up to c.600 (Martin 2004:180). Location of inscription On the back, below the pin, running left to right. Readings ÂuruÂhild (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:233; Kiel; Krause 1966:281; Looijenga 2003a:241; Nedoma 2004a:412; Opitz 1987:21; Schwerdt 2000:212). References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:232–235); Krause (1966:281); Looijenga (2003a:241–242); Nedoma (2004a:412–413); Opitz (1987:21, 166–167); Schwerdt (2000:212). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 14) (photographs).
Gammertingen
399
26. Gammertingen Concordance AZ 17; KJ 161; L VII.20; O 18; RMR D8; Sch J. Object Cylindrical ivory capsule. Find-site To the east of Gammertingen, Kr. Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 15’ N, 9° 13’ E). Context Richly-appointed (unnumbered) grave of a girl (aged 8–10) in a row-gravefield, excavated by amateurs in 1901/02. The inscription was not discovered until 1931 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:235–236). Provenance Arntz classes the gravefield as Alamannic, but the capsule as probably an import from Italy. The dialect of the inscription could, in that case, be Alamannic or Langobardic (Arntz 1935a:359; Arntz and Zeiss 1939:236). Krause, on the other hand, cites Werner’s opinion that the capsule was produced in the Middle Rhine area (Krause 1966:304; likewise McKinnell et al. 2004:63). Datings 600–650 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:236 (tentatively); Opitz 1987:21; Schwerdt 2000:212). 601–633 (Roth 1981a:65). 551–575 (Stein 1991:63. 58, cited by Nedoma 2004a:141). 567–600 (Stein, cited by Düwel 1994b:295). 500–550 (Looijenga 2003a:242). c.575–600 (McKinnell et al. 2004:63). Location of inscription Complex I on the edge at the bottom; complex II on the lid. Both are read left to right. Readings [A] ado [B] axo (Arntz 1935a:359; Arntz and Zeiss 1939:239; Krause 1966:304; McKinnell et al. 2004:63; Opitz 1987:21; Schwerdt 2000:212). ado (twice) (Looijenga 2003a:242).
400
Catalogue
[] ado [β] amo (Nedoma 2004a:141). ado[0–?] | a(1?)o (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] ado [II] ad/mo References Arntz (1935a); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:235–240); Düwel (1994b:295); Fischer (2004:283); Krause (1966:303–304); Looijenga (2003a:242); McKinnell (2004:63); Nedoma (2004a:140–148, 180–182); Opitz (1987:21–22); Schwab (1998a:396; 1999a:13, 21); Schwerdt (2000:212); Stein (1991). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 14) (photographs).
27. Geltorf II [This numbering is used by DR and IK. Geltorf I-A (IK 254) has an inscription consisting of rune-like signs which do not appear to constitute a comprehensible text (Nowak 2003:582)]. Concordance DR Br 2; IK 255. Object Gold A-bracteate. Find-site Geltorf, Kr. Schleswig-Flensburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany (58° 28’ N, 9° 37’ E). Context Hoard found in a field in 1876, precise circumstances unknown (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:2,1:69). Provenance No comments in the literature. Datings None more specific than the bracteate period in general (c.450-c.550).
Gomadingen
401
Location of inscription Below the head and on the neck, running left to right (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:2,1:71; Nowak 2003:583). Readings kalgwu (Arntz 1937:7). laugwu (Nowak 2003:583). lalgwu [swastika] (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:2,1:71; Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–42:493; Nielsen 1978:358). lalg(1?)u(1Z) (Kiel). R.3 has a noticeably more angular form than R.6, which is clearly u. This suggests that R.3 is intended to be a different rune – the reading l is therefore probably to be preferred. Diplomatic reading: lalgwu [swastika] References Arntz (1937:7); Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:2,1:71–72); Jacobsen and Moltke (1941–42:492–493); Laur (1961); Nielsen (1978:358); Nowak (2003:376, 583). Images Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:2,2:43–44) (drawing and photograph); Nowak (2003:376, 583) (drawings).
28. Gomadingen Concordance L VII.52; Ma E1. Object Silver disc fibula with almandine inlay. Find-site Gomadingen, Kr. Reutlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 24’ N, 9° 24’ E). Context Unknown – discovered in a private collection in 1995 (Düwel 1996a:13).
402
Catalogue
Provenance Neither Düwel (1996a) nor Looijenga (2003a) comments on the provenance of the fibula. The find-site would be in Alamannic territory. Datings 534–566 (Düwel 1996a:13; Looijenga 2003a:264; Nedoma 2004a:345). This dating (the grounds for which are not specified) originates with Dieter Quast, who discovered the inscription. Typologically, the item is a “pomegranate” disc fibula (Granatscheibenfibel), a type found in graves within the daterange 526–600 (Martin 2004:180–181, 202)). Location of inscription On the back. Düwel (1996a:13) does not specify the location of complex I. Complex II runs left to right, beginning to the right of the hinge, and complex III is to the right of the pin-holder. Readings [I] a cross which could be a g-rune. [II] iglug (or iglun) [III] additional carvings which might be runes, but are not legible (Düwel 1996a:13; Looijenga 2003a:264 (without mention of complex III); Nedoma 2004a:345). (1?) | iglu(1?) | (1?) (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] (g) [II] iglug/n [III] ?… References Düwel (1996a:13); Looijenga (2003a:264); Nedoma (2004a:345). Images None available at the time of writing.
29. Griesheim Concordance L VII.21; Ma C2; O 20; Sch K. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Griesheim, Kr. Darmstadt-Dieburg, Hessen, Germany (49° 52’ N, 8° 35’ E).
Griesheim
403
Context Female grave (no. 43) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1975 (Opitz 1987:23). Provenance Nedoma (2004a:149) identifies the dialect as Frankish. Datings No dating available (Opitz 1987:23). 567–600 (Looijenga 2003a:242; 567; Roth 1981a:65; Schwerdt 2000:213). 534–566 (Düwel 2008:60). Location of inscription On the back. Readings kolo:agilaÂru (Düwel 2008:60; Looijenga 2003a:242; Kiel; Opitz 1987:23; Schwerdt 2000:213). [I] k!ol!o: [II] agil!aÂru (Nedoma 2004a:148). (k! = U; l! = T). The form transliterated l (Nedoma – l!) appears in 15. Charnay liano. The U form of k, appears in Scandinavian inscriptions from the latter part of the Older FuÂark period (e.g., Eggja (KJ 101)) (Nedoma 2004a:148). A similar form (which may or may not have the value k) is also found on 30. Hailfingen I and 57. Nordendorf II. Diplomatic reading: [I] kolo: [II] agilaÂru References Düwel (2008:60); Fischer (2004:292); Looijenga (2003a:242–243); Nedoma (2004a:148–151); Opitz (1987:23, 174); Schwerdt (2000:213). Images Düwel (1996b:545) (photographs).
404
Catalogue
30. Hailfingen I Concordance AZ 18; Graf 4; Grün H6; KJ 159; L VII.62; Ma Wa6; O 21. Object Iron sax. Find-site Hailfingen, Stadt Rottenburg, Kr. Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 32’ N, 8° 58’ E). Context Male grave (no. 381) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1931 (Moltke and Neckel 1934:36). Provenance Typologically, the weapon is similar to 75. Steindorf (Graf 2010:106); both are identified as Alamannic (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:241; Krause 1966:302). Datings 7th century (Moltke and Neckel 1934:36). This dating is based on stylistic evaluation of the grave goods and of the decoration on the sax. Mid-7th century or 651–700 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:241; Krause 1966:302). This is based on comparison with of a similar piece found at Hintschingen (Kr. Tuttlingen), in a grave dated on the evidence of coins; and also on the decoration of the blade, which Krause classifies as Animal Style II. 600–650 (Roth 1981a:65). 651–700 (Opitz 1987:24). 560–600 (Düwel 1994b:270, citing Stein 1987:1400).4 551–575 (Grünzweig 2004:127). Location of inscription On the blade, towards the tip. The transliterations are based on left-to-right reading.
4 Looijenga (2003a:266) follows this dating, citing Düwel, but erroneously states 7th century instead of 6th.
Hailfingen II
405
Readings Most sources are agreed that the inscription contains signs which resemble runes and/or Roman letters, but which do not comprise an intelligible text. Many commentators do not attempt a transliteration (Düwel 1991:281; Grünzweig 2004:138–139; Krause 1966:301–302; Looijenga 2003a:266): i wr N Âeihu (Moltke and Neckel 1934:38–40) alisrhlaÂawihu (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:245–248). ikxrxkwiwixu (Opitz 1987:230). ?xkxrxkxiÊixx(x) (Nedoma 2004a:286). (3?)r(N 4?)i(Nu) (Kiel). The transliterations are so divergent that I have not attempted to produce a diplomatic reading. The 5th and 11th signs in the readings of Arntz (who transliterates them h) and Opitz (who transliterates x) resemble Roman N. Page (1968:139 n.21) compares it to the form of s in gisl on the back of the Franks Casket. The appearance of peculiar signs and of characters which more closely resemble a Roman letter than a rune leads me to suspect that we are dealing with script-imitation rather than a genuine text. The possible significance of the signs is discussed in greater detail by Graf (2010:110–113). References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:240–248); Düwel (1981b:156–157; 1991:281; 1994b:234, 270–271); Graf (2010:106–113); Grünzweig (2004:127, 138–139); Krause (1966:301–302); Looijenga (2003a:266); Moltke and Neckel (1934); Opitz (1987:24, 229–231). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 15, 40) (photographs and drawings); Graf (2010:106) (photograph); Krause (1966 Taf. 68) (photographs).
31. Hailfingen II Concordance L VII.63; Ma I3; O 22. Object Silver gilt S-fibula.
406
Catalogue
Find-site Hailfingen, Stadt Rottenburg, Kr. Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 32’ N, 8° 58’ E). Context Female grave (no. 406) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1931. The inscription was not discovered until 1960 (Jänichen 1962:156; Opitz 1987:112). Provenance Not specified in the literature. The gravefield has been identified as Alamannic (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:241; Krause 1966:301). Datings 601–650 (Jänichen 1962:156; Opitz 1987:24). Mid-6th century (Looijenga 2003a:266; Roth 1981a:65). Martin (2004:184) dates S-fibulae in general to the period c.526–575. Location of inscription On the back, complex I towards the top, complex II at bottom right, both running left to right. Readings [I] a … [II] ( ? )adaauna (Jänichen 1962:156; Opitz 1987:256 Anm. 2). x/// ///daannl (Opitz 1987:25). ??daana/l (Looijenga 2003a:266). [1–?] | [0–1?]daa(1?)n(1?) (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] (a)????( ? ) [II] ( ? )daan? References Jänichen (1962:156–157); Looijenga (2003a:266); Martin (2004:183–184); Opitz (1987:24–25, 112–114, 119–120). Images Jänichen (1962 Taf. N) (photographs); Martin (2004:183) (drawings); Opitz (1987:299) (photograph).
†Hainspach
407
32. †Hainspach Concordance AZ 19. Object Bronze axe-shaped pendant. Find-site Hainspach (= Lipová), Bez. Dˇecˇ ín, Czech Republic (51° 01’ N, 14° 21’ E). Context Stray find (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:249–250; Kern 1935:110–111; Krause 1937:468). For further details, see Appendix 2. Provenance The find also included a bronze disc, which Arntz and Zeiss (1939:249) identify as Alamannic on typological grounds; Arntz also regards the text on the axe as Alamannic. Krause (1935b:126) is noncommittal on the ethnic identity of the object and the linguistic identity of the text. Datings 5th or 6th century (Krause 1935b:125–126). This is a rather impressionistic dating, relying largely on what Krause sees as parallels with 9. Beuchte, and with the 3rd-century Sedschütz pot (AZ 5). “From an archaeological standpoint, there is no reason to believe that Hainspach is older than the 7th century”5 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:250). Location of inscription On the head of the axe, transliterated left to right. Readings lÂsr (Krause 1935b:122–123). (3–4?) (Kiel). References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:248–253); Kern (1935); Krause (1935a:38; 1935b; 1937:468). 5 “Vom archäologischen Standpunkt aus spricht nichts dafür, daß Hainspach älter als das 7. Jh. wäre”
408
Catalogue
Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 16) (photographs); Kern (1935 Taf. 2) (photographs); Krause (1937:468) (photograph).
33. Heide Concordance An 83; IK 74; KJ 103 Anm. 1; L VI.17; RMR E28. Object Gold B-bracteate. Now lost (Krause 1966:240). Find-site Heide, Kr. Norderdithmarschen, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany (54° 12’ N, 9° 06’ E). Context Stray find, possibly displaced from a grave (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,2:135; Looijenga 2003a:207). Provenance No comments in the literature. Datings None more specific than the general limits of the bracteate period (c.450-c.550). Location of inscription In front of the head of the figure. Readings alu (Antonsen 1975:70; Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,2:136; Kiel; Krause 1966:240; Looijenga 2003a:207; McKinnell et al. 2004:78; Nowak 2003:498). References Antonsen (1975:37, 70); Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,2:135–137); Krause (1966:240); Looijenga (2003a:207); McKinnell et al. (2004:78); Nowak (2003:498).
Heilbronn-Böckingen I
409
Images Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,3:91–92) (drawing and photograph); Nowak 2003:498 (drawing).
34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I [Another grave at the same site contains a belt fitting with non-runic carvings, designated Heilbronn-Böckingen II; see Appendix 1.] Concordance KJ 153; L VII.22; Ma Gü2; O 23; Sch L. Object Silvered bronze belt fitting. Find-site Heilbronn-Böckingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (49° 08’ N, 9° 13’ E). Context Male grave (no. 42) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1954 (Düwel 1994b:264). Provenance Alamannic, according to Krause (1966:296); he offers no further comment or explanation. Datings 7th century (Krause 1966:296; Opitz 1987:25). 567–600 (Düwel 1994b:238; Looijenga 2003a:243; Schwerdt 2000:213). Late 6th century (Martin 2004:186). Location of inscription On the front, running right to left. Readings ikar/uwi (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:124). xarwi (Krause 1966:295). R.1 may be l. karwi (Opitz 1987:26). R.1 could be ik (see Arntz and Jänichen, above). lkarwi (Düwel 1994b:264, citing Pieper’s examination of the original in 1992).
410
Catalogue
ÿkarwi (Looijenga 2003a:243). ?arwi (Nedoma 2004a:210). (1–2?)arwi (Kiel). The disputed part of the inscription (ik/ïk/k/l/lk) is partly covered by rivets (Düwel 1994b:264; Schwerdt 2000:213). The marks interpreted as k resemble a regular S, but placed at the bottom of the preceding stave, so that the sequence resembles (S. Diplomatic reading: ( ? )?arwi References Arntz and Jänichen (1957:124–125); Düwel (1972:139; 1994b:238, 264–265); Krause (1966:294–296); Looijenga (2003a:243–244); Nedoma (2004a:210– 213); Opitz (1987:25–26, 167); Schwerdt (2000:213–214). Images Arntz and Jänichen (1957 Taf. 64–65) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 65) (photograph).
35. Hitsum Concordance IK 76; L VI.19; SUR 39. Object Gold A-bracteate. Find-site Wurt Hitsum, Gem. Franekeradeel, Friesland, Netherlands (53° 10’ N, 5° 31’ E). Context Stray find from the Hitsum terp, discovered in 1907 (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,2:140; Düwel 1970:284; Looijenga 2003a:208). Provenance Usually regarded as an import from Scandinavia, probably from Denmark (Düwel 1970:284; Krause 1971:150). The design bears a striking similarity to that of 71. Sievern, and also a resemblance to Undley (IK 374). Seebold
Hitsum
411
(1996) argues that these bracteates and St. Giles-A (IK 323) represent a group manufactured in the “Saxon-South English-Frisian” region rather than in Denmark. This does not necessarily mean that the inscription is Frisian, however, and he prefers to identify it as LFrk. Datings c.450–550 (i.e., the bracteate period in general) (Düwel 1970:284). 476–500 (Seebold 1996:183). This is a conventional, general dating for A-type bracteates of the “pure” type (i.e., with a human head but no accompanying animal motifs). See also 71. Sievern. Location of inscription Complex I behind the neck of the human profile, complex II in front of the head. Both complexes run right to left. (Düwel 1970:284, 286; Nowak 2003:500). Readings [I] fozo [II] glola (Düwel 1970:284, 286; Clavadetscher et al. 1984– 1989:1,2:140). fozo (remainder illegible) (Krause 1971:150). fozo groba (Looijenga 2003a:208; Seebold 1996:195). [I] fozo [II] guoba (Nowak 2003:500). fozo | g(1?)o(1?)a (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] fozo [II] g?ob/la References Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,2:140); Düwel (1970); Krause (1971:150); Looijenga (2003a:208); Nowak (2003:500); Seebold (1996). Images Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,3:95–96) (drawing and photograph); Hauck (1970 Abb. 7) (photographs); Seebold (1996:182, 185 Abb. 1–2) (drawings).
412
Catalogue
36. Hohenstadt Concordance L VII.65; Ma A4; O 26. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Hohenstadt, Kr. Göppingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 33’ N, 9° 40’ E). Context Probably from a row-gravefield containing a total of 40 graves, excavated in 1864. The precise details are unavailable (Opitz 1987:28; Pieper 2010:1; Veeck 1931:319). Veeck does not mention the inscription, although the presence of runic or rune-like markings was known in the 19th century (Pieper loc.cit.). Provenance Alamannic, on the grounds of location (Veeck 1931). Datings Early 6th century (Veeck 1931:35). 567–600 (Looijenga 2003a:266). 526–550 (Martin 2004:178). Dating based on fibula typology. Location of inscription Back of the footplate, read left to right. Readings xxnhsigll (Opitz 1987:28). Opitz also mentions some non-runic markings (1987:135–137). u g/n n d/m h (ah?) j ugn/a ll (Looijenga 2003a:266). (2? nhsig)ll ? (1Z) ? (1Z) ? (Kiel). (i)galu (Pieper 2010:3). The inscription is extremely difficult to read due to the large number of nonrunic scratch marks, which appear to have been made deliberately in order to obscure the inscription (Pieper 2010:1–2). u is retrograde. Diplomatic reading: (…)(i)galu
Hoogebeintum
413
References Düwel 1994b:273 (only a brief mention, saying that the runic character of the inscription is in doubt); Looijenga 2003a:266; Martin 2004:178; Opitz 1987:28, 134–138; Pieper 2010; Schwab 1998:416; Veeck 1931:35, 319. Images Opitz (1987:300) (photograph); Veeck (1931 Taf. 22A) (photograph showing only the front of the fibula).
37. Hoogebeintum Concordance L IX.22. Object Antler comb. Find-site Hoogebeintum, Gem. Ferwerderadeel, Friesland, Netherlands (53° 20’ N, 5° 51’ E). Context Inhumation grave within the terp, excavated in 1928. Provenance No comments in the literature. Datings 651–700 (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:358–359). This dating is based on comparison with similar finds elsewhere. 7th century (Looijenga 2003a:324). Location of inscription Complex I (or B) on one broken half of the comb, complex II (or A) on the other. Readings [A] ded [B] ?nli/u (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:367–368). ?nlu ded (Looijenga 2003a:325). Looijenga describes ded as a triple bind-rune, but does not mark it as such in her transliteration.
414
Catalogue
Düwel and Tempel at first describe complex II as a group of non-runic signs (marks of this sort being common on early medieval combs and other bone implements); later on, however, a reading is proposed (Düwel and Tempel 1968/1970:355, 368). Diplomatic reading: [I] ?nlu [II] (ded) References Düwel and Tempel (1968/1970); Looijenga (2003a:324–325). Images Düwel and Tempel (1968/1970:354) (photograph).
38. Hüfingen I Concordance RMR D16–17 (two exempla). Object Gold Kleinbrakteat (imitation of the reverse of a Byzantine solidus) (Fischer in Fingerlin et al. 1998:804; Heizmann 2004:372). Josef Fischer uses the term “Kleinbrakteat” to reflect the items’ status as coin-imitations, their size (15mm diameter, about the same as a triens), the presence of runic inscriptions, and their presumed amuletic function (Fischer in Fingerlin et al. 1998:799–800). Their exclusion from the IK implies that they are not considered “true” bracteates. Find-site Hüfingen, Kr. Schwarzwald-Baar, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 55’ N, 8° 29’ E). Context Female grave (no. 318) in one of the region’s largest row-gravefields, excavated in 1976. The inscription was not discovered until 1996 (Düwel 1997b:18). Two exempla from this stamp, two of 39. Hüfingen II and another Kleinbrakteat with a Latin inscription were strung together on a necklace. All five have loops attached and were evidently designed for hanging (Fingerlin et al. 1998:790, 798; Heizmann 2004:371; Nowak 2003:250).
Hüfingen I
415
Provenance According to Düwel, the Kleinbrakteaten were probably made in Langobardic Italy, although it is possible that they were produced in Frankish or Alamannic territory, perhaps in Hüfingen itself (1997b:18). This is also the joint conclusion of Fingerlin, Fischer and Düwel (Fingerlin et al. 1998:789, 806–811, 819–821; Fischer 2004:293). Heizmann (2004:381–382) argues against an Italian origin on the grounds that no runic inscriptions have surfaced in Italy, although the runic script may have been known to the Langobards prior to their migration, c.568 (Langobardic identities have been proposed for several runic inscriptions in eastern Europe: 2. Aquincum; 11–11. Bezenye I–II; 77. Szabadbattyán). Moreover, no bracteates have been found in Italy. Datings The grave is dated in the period 550–570 (Düwel 1997b:18). A Langobardic S-fibula in the grave gives a terminus post quem of 568 (Fingerlin et al. 1998:793–794). The terminus post quem for the Kleinbrakteaten is 518 or 565 (Fischer in Fingerlin et al. 1998:800–806). c.570–590 (McKinnell et al. 2004:68). Location of inscription Complex I (Roman capitals) to the right of a standing figure, complex II (runes) to the left. Both inscriptions run right to left. Readings alu (Düwel 1997b:18; McKinnell et al. 2004:68; Schwab 1999a:14). VVIT^:·&·: alu (Düwel in Fingerlin et al. 1998:812–813). VIT alu (Heizmann 2004:373). VVIT(1? 1Z 1? 1Z) | alu (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] VVIT(????) [II] alu References Düwel (1997b:18); Fingerlin (1977); Fingerlin et al. (1998); Fischer (2004:293); Heizmann (2004); McKinnell et al. (2004:68); Nowak (2003:214, 250); Schwab (1999a:14–15). Images Düwel (1997b:18) (photograph and drawing); Fingerlin et al. (1998:805) (photographs); Naumann (2004 Taf. 6–17) (photographs).
416
Catalogue
39. Hüfingen II Concordance RMR D18–19 (two exempla). Object Gold Kleinbrakteat, probably an imitation of the obverse of a Byzantine or Ostrogothic triens from the time of Justinian I (527–565) (Fischer in Fingerlin et al. 1998:802; Heizmann 2004:372). For further details, see 38. Hüfingen I. Find-site Hüfingen, Kr. Schwarzwald-Baar, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 55’ N, 8° 29’ E). Context See Hüfingen I. Two exempla from the same stamp were found in the grave. Provenance See Hüfingen I. Datings See Hüfingen I. Location of inscription On the right-hand side, between the forehead and outstretched arm of a human figure depicted on the item. The inscription runs left to right. Readings ota (Düwel 1997b:18; Heizmann 2004:372; McKinnell et al. 2004:68; Schwab 1999a:17). a is retrograde. ^X’IV ota (Düwel in Fingerlin et al. 1998:813–814). (3?) | (1?) | ota (Kiel). The signs preceding the legible runic sequence are regarded as meaningless capital-imitation (Düwel in Fingerlin et al. 1998:813; Heizmann 2004:372). Diplomatic reading: (??? ?) ota
Hüfingen III
417
References Düwel (1997b:18; 2008:54); Fingerlin et al. (1998); Heizmann (2004); McKinnell et al. (2004:68–69, 100); Nowak (2003:214, 250); Schwab (1999a:17–25). Images Düwel (1997b:18) (photograph and drawing); Fingerlin et al. (1998:802, 815) (photographs); Naumann (2004 Taf. 6–17) (photographs).
40. Hüfingen III [This numbering is mine, and is not used in the previous literature.] Concordance None. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Hüfingen, Kr. Schwarzwald-Baar, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 55’ N, 8° 29’ E). Context Rich female grave (no. 336) in the row-gravefield “Auf Hohen”. Like grave 318 (see 38–39. Hüfingen I–II), this was excavated in 1976; but the inscription was not discovered until the recent restoration of the object (Düwel and Pieper 2004:11). Provenance The form of b with separate loops is “typical” for Alamannia (Düwel and Pieper 2004:11) Datings Fingerlin (cited by Düwel and Pieper 2004:12) dates the grave to c.570 or later, and estimates that the fibula was made in the mid-6th century or slightly earlier. Location of inscription On the back of the footplate.
418
Catalogue
Readings bi (Düwel and Pieper 2004:11). bi (Kiel). There is a gap of c.7mm between the two runes, which fact raises some doubt about whether the second is actually a rune at all (Düwel and Pieper 2004:11). Diplomatic reading: bi References Düwel and Pieper (2004:11–12). Images Düwel and Pieper (2004:11) (drawings).
41. Igling-Unterigling [Sometimes referred to simply as Unterigling]. Concordance L VII.53. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Unterigling, Kr. Landsberg am Lech, Bavaria, Germany (48° 05’ N, 10° 49’ E). Context Female grave (no. 91) in a row-gravefield. Provenance No comments in the literature. Datings 6th century (Düwel 1998:17; Looijenga 2003a:264). No firm dating available (Nedoma 2004a:221). Nedoma simply cites Martin’s (2004:180) dating of rune-inscribed bow fibulae in general to the timespan c.526–600.
†Kärlich
419
Location of inscription On the back of the footplate, running left to right. Complex II is above the end of complex I and at 90° to it. Readings [I] aunrgd [II] d (Düwel 1998a:17; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:264). [I] aunrxd [II] d (Nedoma 2004a:221). The uncertain 5th rune (Düwel – g; Nedoma – x) is damaged – only the lower part remains, which could be the lower half of X, or conceivably of I. Complex II is an hourglass-shaped sign; if it is to be read as a d-rune, it is at 90° to the rest of the inscription. Diplomatic reading: [I] aunr?d [II] d References Düwel (1998a:17); Looijenga (2003a:264); Nedoma (2004a:221–224). Images Düwel (1998a:17) (drawing).
42. †Kärlich Concordance AZ 23; O Anhang. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Kärlich, Kr. Mayen-Koblenz, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany (50° 23’ N, 7° 29’ E). Context Found in 1886 under uncertain circumstances; possibly from the Kärlich rowgravefield (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:266; Opitz 1987:53). Provenance The Kärlich gravefield is identified as Frankish; earlier claims that the inscription was Burgundian or Gothic are groundless (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:266).
420
Catalogue
Datings If genuine, 601–650 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:267; Opitz 1987:53). Location of inscription On the back of the headplate. Readings wodana : hailag (Henning, cited without full reference by Arntz and Zeiss 1939:272, and by Düwel 1994c:105). wodani : hailag (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:272–273; Opitz 1987:53). h is the “star-rune” #, which is the hagall-rune in the Scandinavian Younger FuÂark. This feature is one of the pieces of evidence indicating that the inscription is a modern forgery (see Appendix 2). Diplomatic reading: wodani : hailag References Arntz (1944:96); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:266–273); Düwel (1994c:105; 2001:214); Opitz (1987:53–54, 64). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 19) (photographs).
43. “Kent” [aka Bateman fibula]. Concordance L VII.23. Object Silver gilt radiate-headed bow fibula. Find-site Unknown. Context Unknown. The fibula is in the British Museum (catalogue no. 235, 93, 6–18, 32) and is recorded as having been found probably in Kent (Hawkes
“Kent”
421
and Page 1967:18–19; Page 1995:158; Looijenga 2003a:65–66; Parsons 1999:70). Provenance Although (apparently) found in England, the fibula is believed to be an import, of Frankish origin (Hawkes and Page 1967:19; Looijenga 2003a:244; Parsons 1999:70–71). Datings 526–550 or “the middle of the sixth century” (Hawkes and Page 1967:19). 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:244, citing the description in the British Museum catalogue; Parsons 1999:70). Location of inscription On the back of the footplate. The transliterations are based on a left-to-right reading. Readings No satisfactory reading (Hawkes and Page 1967:19). “The brooch … has an undoubted but uninterpreted runic inscription which could be either Anglo-Saxon or Continental Germanic.” (Page 1995:172). “… a (very obscure) runic inscription clearly incised” (Parsons 1999:70). ik w?f?? gadu (Looijenga 2003a:244). This reading is tentative, allowing for the poor execution (in Looijenga’s opinion) of the inscription. Looijenga remarks on the uncertain runes here transcribed with ?. The first of these (following w) resembles a retrograde U; Looijenga compares this to a similar form on the inscription on a piece of yew from Britsum (L IX.11), which she transliterates (2003a:310). However, in the case of Britsum the justification for this reading is that the rune may be a variant of Danish longbranch , , a Younger FuÂark rune which we have no reason to suppose was in use in the 6th century. From the image on the British Museum’s website (see Images), the inscription seems to consist of three distinct complexes: [I] gam(:)u [II] iku [III] w?fa In complex I, the third rune seems to be a clear m. If it were an English d, I would expect the staves to extend far beyond the loops; as it is, the crosstwigs do not quite meet the staves, giving the impression that the staves “overshoot” slightly. Following this rune are two small dots or pits, which
422
Catalogue
may be a separator or simply incidental marks. After these are two strokes which might be a u-rune, or might belong to the border decoration. The runes of complex II are much larger than those of complexes I and III, approximately twice the height. In complex III (the runes of which are about the same height as those of complex I), the first two signs resemble a w and a retrograde U, as Looijenga says. The stave of a merges with that of the large u in complex II. If both are part of the same text, it is conceivable (though rather unlikely, in my view) that we are here dealing with a bind-rune ua/au (again, Looijenga makes this suggestion, though she does not see this ligature as following ik directly). References Hawkes and Page (1967:18–20); Looijenga (2003a:65–66, 244); Page (1995:158, 172–173); Parsons (1999:70–71). Images British Museum website (photograph).
44. Kirchheim/Teck I Concordance L VII.24; Ma D5; O 27; Sch M. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Kirchheim unter Teck, Kr. Esslingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 39’ N, 9° 27’ E). Context Female grave (no. 85?)6 in the “Rauner” gravefield, to the southeast of the town centre (Fiedler 1962:24; Martin 2004:176; Nedoma 2004a:375).
6 This is the number cited in the runological literature, but grave 85 is a male burial which – as we would expect – does not contain any fibulae (Fiedler 1962:30). From Fiedler’s report, I have not been able to identify which grave is the correct one.
Kirchheim/Teck I
423
Provenance The site is in Alamannic territory. Martin (2004:193) groups this fibula together with Aschheim I (Düwel 2002b; Ma D3) and 18. Donzdorf as being of Nordic manufacture. Datings 6th century (Opitz 1987:29). Mid-6th century (Looijenga 2003a:245; Roth 1981a:65; Schwerdt 2000:214). 567–600 (Martin 2004:179). This dating is based on coin evidence and refers to the burial, not necessarily the manufacture of the fibula. Location of inscription On the back of the headplate, read left to right. Readings badahxali (Opitz 1979:365; 1987:29, 129; Schwerdt 2000:214). badagihiali dmiu (Looijenga 2003a:245). badahxalx (Nedoma 2004a:375). (1?) | bada(h 1? ali) (Kiel). What Looijenga reads as a bind-rune gi is a cross or swastika-like sign above the following h in her drawing, which she interprets as a rune-cross. Nedoma mentions this sign, but does not regard it as a rune. Opitz (1979:366; 1987:127–128) also mentions the sign, but does not incorporate it into his transliteration. Graf (2010:134–136) suggests that it may have an apotropaic function, possibly as a Christian symbol. Diplomatic reading bada( ? )h?ali References Däcke (2001); Graf (2010:134–136); Looijenga (2003a:245); Martin (2004:176–179, 192–193); Nedoma (2004a:375–376); Opitz (1979:365–366; 1987:29, 127–134); Schwerdt (2000:214). Images Graf (2010:135) (photograph); Looijenga (2003a:245) (drawing); Martin (2004:177) (drawing); Opitz (1979:366) (photograph).
424
Catalogue
45. Kirchheim/Teck II Concordance L VII.54. Object Silver disc fibula. Find-site Kirchheim unter Teck, Kr. Esslingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 39’ N, 9° 27’ E). Context Female grave (no. 166) in the “Rauner” gravefield, excavated in 1970. The inscription was not discovered until 1995 (Düwel 1996a:13; Nedoma 2004a:209). Provenance No comments in the literature. The site is in Alamannic territory. Datings 551–600 (Däcke 2001:105; Düwel 1996a:13; Looijenga 2003a:264; Nedoma 2004a:209). Location of inscription On the back. Readings arugis (Düwel 1996a:13; Kiel; Nedoma 2004a:209). arugis (Looijenga 2003a:264). ar(1?)gis (Kiel). Opposite the inscription is an X-like symbol (Graf 2010:133). Diplomatic reading: arugis References Däcke (2001); Düwel (1996a:13); Graf (2010:133); Looijenga (2003a:264); Nedoma (2004a:209–210). Images Graf (2010:134) (photograph).
†Kleines
Schulerloch
425
46. †Kleines Schulerloch Concordance KJ 150; O Anhang. Object Cave wall. Find-site Kleines Schulerloch, a cave in the Altmühltal, close to Essing, Kr. Kelheim, Bavaria, Germany (48° 56’ N, 11° 47’ E). The presence of carvings was discovered in 1937, but the runic inscription was not noticed until the 1950s (although it must already have been present in 1937, as early pictures and plaster casts show – see Eichner 2006:361). Context In situ. Provenance No comments in the literature. Datings If genuine, there is nothing to date the inscription more precisely than 6th – 7th century (the general period of Continental inscriptions). Location of inscription Carved into the cave wall above the entrance to a side-chamber. Close to the inscription is a carved animal, which may or may not be contemporary with the text. The authenticity of the animal-carving is also disputed. The inscription is read left to right. Readings birg : leub : selbrade (Düwel 2006:320, 326; Krause 1966:291; Nedoma 2003:489; 2004a:238; 2006b:347; Opitz 1987:54; Rosenfeld 1984:164). References Düwel (2006); Eichner (2006); Krause (1966:290–292); Nedoma (2003:489–492; 2004a:237–240, 407–408; 2006b); Opitz (1987:54); Pieper (2006); Rosenfeld (1984); Waxenberger (2006); Züchner (2006).
426
Catalogue
Images Düwel (2006:335–343) (photographs and drawings); Eichner 2006:371 (photograph); Pieper 2006:389 (photograph of a plaster cast); Rosenfeld (1984:160) (drawing).
47. Lauchheim I Concordance L VII.55. Object Silver bow fibula. Find-site Lauchheim, Ostalbkreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 52’ N, 10° 15’ E). Context Female grave (no. 911) in a row-gravefield (Stork 2001). Provenance Not specified in the literature. Düwel (1997b:19) describes the fibula as of “Nordic type”, although it is not clear whether this implies an import or a locally-produced imitation of Scandinavian fibulae. According to Fischer, “the dominant family of Lauchheim and their followers were given to ostentatious display of foreign contacts and/or ethnic origin” (2004:279). Datings 551–600 (Düwel 1997b:19; Looijenga 2003a:264; Nedoma 2004a:194). Location of inscription On the back of the headplate, running left to right. Readings aonofada (Bammesberger 1999c:203; Düwel 1997b:19; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:264; Schwab 1998a:420). aonofada (Nedoma 2004a:194). Diplomatic reading: aonofada
Lauchheim II
427
References Bammesberger (1999c); Düwel (1997b:19); Fischer (2004:278–279); Looijenga (2003a:264); Nedoma (2004a:194–196); Schwab (1998a:420); Stork (2001). Images Düwel (1997b:19) (drawing); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
48. Lauchheim II Concordance L VII.56. Object Bone comb. Find-site Lauchheim, Ostalbkreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 52’ N, 10° 15’ E). Context Female grave (no. 1007) in the Lauchheim row-gravefield. Provenance No comments in the literature. The site is in Alamannic territory. Datings Mid-6th century (Düwel 1998a:16; Nedoma 2004a:272). Location of inscription In the middle of the handle, running left to right. Readings gdag (Düwel 1998a:16; Looijenga 2003a:265). odag (Schwab 1999a:20). (1?)dag (Kiel; Nedoma 2004a:272). Diplomatic reading: ?dag
428
Catalogue
References Düwel (1998a:16–17); Looijenga (2003a:265); Nedoma (2004a:272); Schwab (1999a:20–25). Images Düwel (1998a:16) (drawing); Schwab (1999:27) (photograph); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
49. Liebenau Concordance Grün F2; KJ 139; L VII.25. Object Silver-plated bronze disc, possibly a fitting from a sword-belt (Düwel 1994b:268; Grünzweig 2004:100; Looijenga 2003a:245). Find-site Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg, Niedersachsen, Germany (52° 36’ N, 9° 06’ E). Context Richly appointed male grave (no. M8/A2), excavated in 1957 (Nedoma 2004a:397). Provenance The gravefield is identified as Saxon (Bohnsack and Schöttler 1965:248; Häßler 1985). Krause does not mention provenance in the main entry, but in his indices he suggests that the item may be Cheruscian (1966:315). Datings Beginning of 5th century (Krause 1966:279). End of 4th century (Düwel 1972:135; 1994b:268). c.400 or 401–450 (Bohnsack and Schöttler 1965:255; Häßler 1985:44; Nedoma 2004a:398). 4th century (Looijenga 2003a:245). 401–450 (Grünzweig 2004:100; Martin 2004:167). Location of inscription On the upper surface, cutting through a decorative pattern of concentric circles (Krause 1966:279). The transliterations are based on a left to right reading.
Mertingen
429
Readings rakxzwi (Bohnsack and Schöttler 1965:252). ra … m (ar) (Krause 1966:279). ra?zwi (Düwel 1972:138; 2001:353). razwi (Looijenga 2003a:246). raxx(x) (Nedoma 2004a:398). ra(1–? i) | (ar) (Kiel). Reading the inscription is extremely difficult, as the object is severely abraded. Diplomatic reading: ra … References Bohnsack and Schöttler (1965); Cosack (1982); Düwel (1972; 1994b:268; 2001); Grünzweig (2004:100–101); Häßler (1985); Krause (1966:279); Looijenga (2003a:245–246); Nedoma (2004a:397–399). Images Bohnsack and Schöttler (1965 Taf. 29–31) (photographs); Düwel (1972 Taf. 1–4) (photographs and drawing); Krause (1966 Taf. 60) (photograph).
50. Mertingen Concordance L VII.59; Ma D6. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Mertingen, Kr. Donau-Ries, Bavaria, Germany (48° 39’ N, 10° 47’ E). Context Female grave (no. 26) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1969. The inscription was not discovered until 1998 (Babucke and Düwel 2001:161; Düwel 2000a:14; Nedoma 2004a:224). Provenance The fibula is of “Nordic” type (Düwel 2000a:14), but was probably produced
430
Catalogue
on the Continent, rather than in Scandinavia (Babucke and Düwel 2001:168; Martin 2004:179 n.45). Datings The burial is dated c.567–600; the fibula is 1–2 generations older (Düwel 2000a:14). c.550 or a little earlier (Looijenga 2003a:266). Location of inscription On the back, midway between the foot and the bottom of the headplate. There is a significant gap between the sequences I have designated complexes I and II. Both are read left to right. Readings ieok aun (Düwel 2000a:14). ieok/l aun (Babucke and Düwel 2001:169; Nedoma 2004a:224). ieok aun or arn (Looijenga 2003a:266). ieo(k) | aun (Kiel). From the close-up photographs in Babucke and Düwel (2001), I am satisfied that the second rune of complex II is u, not r. I share the view of these authors that, although a transliteration of the final rune of complex I as l is not impossible, k in the “roof ” form ^ is more plausible. Diplomatic reading: [I] ieok [II] aun References Babucke and Düwel (2001); Düwel (2000a:14); Looijenga 2003a:266; Nedoma 2004a:224–225. Images Babucke and Düwel 2001:164 (drawing), 166–169 (photographs); Düwel 2000a:14 (drawing of the inscription).
München-Aubing I
431
51. München-Aubing I Concordance L VII.26; Ma A1a; O 28. Object Silver gilt bow fibula, one of a pair with 52. München-Aubing II. Find-site München-Aubing, Stadt München, Bavaria, Germany (48° 10’ N, 11° 25’ E). Context Female grave (no. 303) in a row-gravefield. Provenance The gravefield is identified as Bavarian (Dannheimer 1998:I.10). On linguistic grounds, Opitz (1987:174) argues that the maker of the inscription may have been West Frankish or Langobardic. Datings No date given by Opitz (1987:30). Mid-6th century (Looijenga 2003a:246). 501–550 or mid-6th century (Düwel 1998b:76). This is a dating for the fibulae; the marks of wear on the objects suggests that the inscriptions were made closer to the time of manufacture than to that of burial. 526–550 (Martin 2004:178). Martin’s dating is based on the evidence of gold medallions copied from a coin of Justinian I (527–565) and the beads found in the grave (see Nedoma 2004a:400). Location of inscription On the back, complex I on the headplate, complex II on the the footplate (both running left to right) (Opitz 1987:172). Readings [I] segalo [II] sigila (Düwel 1998b:75–76; Looijenga 2003a:246; Nedoma 2004a:400; Opitz 1987:30). Opitz gives the sequences in the opposite order, sigila segalo. On the footplate is an X-like paratextual symbol (Graf 2010:136).
432
Catalogue
References Dannheimer (1998); Düwel (1998b:75–77); Graf (2010:136); Looijenga (2003a:246–247); Nedoma (2004a:399–407, 409–410); Opitz (1987:30, 172–174). Images Dannheimer (1998:II Taf. 34, 95, 118–119) (drawings and photographs); Düwel (1998b:75, 76) (drawings); Graf (2010:137) (photograph); Martin (2004:174) (drawings).
52. München-Aubing II Concordance L VII.67; Ma A1b; O 29. Object Silver gilt bow fibula, the pair of 51. München-Aubing I. Find-site München-Aubing, Stadt München, Bavaria, Germany (48° 10’ N, 11° 25’ E). Context See München-Aubing I. Provenance See München-Aubing I. Datings See München-Aubing I. Location of inscription On the back, transliterated left to right. Readings (bd) (Opitz 1987:30; Kiel). bd (Düwel 1998b:77; Looijenga 2003a:266). bd (Nedoma 2004a:399). Diplomatic reading: bd
Neudingen-Baar I
433
References Dannheimer (1998); Düwel (1998b:77–78); Looijenga (2003a:266); Nedoma (2004a:399); Opitz (1987:30). Images Dannheimer (1998:II Taf. 34, 95, 118–119) (drawings and photographs); Düwel (1998b:75, 76) (drawings).
53. Neudingen-Baar I [Numbering after Looijenga (2003a). Nedoma (2004a) labels this item Neudingen-Baar II, and the following one as Neudingen-Baar I]. Concordance L VII.27; Ma D8. Object Bronze bow fibula, gilded on the front, tin-plated on the back. Find-site Neudingen, Schwarzwald-Baar-Kreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 54’ N, 8° 34’ E). Context Rich female grave (no. 319) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1988 (Düwel 1990:8). Provenance The square headplate points to a Frankish origin, according to Düwel (1990:8). The fibula is elsewhere identified as Langobardic (Fingerlin and Düwel 2002:111; Fischer 2004:293; Nedoma 2004a:243). Datings Late 6th century (Düwel 1990:8; Looijenga 2003a:247). c.600 (Martin 2004:179; Nedoma 2004a:243). Location of inscription On the back of the headplate, in three rows underneath one another. All are transliterated left to right.
434
Catalogue
Readings [I] udim [II] midu [III] klefil (or perhaps klefih) (Düwel 1990:8; Fingerlin and Düwel 2002:110). [I] ?ud?? [II] midu [III] klefilÂa (Looijenga 2003a:247). [I] udim [II] midu [III] klefil (Nedoma 2004a:243). udi(m) | midu | (k)lef(i 1–2?) (Kiel). There may be a sign (perhaps g or o?) preceding the u of complex I. Diplomatic reading: [I] ( ? )udim [II] midu [III] klefi?? References Düwel (1990:8); Fingerlin and Düwel (2002:110–111); Fischer (2004:293); Looijenga (2003a:247); Martin (2004:177, 179, 202); Nedoma (2004a:243– 244). Images Düwel (1997a:492) (photograph); Martin (2004:177) (drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
54. Neudingen-Baar II [On the numbering, see 53. Neudingen-Baar I]. Concordance L VII.28; Sch N. Object Tapered wooden stave of uncertain function. It may be part of the loom which was found in the grave (Düwel 1989a:45; 2002c:27; Looijenga 2003a:248; Roth 1994:309; Scardigli 1986:353; Schwab 1998a:416), or a separate object used in textile production (Nedoma 2004a:241, citing personal communication from Fingerlin). Find-site Neudingen, Schwarzwald-Baar-Kreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 54’ N, 8° 34’ E). Context Richly appointed female grave (no. 168) in the Neudingen row-gravefield, excavated in 1979 (Düwel 1989a:45).
Neudingen-Baar II
435
Provenance Alamannic (Opitz 1982:486). Datings 6th century (Düwel 1994b:295; Fingerlin 1981:187; Looijenga 2003a:248; Opitz 1982:486; Schwerdt 2000:215). 532–535 (Düwel 2002c:27; Fingerlin and Düwel 2002:110; Nedoma 2004a:241). This is a dendrochronological dating of the wood used for constructing the burial chamber. Late 6th century (Düwel 2008:58). Location of inscription On the “front” portion (i.e., at the tapered end), running left to right (Nedoma 2004a:240). Readings lbi·imuba:hamale:bliÂguÂ:uraitruna (Düwel 1989a:45; 2002c:27–28; Fingerlin and Düwel 2002:110; Looijenga 2003a:248; Nedoma 2004a:241; Opitz 1982:486; Scardigli 1986:353; Schwerdt 2000:215). The tip of the object is badly worn, and the material before uba is indistinct. Nevertheless, all sources agree on the transliteration. The replica photographed by Martin Graf (Waldispühl, pers.comm.) contains an error, with hae for hamale. The whole sequence is discernible on Opitz’ photographs (see Images). References Düwel (1989a; 2002c); Fingerlin (1981); Fingerlin and Düwel (2002:110); Looijenga (2003a:248); Nedoma (2004a:240–243, 321–324, 345–348; 2006a:145); Opitz (1981; 1982:486–490); Roth (1994:309); Scardigli (1986:351–354); Schwab (1998a:416); Schwerdt (2000:215–217). Images Düwel (1997a:494) (photograph (showing part of the inscription only) and drawing); Fingerlin and Düwel (2002:111) (drawing); Opitz (1982:487, 489) (drawings and photographs); Scardigli (1986:353) (reproduction of one of Opitz’ drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs of a replica).
436
Catalogue
55. Niederstotzingen Concordance Grün H0; L VII.29; Ma Gü4; O 32. Object Silver strap end. This may be a secondary use, the object perhaps originally having been a sheath fitting. The rivet holes and a stamped decoration on the edge of the strap end partially obscure the runes, which suggests that the inscription predates the modification of the object (Düwel 1994b:264, 2002a:194; Jänichen 1967a:45, 1967b:234–235). Grünzweig (2004:128–129) and Martin (2004:186 n.68) both argue to the contrary, that the inscription was made after the folding and riveting of the strip (see also Nedoma 2004a:344). Find-site Niederstotzingen, Kr. Heidenheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 33’ N, 10° 14’ E). Context Rich male grave (no. 3a) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1963 (Düwel 2002a:194; Grünzweig 2004:127–128; Jänichen 1967b:234). Provenance The gravefield is classified as Alamannic (Jänichen 1967b:234). Datings 601–650 (Opitz 1987:32; Looijenga 2003a:248). 601–633 (Roth 1981a:65). c.600 (Düwel 1994b:264; 2002a:194; Nedoma 2004a:343). 601–620 (Koch 1997:404, cited by Nedoma 2004a:343). Up to or about 600 (Martin 2004:186). Location of inscription Complex I on one side, running left to right; complex II on the other side, read left to right by Jänichen, Opitz and Looijenga, and right to left in the other readings (including the diplomatic reading). Readings [I] bigwsiliub [II] didun d u e u (Jänichen 1967a:45–46, 235–236). The reading given here is a summary based on Jänichen’s drawings and his discursive descriptions. He does not lay it out in precisely this format.
Nordendorf I
437
bigws: xliub x ud l d x x e u (Opitz 1987:32). [I] bigws:?liub [II] ueul (rivet hole) didu? (Düwel 2002a:194). big?s: ?liub ?ud?d bre?u (Looijenga 2003a:248). [I] bigws?liub [II] uer? (or ?rue) diigu? (or didu?) (Nedoma 2004a:343). b(i)g(w)s(1–2?)liub | (ue 2?) d(1?)du(1?) (Kiel). The inscription is obscured by the border decoration and by scratches on the object, making it very difficult to read (Jänichen 1967a:45). Diplomatic reading: [I] bigws(:)?liub [II] ue??d?igu/du/ud? References Düwel (1992b:55; 1994b:264; 2002a); Fischer (2004:280); Grünzweig (2004:127–129); Jänichen (1967a; 1967b:234–236); Looijenga (2003a:248– 249); Martin (2004:185–186); Nedoma (2004a:343–345); Opitz (1987:32, 232–234); Paulsen (1967); Schwab (1998a:412–417). Images Jänichen (1967b Taf.44) (photographs and drawing); Looijenga (2003a plate 15b) (photograph); Martin (2004:185) (drawings).
56. Nordendorf I [aka Nordendorf A] Concordance AZ 24; KJ 151; L VII.30; Ma D7; O 33; RMR B4; Sch O. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Nordendorf, Kr. Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany (48° 36’ N, 10° 48’ E). Context From a row-gravefield – the grave was probably that of a female, but the archaeological details are not available (see Grønvik 1987:111; Kabell 1970:2; Rosenfeld 1984:166 for further discussion). The gravefield was discovered in 1843–4 during railway construction; the inscription, however, was not discovered until 1865 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:275; Krause 1966:292).
438
Catalogue
Provenance Both Zeiss and Krause identify the fibula as probably Alamannic (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:276; Krause 1966:294), though it belongs to a type of squareheaded bow fibula imitative of Scandinavian models (Düwel 1982:78; Fischer 2004:295). Datings Beginning of the 7th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:276; Kabell 1970:1; Krause 1966:294). 601–650 (Opitz 1987:33). Mid-6th century (Roth 1981a:65). Mid- to late 6th century (Düwel 1982:78; 1994b:275; Grønvik 1987:111; Schwerdt 2000:217). Grønvik infers a date-range of c.550–570. Mid-6th century (Looijenga 2003a:249; McKinnell et al. 2004:48). c.550 or later (Nedoma 2004a:225). Location of inscription Inscription A in 3 rows on the back of the headplate; inscription B to the right of row A.III, inverted relative to inscription A. Both inscriptions are read left to right. Given the different styles and orientation of the two inscriptions and the fact that the end of inscription B encroaches on the end of A.III, a widespread view is that the two were made at different times, and furthermore that inscription B was made after inscription A (Düwel 1982:78; Kabell 1970:2). Shaw (2002:108–109) also distinguishes the epigraphical style of line A.III from A.I–II, and concludes that there are in fact not two but three separate inscriptions. Grønvik (1987:126), on the other hand, maintains that both the A and B inscriptions are the work of the same hand; as does Kabell (1970:2), who argues that since the runes of A.III are larger than those of A.I–II, it was carved first. While I remain neutral on this issue, Grønvik’s point is well made that to have two (or even three) independent inscriptions on the same small object is a situation without parallel on the Continent. Without wishing to commit myself on this point, in the readings below I nevertheless follow the opinio communis in the division of the inscription. Readings [a] logaÂore [b] wodan [c] wigiÂlonar [d] awaleubwiniï (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:281; Düwel 1982:78; 2002d:276; Klingenberg 1976d:167–168; Opitz 1987:33 (the designation of the complexes by letters a-d is Opitz’); Schwerdt 2000:217–218).
Nordendorf I
439
[A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigiÂonar [B] awaleubwinix (Krause 1966:292). wodan wigiÂonar logaÂorë awaleubwiniï (Kabell 1970:3–10). Kabell does not explain what the tranliteration ë is supposed to signify. From his discussion of the sequence it is clear that it represents /-e/. [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigiÂonar [B] awaleubwini. (Grønvik 1987:112). [A] logaÂore wodan wiguÂonar?? [B] awa (l)eubwini?? (Looijenga 2003a:249). [A] logaÂore [B] wodan [C] wigiÂonar or wiguÂonar [D] awaleubwini? (McKinnell et al. 2004:48). [] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [β] awaleubwini= (Nedoma 2004a:225). loga(1?)ore | wodan(0–1?) | wig(1–2?)Â(0–1?)onar | (awal)eubwini(1–3?) (Kiel). The beginning of inscription B is obscured by damage to the fibula which apparently occurred since its excavation. A lithograph and plaster cast taken before the fibula broke support the reading awal (Kabell 1970:11). The mark following leubwini (transliterated e˙ by Arntz and Opitz. ï by Kabell, l by Schwab, = by Nedoma) resembles an ï-rune, but is commonly treated as a paratextual mark separating the end of inscription B from the end of A.III (Krause 1966:292; Nedoma 2004a:225). Against this view, see Grønvik 1987:124–126. The small l-like mark in row A.III, which Klingenberg and Opitz read as a ligature with o, is dismissed as a probatio pennae by Krause (1966:293). Nedoma (2004a:225) follows Günter Neumann’s explanation of the mark as a malformed first attempt at the roof of o, which was then corrected. Kabell (1970:3) makes a similar observation. Diplomatic reading: [A] [I] logaÂore [II] wodan [III] wigi/uÂonar [B] awaleubwini? References Arntz (1939b); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:274–300); Bammesberger (1989); Düwel (1982; 1991:278; 1992a:356–359; 2002d); Fischer (2004:295); Grønvik (1987); Klingenberg (1976d); Kabell (1970); Krause (1966:292–294); Looijenga (2003a:249–251); McKinnell et al. (2004:48–49); Nedoma (2004a:225–227, 361–364); Opitz (1987:33, 64–78, 96–100); Rosenfeld (1984); Schwab (1981; 1998a:412–417); Schwerdt (2000:217–219); Shaw
440
Catalogue
(2002:106–111); Stanton Cawley (1939:324–325); Steinhauser (1968a:27; 1968b); Trier (2002); von Unwerth (1916); Wagner (1995). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 20–21) (photographs); Düwel (1997a:495) (photograph); Krause (1966 Taf. 65) (photograph and drawing).
57. Nordendorf II [aka Nordendorf B] Concordance AZ 25; KJ 152; L VII.31; Ma B5; O 34. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Nordendorf, Kr. Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany (48° 36’ N, 10° 48’ E). Context See 56. Nordendorf I. The Nordendorf II fibula was probably found in 1844, later than Nordendorf I. The inscription was not discovered until 1877 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:275). Provenance On typological grounds, Zeiss identifies the fibula as of Frankish manufacture. The inscription may also have been produced in the Middle Rhine region (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:276). Datings 600–650 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:276; Opitz 1987:34). c.600 (Krause 1966:295). Mid-6th century (Düwel 2002d:276; Looijenga 2003a:251; Roth 1981a:66). The form of the fibula is typical for mid-late 6th century (Martin 2004:178). Location of inscription On the back of the headplate above the clip, transliterated left to right.
Oberflacht
441
Readings b/ ir/ ln/ ioelŋ (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:303–305). lÂÂ hr l birlxioelx (Krause 1966:294; Düwel 2002d:276). airlxioelx (Opitz 1987:34). birlnioelk (Looijenga 2003a:251). In spite of the difficulties experienced by other authors, Looijenga states that “[t]he runes are clearly legible”. (1?)irl(1?)ioel(1?) (Kiel). The final rune is U, a form resembling the k of the Younger FuÂark. This form appears and is transliterated k in a number of other inscriptions (e.g., 29. Griesheim). The earlier sign transcribed ? is another anomalous form resembling a short-twig Younger FuÂark n & (Düwel 2002a:276). Diplomatic reading: birl?ioel? References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:274–277, 300–307); Düwel (2002d:276); Fischer (2004:292); Krause (1966:294–295); Looijenga (2003a:251); Martin (2004:178, 200); Opitz (1987:34, 234–236); Schwab (1998a:392, 404). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 22, 40) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 64) (photographs); Martin 2004:176 (drawings).
58. Oberflacht Concordance L VII.32; O 35; Sch P. Object Silver perforated spoon (Sieblöffel). Spoons of this type may have been used in Christian baptisms and/or the Eucharist, perhaps including communion in the home. Their function remains uncertain, however (Klingenberg 1974:82–84; Düwel 2002e:479). Numerous silver spoons have been found in Gmc graves, many with Latin inscriptions; but there are no others with runes (Düwel 1994b:244; 2002e:479). Find-site Oberflacht, Kr. Tuttlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 01’ N, 8° 43’ E).
442
Catalogue
Context Unknown. Possibly from a female grave; part of a collection of finds belonging to graves 78–81 in the Oberflacht gravefield (Düwel 1994b:244; Schiek 1992:53). Provenance The find-site is in Alamannic territory. Klingenberg (1974) argues that the language of the inscription is Gothic, but that since it does not use Wulfila’s script, it may have been made locally, being connected with a putative Gothic Arian mission in Alamannia. Datings Unknown (Opitz 1987:34). 567–600 (Düwel 1994b:244; 2002e:479; Looijenga 2003a:251; Schwerdt 2000:220). Location of inscription On the back of the handle, running left to right. Readings … saidu … Âafd (Jänichen 1967b:237; Schiek 1992:53). gba’dulÂafd (Klingenberg 1974:84; Düwel 2002e:479). gba:dulÂafd (Opitz 1987:34; Looijenga 2003a:251; Schwerdt 2000:220). According to Düwel (1994b:244), this reading is based on Klingenberg’s, and was taken over by Opitz without its uncertainties being marked. (2–?)a(1?)du(1?)Âafd (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: gba:/idulÂafd References Düwel (1994b:244–245; 2002e); Jänichen (1967b:237); Klingenberg (1974); Looijenga (2003a:251–252); Opitz (1987:34–35, 123–126); Schiek (1992); Schwerdt (2000:220–221). Images Jänichen (1967b Taf 46) (drawings and photograph); Klingenberg (1974) (photograph); Schiek (1992 Taf. 56) (drawings).
Oettingen
443
59. Oettingen Concordance Graf 6; L VII.33; Ma E5. Object Silver disc fibula. Find-site Oettingen, Kr. Donau-Ries, Bavaria, Germany (48° 57’ N, 10° 35’ E). Context Relatively rich female grave (no. 13) in a row-gravefield discovered during canal works in 1972 and excavated in 1975 (Betz 1979:241–242; Graf 2010:120; Nedoma 2004a:137). Provenance The gravefield is classified as Alamannic, but Betz (1979:244) argues from his analysis of the inscription (§ 3.3.1) that the inscription is closely related to Scandinavian models and that the occupant of the grave may have been an immigrant from Denmark. Datings 551–600 (dating of the burial) (Betz 1979:241–242; Graf 2010:120; Looijenga 2003a:252; Nedoma 2004a:137). 526–550 or up to 600 (Martin 2004:180). This is a general date range for the group of “pomegranate” disc fibulae (Granatscheibenfibeln) (see 28. Gomadingen; 68. Schretzheim II. Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. Readings auijabirg (Betz 1979:242). Âxjabrg (Düwel 1991:280. Martin’s drawing also reflects this reading (Martin 2004:182)). auijabrg or auisabrg (Looijenga 2003a:252). xxj/sabrg (Nedoma 2004a:137). (1–2?)ijabirg (Kiel).
444
Catalogue
The rune transliterated j resembles a reversed 2, and could be a variant s (for which there are no parallels on the Continent) or the “Danish” form of j (which appears in the fuÂark on 15. Charnay). Graf, having examined the object, supports the reading of the first character as a, although he questions whether we are dealing with a meaningful text (pers.n.?) here, rather than a series of paratextual signs (2010:121–123). Diplomatic reading: a?ijabrg References Betz (1979); Düwel (1991:280); Graf (2010:120–123); Looijenga (2003a:252); Martin (2004:182, 202); Nedoma (2004a:137–140; 2004b:350). Images Betz (1979:245) (photograph); Graf (2010:120); Martin 2004:182 (drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
60. Osthofen Concordance AZ 26; KJ 145; L VII.34; Ma H1; O 36; RMR B5; Sch Q. Object Gilt bronze disc fibula. Find-site Osthofen, Kr. Worms, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany (49° 42’ N, 8° 20’ E). Context From a row-gravefield, dug up in 1854 under uncertain circumstances (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:307). Provenance The area was under Frankish control after Chlodwig’s defeat of the Alamanni at the beginning of the 6th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:307). Datings 7th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:308; Jungandreas 1972:85). 651–700 (Krause 1966:285; Looijenga 2003a:252; Opitz 1987:35; Roth 1981a:66; Schwerdt 2000:221).
Pforzen I
445
567–600 (Stein, cited by Düwel 1994b:276 Anm. 74). c.600 or in the decades before 600 (Martin 2004:181). 570–660 (McKinnell et al. 2004:49). Location of inscription On the back, between two decorative concentric rings, running left to right. Readings gox:furadxhdxofilex (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:315; Krause 1966:285; Opitz 1987:35; Schwerdt 2000:221). go furadi di le+ (Looijenga 2003a:253). go[1?] ' furad[1?](h)d(e)o(f)ile(1Z) (Kiel). The rune transliterated h could be a (Krause 1966:285; Schwerdt 2000:221); all the available interpretations are based on the reading h, however. Diplomatic reading: go?:furad?hdeofile? References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:307–319); Düwel (1994b:276); Jungandreas (1972); Krause (1966:285); Looijenga (2003a:252–253); Martin (2004:181–182, 194); McKinnell et al. (2004:49–50); Opitz (1987:35–36, 122–123); Schwerdt (2000:221–222). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 23, 41) (photographs); Düwel (1996b:543) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 62) (photographs).
61. Pforzen I Concordance L VII.35; Graf 2; Ma Gü1; RMR C7; Sch R. Object Silver belt buckle. Find-site Pforzen, Kr. Ostallgäu, Bavaria, Germany (47° 56’ N, 10° 37’ E).
446
Catalogue
Context Male grave (no. 239) in a large row-gravefield, excavated in 1991. The grave is very richly supplied with goods and weapons (Babucke 1999a:15, 20; 2003:114–115; Christlein 1973; Graf 2010:88; Nedoma 2004a:166; 2004b:342). Provenance The buckle is characterised as possibly a Langobardic or Gepid imitation of late antique style (Düwel 1994b:290; Graf 2010:88, 93; Nedoma 2004a:158; 2004b:342). Schwab (1999b:55, 75) describes it as of Mediterranean origin, but not Langobardic. The Pforzen gravefield also contains a number of finds which are of definitely East Germanic character, according to Babucke (1993:17–19; see also Nedoma 2004a:161). Schwab (1999b:75) argues that the dialect of the inscription may be EGmc. In spite of this controversy, Seebold appears confident that the dialect is Alamannic (Seebold et al. 2001:16). From the contents and context of the grave, it is not possile to draw any inferences about the ethnic origin of the man buried in grave 239 (Babucke 1999a:20). Datings Mid 6th century or 551–600 (Düwel 1993:10, 1994b:290; Grønvik 2003:174; Nedoma 1999b:98; Schwerdt 2000:222; Wagner 1999a:91). 567–600 (Babucke 1999a:22; Düwel 2003a:116; Graf 2010:88; Nedoma 2004a:158, 2004b:342). c.550 (Schwab 1999b:55). 551–600 (Düwel 1997c:281; Looijenga 1999:81). Mid 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:253). 576–600 (Martin 2004:186). c.570–600 (McKinnell et al. 2004:57). Location of inscription Front, running left to right in two rows. Readings [I] aigilandiaïlrun [II] ltahugasokun (or elahugasokun) (Düwel 1993:10; 1994b:290; 1997c:281; 1999b:37–43; 2003a:116–117; Grønvik 2003:174– 175; Looijenga 1999:81; McKinnell et al. 2004:57; Schwab 1999b:56; Schwerdt 2000:222). [I] ai·gil·andi·all·run [II] elahu·gasokun (Pieper 1999:27–35). [I] aigil andi halrun [II] l t ahu gasokun (Seebold 1999:88–89).
Pforzen I
447
[I] aigilandiaïlrunaŋi [II] ltahugasokun (Wagner 1999a:91–93). [I] .aigil.andi.aïlrun [II] l.tahu:gasokun (Looijenga 2003a:253). [I] aigil·andi·aïlrun’·= [II] ltahu·gasokun= (Nedoma 1999b:99–100; 2004a:158; Graf 2010:89). [I] aigil andi all(u)run [II] elahu gasokun (Marold 2004:227). aigilandiaïlrun ' (?-1) ltahugasokun (Kiel). Looijenga’s placement of the marks presumed to be word-dividers is somewhat at variance with Nedoma’s. They do not appear in Düwel’s earlier readings as they were only discovered during restoration of the buckle (Pieper 1999:27–35; Nedoma 2004a:158). One point of contention is the sequence transliterated aï in most readings, al by Pieper and ha by Seebold. Both twigs of the a appear oddly elongated to meet the following stave, and the upper twig crosses it. I have some sympathy with Pieper’s assessment that this is an incidental feature, and that al (or al) might be the correct reading (Pieper 1999:30). This would give us a doubled ll, which is unusual, but not unknown (compare, e.g., 89. Wremen ksamella). Seebold’s ha reading has little to recommend it, as it depends on an arbitrary assumption that the a-component is either malformed or has been damaged. For this reason, I have not attempted to incorporate it into the diplomatic reading. Preceding r in complex I is a trace of a u-rune, giving a possible reading … urun. The mark that would make the arch of u is much fainter than the other strokes, suggesting that it represents an error or emendation on the part of the carver (Pieper 1999:30–32). Following a microscopic examination, Nedoma dismisses this mark as an incidental scratch (2004a:158). Marold (2004:221) argues that a u-rune was intended, at least at the planning stage of the carving process (§ 4.1). Pieper (1999:33) supports the reading of a bind-rune el at the beginning of complex II, as does Marold (2004:225). On examining Waldispühl’s recent high-quality photographs, as well as those in Bammesberger and Waxenberger (1999:286), I am not persuaded. They appear to show quite clearly two distinct runes lt, with no visible indication that the twigs are intended to meet to form e (see also Nedoma 2004b:347; Wagner 1999a:92). Graf (2010:89) transliterates lt without further comment. The paratextual marks which Nedoma transcribes = are widely believed to be decorative marks to fill out the lines (Nedoma 2004a:158). The first is a complex of cross-hatched markings, the second a series of loops overlapped by the final runes (un). Wagner regards the former as part of the inscription, aŋi (see § 5.1); against this view, Nedoma (2004b:346) argues that the
448
Catalogue
“staves” of these marks are inclined to the right, whereas those of the runes are vertical; and that they are deeper and less carefully cut than the runes. Graf (2010:89–98) also thinks a runic reading of the cross-hatched marks unlikely (though not impossible). He takes issue with the treatment of the paratextual marks as line-fillers, and suggests that may have had an apotropaic function and/or have served to underscore the meaning(s?) of the text. Diplomatic reading: [I] aigil·andi·aï/llrun?(…) [II] ltahu·gasokun? References Babucke (1993; 1999a; 2003); Bammesberger (1999a); Düwel (1993; 1994b:290–291; 1997c; 1999b; 2003a:116–117); Eichner (1999); Fischer (2004:285); Graf (2010:88–98); Grønvik (2003); Looijenga (1999; 2003a:253–255); Marold (2004); Martin (2004:186, 206); McKinnell et al. (2004:57–59); Nedoma (1999b; 2004a:158–171; 2004b; 2006a:111–113); Pieper (1999); Schwab (1999b); Schwerdt (2000:222–224); Seebold (1999); Wagner (1995; 1999a; 1999b). Images Babucke (1999a:17, 19; 2003:116) (drawings); Bammesberger and Waxenberger (1999:281–290 Taf. 1–4) (drawings and photographs); Düwel (1993:10) (drawing); Düwel (1996b:549) (photograph); Düwel (1997a:496) (photograph); Düwel (1997c:282) (drawings); Graf (2010:88) (photograph); Naumann (2004 Taf. 3–4) (photographs); Nedoma (2004a:159–160) (photographs); Nedoma (2004b:343) (drawing); Fingerlin et al. (2004 Taf.3–4) (photographs); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
62. Pforzen II Concordance L VII.57. Object Ivory ring framing a bronze disc, probably a belt decoration (Babucke 1999b:121, 125; Düwel 1997b:19; 2002c:32; Nedoma 2004a:189). Babucke (1999b:126) suggests that it may have had an apotropaic or other amuletic function (see also Düwel 2002c:33–34). Find-site Pforzen, Kr. Ostallgäu, Bavaria, Germany (47° 56’ N, 10° 37’ E).
Pforzen II
449
Context Female grave (no. 255) in the Pforzen row-gravefield (for more archaeological details, see Babucke 1999a; 1999b; 2003). The inscription was discovered during restoration of the object in December 1996 (Babucke 1999b:121; Nedoma 2004b:341). Provenance The style of the object is characteristic of the eastern part of the Merovingian cultural sphere (the Rhine-Frankish, Alamannic and Bavarian regions) (Babucke 1999b:125). Seebold classifies the inscription as dialectally Alamannic (Seebold et al. 2001:16). Datings c.600 (Babucke 1999b:126; Düwel 1997b:19; 2002c:32; 2003a:117; Looijenga 2003a:256; Nedoma 2004a:189). This dating is based on the styles of jewellery and pottery found in the grave. Location of inscription Complex I on the outside of the ring, complex II on the inside, both running left to right. Readings [outside] gisali [inside] ]ne:aodliÂ:urait:runa (Düwel 1997b:19; 2002c:33; Looijenga 2003a:265). [inside] ](:)ke:aodliÂ:urait:runa: [outside] ?lu?ulgisali?[ (Düwel 1999c:127–130). [inside] ?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa [outside] ?lu?ulgisali? (Düwel 2003a:117).7 [] ---?]xe:aodliÂ:urait:runa [β] xluxulgisal’i[---? (Nedoma 2004a:189; 2004b:341). [0–1?](1? e) ' aodli ' urait ' runa ' | (1?)l(u)(1?u) ' gisali (Kiel). It remains uncertain whether both inscriptions were made by the same carver (Nedoma 2004a:189). Only part of the object has survived, so it is possible that the texts are incomplete, or that more texts originally existed (Nedoma 2004b:341). Diplomatic reading: [I] ?lu?ulgisali[ [II] ]?e:aodliÂ:urait:runa 7 Düwel here numbers the inner inscription I and the outer II, conversely to Nedoma (and to my diplomatic reading). I have not cited his numbers in order to avoid confusion.
450
Catalogue
References Babucke (1999b); Düwel (1997b:19; 1999c; 2003a:117–118); Looijenga (2003a:256); Nedoma (2004a:189–193, 304–306; 2004b:340–342); Schwab (1999a:19–20). Images Babucke (1999b:122) (drawings); Bammesberger and Waxenberger (1999:291–297 Taf. 5) (photographs); Düwel (1997b:19) (drawing); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
63. Pleidelsheim Concordance L VII.58; Ma A3. Object Silver gilt bow fibula. Find-site Pleidelsheim, Kr. Ludwigsburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 58’ N, 9° 12’ E). Context Female grave (no. 20) in a gravefield (no further details available at the time of writing). Provenance The gravefield has both Alamannic and Frankish periods of use. Grave 20 belongs to “family 5”, which is identified as being of Thuringian ancestry; but the fibulae worn by the occupant are typologically Frankish (Koch 2001:386). Datings 551–575 (Düwel 1999a:15). 555–580 (Koch 2001:359). This is a dating for the burial, based on the inventory of grave-goods. End of 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:265). 526–550 (Martin 2004:178). Location of inscription On the back, on the footplate, running left to right.
†Rubring
451
Readings inha (Düwel 1999a:15; Looijenga 2003a:265). iiha (Nedoma 2004a:349). (in)ha (Kiel). From Nedoma’s photograph, the first two staves are quite clear, but I can see no trace of any side-twigs; I am therefore inclined to favour Nedoma’s transliteration. Diplomatic reading: iiha References Düwel (1999a:15); Fischer (2004:282); Koch (2001); Looijenga (2003a:265); Martin (2004:178, 199); Nedoma (2004a:349–350). Images Düwel (1999a:15) (drawing); Koch (2001 Taf. 12b) (drawing); Martin (2004:174) (drawing); Nedoma (2004a:349) (photograph).
64. †Rubring Concordance O 37. Object Fragment of an oval piece of limestone (Haas 1958:71; Nedoma 2003:482). Find-site Rubring a.d. Enns, Bez. Amstetten, Niederösterreich, Austria (48° 10’ N, 14° 29’ E). Context Reputedly a stray find, discovered by schoolchildren in 1943 or 1946/47 (Nedoma 2003:481–482; Steinhauser 1968a:1). For further details, see Appendix 2. Provenance Unknown.
452
Catalogue
Datings 8th century (Steinhauser 1968a:16). Nedoma rejects this dating on the grounds that runic epigraphy in the “South Germanic” region ceases in the mid-7th century (Nedoma 2003:484–485). Location of inscription On one flattened surface of the stone, in three rows reading left to right (insofar as transcription is possible). Readings [I] rïnald [II] IDIO[.] [III] PP (Haas 1958:73). kïndo(ï) iriŋg w (Steinhauser 1968a:4–6). kïndo /// iriŋ w (Opitz 1987:37). [I] ?wïndx[--- [II] ?riŋg[--- [III] ww (Nedoma 2003:486). (1–2?)ïnd(1?)[ ? ] ? (1? r) iŋ(0–1?)[ ? ] ? w(1?) ? (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] ?ïndo? [II] (?)riŋ[(…) [III] w( ? ) References Haas (1958); Nedoma (2003); Opitz (1987:36–37, 179); Steinhauser (1968a). Images Haas (1958:71–72) (drawing and photograph); Nedoma (2003:482–483) (photograph and drawings); Steinhauser (1968a:3) (photograph).
65. †Rügen Concordance None. Object Small piece of sandstone, described by its discoverer, Dr. H. PieskerHermannsburg, as an amulet (Arntz 1937:7). This identification appears to be based on the presence of a hole which might indicate that the object had been worn or hung (Eggers 1968:7). Find-site Reportedly from the island of Rügen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. More precise details unknown.
†Rügen
453
Context Discovered in 1935 in the Museum für Vorpommern und Rügen, Stralsund (Arntz 1937:6–7). See Appendix 2. Provenance On the basis of his interpretation of the text (§ 4.1), Arntz sees the inscription as closely related to the bracteates and produced by the same tribe(s). He suggests that it may be Danish, or perhaps produced by remnants of the Rugii (Arntz 1937:8). On the settlement of Rügen and the possible connections between the island name and various ethnic groups with similar names (e.g., Rugi(i) (Tacitus, Germ. 44); Rugini (Bede, Hist.eccl. 11.7)), see Leube (2003:425–426); Udolph (2003). Linguistically, the text as interpreted by Arntz could as well be WGmc as PNorse. Datings Probably before 500 (Arntz 1937:8). This dating is based on the putative relationship between this inscription and the bracteate tradition (see Provenance, above). Location of inscription On the stone, beginning near the tip and running left to right. Readings fgiu (Arntz 1936b:152; 1937:7; Kiel). agil (Eggers 1968:7). Diplomatic reading: f/agiu/l. References Arntz (1936b:152; 1937; 1939a); Eggers (1968); Sierke (1939:66–67). Images None available at the time of writing.
454
Catalogue
66. Saint-Dizier [Numbered Saint-Dizier 1 by Fischer (2007). Saint-Dizier 2 (IRF 24) does not have an inscription.] Concordance IRF 23. Object Silver gilt pommel of a ring-sword. Find-site Saint-Dizier, Dép. Haute-Marne, Champagne-Ardenne, France (48° 38’ N, 4° 57’ E). Context Male grave (no. 11) in a small gravefield excavated in 2001–2002 (Fischer 2007:102). Provenance The grave is of the “Morken” type (i.e., comparable to a rich Frankish grave excavated at Morken, Kr. Bergheim, Nordrhein-Westfalen in 1955) (Doppelfeld and Pirling 1966:66–74; Fischer 2007:102); while the pommel is classified as being of the “Bifrons-Gilton” type, of which there is a concentration of examples in Kent (Fischer 2007:105). Hawkes and Page (1967:19) regard the practice of inscribing runes on sword parts as distinctly Kentish, although a number of parallels in Frankish territory have since been found, and Fischer seems to favour a Frankish origin (Fischer 2007:15–21). Datings c.525 (Fischer 2005:260). The date is given in a table, without any commentary. c.540, based on other grave finds. The inscription points to c.520–535 (Fischer 2007:108). Location of inscription On one side of the pommel. Readings [a]lu (or []lu) (Fischer 2007:107). Diplomatic reading: alu
Schretzheim I
455
References Fischer (2007:102–108); Fischer and Soulat (2009). Images Fischer (2007:105) (photographs).
67. Schretzheim I [I have followed Looijenga’s numbering of the Schretzheim finds. Graf (2010:115) places them in a different order: Schretzheim I = disc fibula (my 68. Schretzheim II); II = capsule (the present item); III = bow fibula (my Schretzheim IV (see Appendix 1); IV = sword (my 69. Schretzheim III).] Concordance AZ 29; KJ 157; L VII.36; O 38; RMR D7; Sch S. Object Cylindrical bronze capsule (bulla?), containing a yellow bead and remains of plant material (which were not identified by earlier archaeologists, and which are now lost) (Koch 1977:86). Find-site Schretzheim, Kr. Dillingen an der Donau, Bavaria, Germany (48° 36’ N, 10° 31’ E). Context Rich female grave (no. 26) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1892 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:334; Düwel 1994b:294; Nedoma 2004a:171; Opitz 1987:37). The inscription was not discovered until 1931 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:335). A fibula with an uninterpretable inscription (Schretzheim IV, Ma B3) was found in the same grave (see Appendix 1). Provenance According to Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:334), the gravefield is Alamannic, but the capsule may be an import from Langobardic Italy. Werner, on the other hand (1950:91, cited by Krause 1966:300) claims that capsules of this type were produced in the Middle Rhine region and that it is therefore of Frankish origin. Seebold classifies the inscription as Alamannic, without further comment (Seebold et al. 2001:16).
456
Catalogue
Datings c.600 (Klingenberg 1976c:337; Krause 1966:300; Looijenga 2003a:255; Roth 1981a:66). c.565–590/600 (Koch 1977:35; Nedoma 2004a:172). 551–600 (Opitz 1987:37; Düwel 1994b:294; Schwerdt 2000:224). Mid 6th century or 551–575 (Martin 2004:179). 7th century (McKinnell et al. 2004:63). Medallions based on coins of Justinian I (527–565) were found in the grave and give us a terminus post quem for the burial (Martin 2004:179). Location of inscription Complex I around the side of the lower half of the capsule; complex II around the side of the lid, to the left of the hinge. Both inscriptions run left to right, with complex II upside-down relative to complex I. Readings [B] alaguÂ:leuba:d?dun [A] arogisd (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:336–338). I have reversed the order of the complexes for ease of comparison with other readings. [A] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [B] arogisd (Klingenberg 1976c:337; Krause 1966:299; Opitz 1987:37; Schwerdt 2000:224). [bottom] alaguÂleuba: dedun [lid] arogisd (Looijenga 2003a:255). [A] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [B] arogisd (McKinnell et al. 2004:63). [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd (Nedoma 2004a:172). alagu ' leuba ' de(d)un | arog(i)sd (Kiel). The e of dedun is irregular and could conceivably be a bind-rune ek/ke (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:337–338). The inscription as a whole is very faint. Diplomatic reading: [I] alaguÂ:leuba:dedun [II] arogisd References Arntz (1935b); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:333–344); Düwel (1994b:294–295); Klingenberg (1976c:337–355); Krause (1966:298–300); Koch (1977); Looijenga (2003a:255); McKinnell et al. (2004:63); Nedoma (2004a:171–175, 199–202, 358–359); Opitz (1987:37–38, 101–111); Schwab (1998a:417); Schwerdt (2000:224–225). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 26–27) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 67) (photographs).
Schretzheim II
457
68. Schretzheim II [On the numbering, see 67. Schretzheim I, above]. Concordance KJ 156; L VII.37; Ma E3; O 39; Sch T. Object Silver disc fibula. Find-site Schretzheim, Kr. Dillingen an der Donau, Bavaria, Germany (48° 36’ N, 10° 31’ E). Context Female grave (no. 509) in the Schretzheim row-gravefield (see 67. Schretzheim I). The grave was excavated in 1932, but the inscription was not discovered until 1946 (Krause 1966:297–298). Provenance Alamannic (so Krause 1966:298, with no further comment). Datings 601–650 (Jänichen 1951:226). Beginning of 7th century (Krause 1966:298). 565–590/600 (Koch 1977:45; Düwel 1994b:277; Nedoma 2004a:359). 551–600 (Opitz 1987:38; Looijenga 2003a:256; Roth 1981a:66; Schwerdt 2000:226). 526–550, up to c.600 (Martin 2004:180–181). This is a time-span for the “pomegranate” disc fibulae (Granatscheibenfibeln) in general (see 28. Gomadingen; 59. Oettingen). Location of inscription On the back, complex I on the edge, complex II more central and inverted relative to it. Both complexes run left to right in the commonly accepted reading; Jänichen reads complex I right to left. Readings [I] UidagalÂis [II] leubo (Jänichen 1951:226–227; Koch 1977:164). [I] siÂwagadin [II] leubo (Krause 1966:298; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:256; Nedoma 2004a:359; Opitz 1987:39; Schwerdt 2000:226).
458
Catalogue
In the text, I follow the majority reading of this text, rather than that of Jänichen. References Jänichen (1951); Koch (1977); Krause (1966:297–298); Looijenga (2003a:256); Nedoma (2004a:359–361, 410–412); Opitz (1987:38–39, 80–83); Schwerdt (2000:226–227). Images Jänichen (1951:226) (photographs and drawing); Krause (1966 Taf. 66) (photograph).
69. Schretzheim III [On the numbering, see 67. Schretzheim I]. Concordance Graf 5; Grün H2; L VII.38; Ma Wa2; O 40; Sch U. Object Iron spatha with silver ring (Düwel 1981b:159; Klingenberg and Koch 1974:118; Koch 1977:96–97; Looijenga 2003a:256). The inscription is inlaid with silver. Find-site Schretzheim, Kr. Dillingen an der Donau, Bavaria, Germany (48° 36’ N, 10° 31’ E). Context Male grave (no. 79) in the Schretzheim row-gravefield, excavated in 1894 (Grünzweig 2004:131–132; Klingenberg and Koch 1974:118; Koch 1977:10). The inscription was not discovered until the sword was examined with X-rays in 1972 (Klingenberg and Koch 1974:123). Provenance The gravefield is identified as Alamannic (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:334), but the sword may be of Scandinavian origin (Klingenberg and Koch 1974:122; Martin 2004:195). Martin appears to infer that the man who owned the sword was a migrant from the north (2004:197). A Scandinavian connection is by no means certain, however (Graf 2010:115–116).
Schretzheim III
459
According to Grünzweig (2004:125–126, 132), the construction of the blade has parallels which point to an origin in the Frankish Rhineland. Datings 551–600 (Düwel 1994b:267; Klingenberg and Koch 1974:121–123; Looijenga 2003a:256; Roth 1981a:66; Schwerdt 2000:227). This dating is based on stylistic comparison with other ring-swords from the region. 565–590/600 (Grünzweig 2004:126; Koch 1977:38; Martin 2004:185 n.65; Nedoma 2004a:197). Location of inscription On the blade, in front of the guard (on directions of reading, see below). Readings (g)abau (Opitz 1987:40; Schwerdt 2000:227). gabar or abar g (Looijenga 2003a:256). u/ aba (Nedoma 2004a:197). r (g)aba(u) (Kiel). The inscription is a “rune-cross” (the cross itself possibly to be read as g). Nedoma reads clockwise, Opitz and Looijenga anticlockwise. While the diplomatic reading follows the majority, it must be recognised that neither the beginning of the text nor the intended direction of the reading can be ascertained. It is not certain that we are dealing with a linguistically decipherable text at all (Graf 116–119). Diplomatic reading: (g)abau/r References Düwel (1981b:159–160; 1994b:267–268); Fischer (2004:285, 294); Graf (2010:114–119); Grünzweig (2004:125–126, 131–133); Jänichen (1974); Klingenberg and Koch (1974); Koch (1977); Looijenga (2003a:256–257); Martin (2004:184–185, 193, 195, 197, 205); Menghin (1983:256); Nedoma (2004a:196–198); Opitz (1987:39–40, 194–195, 211–212); Schwab (1998a:376–378); Schwerdt (2000:227–228). Images Düwel (1997a:495) (photograph); Graf (2010:114) (photograph); Klingenberg and Koch (1974:120) (drawings); Looijenga (2003a:257) (drawing); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
460
Catalogue
70. Schwangau Concordance L VII.39; Ma I5; Sch V. Object Silver gilt fibula, variously described as a disc fibula (Düwel 1994b:277; Kiel) or a disc-shaped S-fibula (Martin 2004:181; Nedoma 2004a:147). Find-site Schwangau, Kr. Ostallgäu, Bavaria, Germany (47° 35’ N, 10° 44’ E). Context Female grave (no. 33) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1981. Provenance Alamannic (Looijenga 2003a:257). Datings c.600 (Düwel 1994b:277 (following Bachran 1993:98); Looijenga 2003a:257; Schwerdt 2000:228). 526–575 (Nedoma 2004a:147 (following Martin 2004:184)). Martin is extrapolating from the datings of a number of other S-fibulae (Ma I1–3). Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. Readings leob (Meli 1988:162, cited by Düwel 1994b:277; Schwab 1998a:412; Schwerdt 2000:228). aebi (Fingerlin et al. 2004:247; Looijenga 2003a:257; Nedoma 2004a:147). aebi (Kiel). Looijenga’s reading, based on her examination of the original, is generally held to supersede the previous reading. Diplomatic reading: aebi References Bachran (1993); Düwel (1994b:277); Fingerlin et al. (2004:247); Looijenga (2003a:257); Martin (2004:181, 204); Nedoma (2004a:147–148); Schwab (1998a:412–417); Schwerdt (2000:228).
Sievern
461
Images Martin (2004:183) (drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
71. Sievern Concordance An 70; IK 156; KJ 134; L VI.37; SUR 84. Object Gold A-bracteate. Find-site Sievern, Kr. Wesermünde, Niedersachsen, Germany (53° 39’ N, 8° 36’ E). Context Part of a hoard found in a bog, along with a number of other bracteates (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,2:271; Hauck 1970:134). Provenance Antonsen includes this item in his list of NWGmc inscriptions. Like most other bracteates, it is associated with Denmark or southern Scandinavia and believed to be linguistically NWGmc/PNorse. Seebold, however, classifies the inscription (with reservations) as OLG (Seebold et al. 2001:16). Datings None more precise than the bracteate period in general (c.450–550). The A-type bracteates are considered to be relatively early (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,1:21–22). Seebold (1996:183), referring to 35. Hitsum, gives a narrower range 476–500 for “pure” A-bracteates with no animal motif. Sievern also belongs to this class of bracteates. Location of inscription Below the head, running right to left. Readings rwrilu (Krause 1966:270; Hauck 1970:135). rwrilu (Krause 1971:163; Looijenga 2003a:215). rwritu (Antonsen 1975:65). rwrilu (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,2:271; Nowak 2003:537). (1? w)ri(1?)u (Kiel).
462
Catalogue
The above readings differ only in respect of the authors’ confidence about the transliterations r, w, l. Hauck (1970:134) notes that the object is badly worn. Diplomatic reading: rwrilu References Antonsen (1975:65); Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,2:271–272); Hauck (1970:133–136); Krause (1957; 1966:270–272; 1971:163); Looijenga (2003a:215); Nowak (2003:537). Images Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,3:201–202) (drawing and photograph); Hauck (1970 Abb.6) (photographs and drawing); Krause (1966:271, Taf. 58) (drawing and photograph).
72. Skodborg Concordance An 103; DR Br 8; IK 161; KJ 105; L VI.38; RMR E25; SUR 85. Object Gold B-bracteate. Find-site Skodborg, Sønderjylland, Denmark (55° 25’ N, 9° 09’ E). There seems to be a lack of certainty about whether the find-site is actually Skodborg or nearby Skodborghus (55° 27’ N, 9° 09’ E); Nowak (2003), for example, labels the bracteate Skodborghus-B/Skodborg. Since the places are very close together and the item represents an outlier in my corpus, I leave this uncertainty aside. In the maps, the co-ordinates for Skodborg have been used. Context Found as part of a hoard( ? ) in 1865 (Krause 1966:241). Provenance Krause (1966:241–242) handles this item together with the other Danish bracteates as part of the PNorse runic corpus. Antonsen, on the other hand, includes it in the list of inscriptions which he classifies as linguistically WGmc (Antonsen 1975:76).
Skonager III
463
Stiles (1984:30–31) notes and rejects Marstrander’s (1929:119–121) identification of the item as Gothic, based on linguistic arguments (which Stiles rebuts). Datings Krause states that no dating is possible beyond the general period of bracteate production (c.450-c.550), although the type B bracteates are generally held to have been produced somewhat later than types A and C (Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,1:21–22; Krause 1966:238). c.500 (Antonsen 1975:76). Location of inscription Running all the way around the edge of the decorated face, read right to left (Nowak 2003:540). Readings aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid (Antonsen 1975:76; Clavadetscher et al. 1984–1989:1,2:279; Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–1942:498; Kiel; Krause 1966:241; 1971:163; McKinnell et al. 2004:77; Looijenga 2003a:215; Nowak 2003:540). References Antonsen (1975:76–77; 1987:24); Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,2:278– 280); Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–1942:497–498; Krause (1966:241–242; 1971:163); Looijenga (2003a:215–216); McKinnell et al. (2004:77); Nowak (2003:540–541 et passim); Stiles (1984:29–33). Images Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,3:207–208) (drawing and photograph); Krause (1966 Taf. 53) (photograph); Nowak (2003:540) (drawing).
73. Skonager III [This is the numbering used by DR and IK. The other rune-inscribed bracteates from the same location are Skonager I-A (DR Br 14; IK 41.2); and Skonager II-A (DR Br 15; IK 162.1).] Concordance An 101; DR Br 16; IK 163; KJ 118; L VI.39; RMR E22; SUR 86.
464
Catalogue
Object Gold C-bracteate. Find-site Skonager, Ribe Amt, Jylland, Denmark (55° 38’ N, 8° 34’ E). Context 3 exempla from the same stamp found in a hoard with a number of other bracteates (Krause 1966:254). Provenance Antonsen (1975:76) includes this item among those inscriptions which he classifies as linguistically WGmc. Datings c.450-c.550 (i.e., the bracteate period in general) (Antonsen 1975:76). As far as I am aware, no more precise datings for the find have been suggested. Location of inscription Complex I below the head of the horse depicted on the bracteate, running left to right. Complex II is between the horse’s legs, read right to left, and inverted relative to complex I and the horse. Readings [I] niuwila [II] lÂu (Krause 1966:254; Kiel; McKinnell et al. 2004:75). [I] niuwila [II] lÂu (Antonsen 1975:76; Clavadetscher et al. 1984– 1989:1,2:283; Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–1942:505; Krause 1971:163; Nowak 2003:544). [I] niuwila [II] lÂl or lwl (Looijenga 2003a:216). Diplomatic reading: [I] niuwila [II] lÊu References Antonsen (1975:17, 76); Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,2:283–284); Düwel et al. (1975:159–165, 172–178); Jacobsen and Moltke (1941– 1942:504–506); Krause (1966:254–255; 1971:163); Looijenga (2003a:216); McKinnell (2004:75–76); Nowak (2003:288–292, 544 et passim).
Soest
465
Images Clavadetscher et al. (1984–1989:1,3:211–212) (drawing and photograph); Düwel et al. (1975 Taf. 25) (photograph); Krause (1966 Taf. 56) (photograph); Looijenga (2003a plate 7c) (photograph).
74. Soest Concordance AZ 30; KJ 140; L VII.40; Ma E7; O 41. Object Gold disc fibula. Find-site Soest, Kr. Soest, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany (51° 35’ N, 8° 07’ E). Context Female grave (no. 106) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1930. Provenance The gravefield is commonly identified as Frankish, as is the inscription (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:345; Krause 1966:281). According to Zeiss, however, the fibula may have been made in Italy (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:345). In favour of Frankish origin is the presence of two very similar fibulae in the grave of the Frankish queen Arnegundis († c.580) (Nedoma 2004a:213). From the historical and archaeological evidence, it is not certain whether the site was in Frankish or Saxon territory in the late 6th century. Nedoma (2004a:215) cites Siegmund’s (2000:309–312) argument that the gravefield conforms to a Saxon cultural model. Datings 601–650 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:345). Towards the end of the 6th century (Krause 1966:280–281). 567–600 (Looijenga 2003a:257; Martin 2004:180; Roth 1981a:66). 551–600 (Opitz 1987:40). The grave contains coins of Justinian I, probably minted in Ravenna between c.555–565. These give us a terminus post quem for the burial (Krause 1966:280; Nedoma 2004a:213).
466
Catalogue
Location of inscription On the back. Complex I is to the right of the pin-holder, complex II between the pin-holder and the loop. Complex I runs left to right; the rune-cross in complex II is read clockwise in the readings below. Readings [I] rada:daÂa [II] “a monogram composed of the the rune O and the bindrunes NT and AA”8 (Holthausen 1931:304). [I] rada:daÂa [II (rune-cross)] atano (Krause 1966:280; Nedoma 2004a:215). rada:daÂa gatano (Opitz 1987:40). rada:daÂa gatano (Looijenga 2003a:257). rada ' daÂa | (0–?)atano | (0–?) (Kiel). Holthausen (1931:304) and Krause (1966:280) note a d-like form to the right of the loop. Nedoma (2004a:215) describes several other markings, including the d-like form and several crosses which could conceivably be g-runes. Diplomatic reading: [I] rada:daÂa [II] atano or gatano References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:344–350); Fischer (2004:294); Hermann (1989); Holthausen (1931:304); Klingenberg and Koch (1974:124–126); Krause (1966:279–281); Looijenga (2003a:257–258); Nedoma (2004a:213–221, 276–279, 394–395); Opitz (1987:40–41, 194–195). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 28) (photographs); Klingenberg and Koch (1974:119) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 60) (photographs).
75. Steindorf Concordance AZ 31; Graf 3; Grün H4; KJ 158; L VII.41; Ma Wa7; O 42; Sch W. Object Iron sax. 8 “ein aus der Rune O und den Binderunen NT und AA zusammengesetztes Monogramm”
Steindorf
467
Find-site Steindorf, Kr. Fürstenfeldbruck, Bavaria, Germany (48° 13’ N, 11° 0’ E). Context Male grave (no. 8 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:350; Grünzweig 2004:136) / no. 10 (Graf 2010:99; Martin 2004:206)) in a row-gravefield, excavated in 1934 (Bammesberger 1969:7). Provenance According to Zeiss (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:350–351) the region east of the Lech was under Bavarian control in the 7th century, but was previously Alamannic. The design of this sax has parallels in Alamannia (including 30. Hailfingen I), but none in Bavarian graves. Krause likewise identifies the object as Alamannic (1966:301). Datings Mid 7th century or 651–700 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:351). Early 7th century (Krause 1966:301). 7th century (Bammesberger 1969:7). 601–650 (Opitz 1987:41; Roth 1981a:66). 551–600 or 567–600 (Düwel 1994b:271; Looijenga 2003a:258; Schwerdt 2000:228). c.550 or later (Martin 2004:185 Anm. 66). 570/580–600/610 (Grünzweig 2004:127; Nedoma 2004a:335, citing personal communication from Jo Wernard). Location of inscription On the blade, running parallel to the edge and reading left to right. Readings whus … ald … (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:352). husibald/// (Krause 1966:300). husibaldxxx (Opitz 1987:41; Schwerdt 2000:228) / husiwald (Opitz 1987:167; Schwerdt 2000:229). husibaldxx? (Düwel 1981b:158). huisi?ald (Looijenga 2003a:258). =husixaldxx[--- (Grünzweig 2004:136; Nedoma 2004a:335). (1Z)hus(i 1?)al(d 2–3?)[0–?] (Kiel). I am inclined to reject Looijenga’s reading of R.1–2 as huis, both because it finds no agreement elsewhere in the literature and because I can see no jus-
468
Catalogue
tification for it from my own inspection of the available photographs. The initial h and u are clearly distinct, not a bind-rune as Looijenga states. Following his autopsy of the object in 2007, Graf rejects the reading of R. 5–6 as ba. What appear to be twigs are in his opinion artefacts of corrosion. Preceding the text is a triangular sign (represented by Nedoma as =) of unknown significance – possibly a maker’s mark or indicator of the beginning of the text (Düwel 1981b:159; Krause 1966:301; Nedoma 2004a:335); for critical discussion of this interpretation, see Graf (2010:103–105). Arntz reads this as a retrograde w-rune. A similar sign appears on the Schweindorf solidus (L IX.8). The sax is badly corroded, rendering the inscription (which may originally have been inlaid with silver) very difficult to decipher (Graf 2010:100; Looijenga 2003a:258). Following the legible part of the inscription are some more marks which may be runes or paratextual signs (see further Graf 2010:101–102. Diplomatic reading: ?husi?ald??( ? ) References Arntz (1936a); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:350–355); Bammesberger (1969); Düwel (1981b:158–159; 1994b:271); Graf (2010:99–105); Grünzweig (2004:126–127, 136–137); Krause (1966:300–301); Looijenga (2003a:258– 259); Nedoma (2004a:335–340); Opitz (1987:41–42, 167); Schwerdt (2000:228–229). Images Arntz (1936 Taf. 29) (photographs); Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 29, 41) (photographs); Bammesberger (1969:7) (drawing); Graf (2010:99) (photograph); Krause (1966 Taf. 69) (photograph); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (close-up photographs).
76. Stetten Concordance Sch X. Object Silver hemispherical object, described by Pieper as “one half of a silver capsule … [which] might have been part of a so-called bobble-earring, or part of a needle” (1990a:6); by Düwel (1994b:292; 2002c:29) and Nedoma (2004a:182) as part of the head of a pin (probably a hairpin or a pin for a veil;
Stetten
469
and by Looijenga (2003a:22 n.10) as a rivet. According to Weis (Weis et al. 1991:311–312), it is most likely to belong to a pin for a veil (since the grave contains a pair of wire earrings, and no indication that bobble-earrings are also present). Find-site Stetten an der Donau, Kr. Tuttlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 01’ N, 8° 52’ E). Context Female grave (no. 133) in a gravefield excavated between 1984 and 1987. The object was found several centimetres above the body, but is nevertheless thought to belong to the burial (Pieper 1993:81; Weis et al. 1991:309–311). Provenance Pieper describes the gravefield as Alamannic (1990a:6). Datings Mid-7th century (Pieper 1990a:7, 1993:83). c.680/690 (Düwel 1994b:292; 2002c:29 Anm. 31 (following Frauke Stein); Nedoma 2004a:182; 2006a:137). Location of inscription On the outside, running left to right. Readings afmelkud (Pieper 1990a:7, 1993:81; Düwel 2002c:30; Nedoma 2006a:137; Schwerdt 2000:229; Weis et al. 1991:313). amelkudf (Pieper 1993:82; Schwerdt 2000:229). amelkud | f (Kiel). The f-rune is above the main ductus of the inscription, between a and me. According to Pieper (1990a:7), its lower twig crosses the bind-rune me, indicating that it was cut afterwards. The marks are extremely small (2mm high), but I am inclined to agree with Pieper (1990a:7; Weis et al. 1991:312) that they appear to have been deliberately cut, and are not simply incidental scratches. Nevertheless, Nedoma regards the identification of a runic inscription as very doubtful, and also regards the late date as grounds for scepticism (§ 1.1.2). Diplomatic reading: amelkud f
470
Catalogue
References Düwel (1994b:292; 2002c); Looijenga (2003a:22–23); Nedoma (2004a:182– 184; 2006a:137); Pieper (1990a; 1993); Schwerdt (2000:229–230); Weis (1999); Weis et al. (1991). Images Pieper (1990a:7) (drawing); Weis et al. (1991 Taf. 55–56) (photographs); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
77. Szabadbattyán Concordance An 98; AZ 32; KJ 167; L V.39; O 43. Object Silver buckle. Find-site Szabadbattyán, Kom. Fejér, Hungary (47° 07’ N, 18° 23’ E). Because of the uncertain origin of the item, the association of the item with this location is unverifiable. Context The Hungarian National Museum acquired the item in 1927. Its earlier history is unclear (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:357; Kiss 1980:107–108; Nedoma 2004a:376–377). Provenance Unknown (Krause 1966:311). In spite of the find-location, many sources classify the inscription as linguistically WGmc (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:355–356; Düwel 1994b:289 n.83; Nedoma 2006a:113). Zeiss (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:356) comments that elements of the “Suebi” migrated into Pannonia and Dalmatia in the second half of the fifth century, and implies that this makes the presence of a WGmc inscription in this region plausible. On archaeological grounds, Martin (2004:168) favours an “East Germanic” origin. Antonsen (1975:75) identifies the dialect as EGmc. Nedoma (2004a:378) refrains from any commitment on this point.
Szabadbattyán
471
Datings 401–450 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:357; Klingenberg 1976c:364; Looijenga 2003a:174; Opitz 1987:42). 401–425 (Krause 1966:311; Antonsen 1975:74). 450–475 (Düwel 1994b:289 n.83, following Kiss 1980:111). 426–450 (Martin 2004:168). Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. Readings marŋ s(d) (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:357–358). marŋ sd (Krause 1966:310). marŋs (Antonsen 1975:74). Antonsen actually transliterates marings, with ing representing the á-rune. marŋs sd (Klingenberg 1976c:364; Opitz 1987:43). mariŋs= (Nedoma 2004a:377). mar(0–1?)ŋ | s(1–2?) (Kiel). ŋ is the “lantern-rune”, which is perhaps interpretable as a bind-rune iŋ
(Arntz and Zeiss 1939:358; Nedoma 2004a:377); compare 2. Aquincum. The final sign (which Krause transcribes d, Opitz as a bind-rune sd and Nedoma as =) is described by Antonsen as “a malformed swastika” (1975:74). Arntz is non-committal on the identification of this sign, noting that it resembles a rather odd form of d rotated through 45° (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:358). There is a noticeable gap between ŋ and s. Diplomatic reading: marŋs? References Antonsen (1975:74–75); Arntz and Zeiss (1939:355–359); Düwel (1994b:289 n.83); Kiss (1980); Klingenberg (1976c:364–368); Krause (1966:310–311); Looijenga (2003a:174–175); Nedoma (2004a:376–386; 2006a:113); Opitz (1987:42–43, 109). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 30) (photographs); Kiss (1980:131) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 72) (photographs).
472
Catalogue
78. †Trier Concordance O 44a. Object Small (3 × 2.3 × 0.7 cm) rectangular serpentine object of unknown function (Düwel 2003b:518). Schneider describes the object and a small serpentine hare found at the same site as the two parts of an amulet. Both are pierced by holes, apparently to allow them to be threaded onto something (Schneider 1980:196, 198). Find-site Trier, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany (49° 45’ N, 6° 38’ E). Context Apparently a stray find (with the hare close by), discovered in the town during sewer construction in 1978 (Schneider 1980:193). Provenance Schneider (1980:195–196) argues on linguistic grounds that the inscription was produced locally. I do not consider his linguistic analysis reliable, however (§ 3.2.1; § 4.1). Datings 5th or early 6th century (Schneider 1980:196). Schneider (assuming that the item is genuine) infers this dating from aspects of his (dubious) linguistic analysis (discussed in § 3.1.1; § 4.1). Location of inscription Complexes I and II on the edges of the shorter sides of the object, both running right to left. Readings [I] wilsa [II] wairwai (Schneider 1980:194–195; Kiel; Opitz 1987:56). References Düwel (2003b:518; 2008:214); Opitz (1987:56); Schneider (1980). Images Schneider (1980 Abb. 3–4) (photographs).
Weimar I
473
79. Weimar I Concordance AZ 33; KJ 147; L VII.44; Ma B2a; O 49; Sch Z. Object Silver gilt bow fibula, one of a pair with 80. Weimar II. Find-site Weimar, Thüringen, Germany (50° 59’ N, 11° 19’ E). Context Female grave (no. 57) in a row-gravefield on the northeast side of the town. The grave belongs to a section of the gravefield excavated between 1895 and 1902 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:360). Provenance The gravefield in general is usually classified as Thuringian. Zeiss (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:360–361) applies this also to the occupants of graves 56 and 57, where the runic inscriptions were found. Seebold likewise classifies the inscription as linguistically Thuringian (Seebold et al. 2001:16). According to more recent studies (Siegmund 2000, cited by Nedoma 2004a:228), the gravefield more closely fits an “Alamannic cultural model”. Based on the decorative style, Krause (1966:280–281) argues that the fibula is of Frankish manufacture. Datings 501–550 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:361; Krause 1966:287; Looijenga 2003a:260; Opitz 1987:45; Roth 1981a:66; Schwerdt 2000:232). 526–550 or c.550 (Martin 2004:186; Nedoma 2004a:257). Location of inscription On the back, complex I on the footplate and complexes II–IV on 3 of the knobs. All are read left to right. Readings [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liubi: [IV] leob· (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:367; Kiel; Krause 1966:287–288; Nedoma 2004a:258; Opitz 1987:46; Schwerdt 2000:232). haribrig liub leob (Looijenga 2003a:260).
474
Catalogue
Only 3 of the original 7 knobs are still attached to the fibula. The hiba knob is now missing (which is why it is absent from Looijenga’s reading). The liub(i): knob is very badly corroded. Looijenga’s is the only transliteration which differs from those of Arntz and Krause; the only differences are the absence of the hiba knob and of the final i in complex III. I therefore adhere to the majority reading. Diplomatic reading: [I] haribrig [II] hiba: [III] liub(i): [IV] leob· References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:360–368); Götze (1912); Krause (1966:287–288); Looijenga (2003a:260, 269); Martin (2004:176, 186–187, 200); Nedoma (2004a:257–258, 330–332, 332–334, 365–366); Opitz (1987:45–46, 185–190); Schwab (1998a:412–417); Schwerdt (2000:232–233). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 31, 41–42) (photographs); Martin (2004:176) (drawing).
80. Weimar II Concordance AZ 34; KJ 147; L VII.45; Ma B2b; O 50; Sch Z. Object Silver gilt bow fibula, the pair of 79. Weimar I. Find-site Weimar, Thüringen, Germany (50° 59’ N, 11° 19’ E). Context See Weimar I. Provenance See Weimar I. Datings See Weimar I.
Weimar III
475
Location of inscription On the back, complex I on the footplate and complexes II–III on 2 of the knobs. All are read left to right. Readings [footplate] sig/// [knob a] bubo: [knob b] hiba: (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:368; Kiel; Krause 1966:288; Opitz 1987:46; Schwerdt 2000:232). sigibl/ad hiba bubo (Looijenga 2003a:261). [I] sig/n (or: g/nis) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: (Nedoma 2004a:258). Diplomatic reading: [I] sig/n (…) [II] bubo: [III] hiba: References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:360–363, 368–369); Götze (1912); Krause (1966:287, 288–289); Looijenga (2003a:261); Martin (2004:176, 186–187, 200); Nedoma (2004a:257–260, 332–334, 408–409); Opitz (1987:45–46, 185–190); Schwerdt (2000:232–233). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 32, 42) (photographs); Martin (2004:176) (drawing).
81. Weimar III Concordance AZ 35; KJ 148; L VII.46; Ma Gü3; O 51; Sch Y. Object Bronze belt buckle. Find-site Weimar, Thüringen, Germany (50° 59’ N, 11° 19’ E). Context Female grave (no. 56) in the same gravefield as 79–80. Weimar I–II. Provenance See Weimar I.
476
Catalogue
Datings 501–550 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:361, 370; Düwel 1994b:290; Klingenberg 1976c:369; Looijenga 2003a:261; Opitz 1987:47; Roth 1981a:66; Schwerdt 2000:230). c.550 (Martin 2004:186; Nedoma 2004a:314). Location of inscription Complex I on the middle of the “front” (it is actually not certain which side of the buckle is the front); complex II on the middle of the “back”; complex III on the edge of the “back” surface, apparently following on from complex II. All 3 complexes are read left to right. Readings ida:bigina hahwar :awimund:isd(:)rleob idunx (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:370–372, 374). [a] ida:bigina:hahwar: [b] :awimund:isd:leob idun: (Krause 1966:289; Nedoma 2004a:228; Opitz 1987:47; Schwerdt 2000:230). [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni (i? or :) (Düwel 1994b:290). [I] ida:bigina:hahwar: [II] :awimund:isd:??eo?? [III] iduni (Looijenga 2003a:261 (my numbering of complexes)). ida ' b(1?)igina ' hahwar ' | ' awimund ' isd ' (le)o(b) | idun ’ (Kiel). Diplomatic reading: [I] ida:bigina:hahwar [II] :awimund:isd:leob [III] iduni/: References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:360–363, 370–375); Düwel (1994b:290); Götze (1912); Klingenberg (1976c:369–371); Krause (1966:289–290); Looijenga (2003a:261–262); Nedoma (2004a:227–233, 233–237, 312–321); Opitz (1987:47–48, 110, 190–194); Schwab (1998a:412–417); Schwerdt (2000:230–231). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 33, 43) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 63) (photographs).
Weimar IV
477
82. Weimar IV Concordance AZ 36; KJ 149; L VII.47; O 52; RMR D5; Sch AA. Object Cylindrical amber bead, now lost (Looijenga 2003a:262; Nedoma 2004a:313). Find-site Weimar, Thüringen, Germany (50° 59’ N, 11° 19’ E). Context The same grave (no. 56) as 81. Weimar III. Provenance See Weimar I. Datings See Weimar III. Location of inscription Around the outside edge, running left to right. Readings ida : leob : ida hahwar : wiu  (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:377). ÂiuÂ:ida:xexxxxa:hahwar: (Kiel; Krause 1966:290). ÂiuÂ:ida:xexxa:hahwar: (Opitz 1987:48; Schwerdt 2000:233). :Âiuw:ida:?e??a:hahwar (Looijenga 2003a:262). Looijenga notes that her reading is based on the photgraphs in Arntz and Zeiss 1939, which have been doctored. Âiu : ida : leob : ida : hahwar : (McKinnell et al. 2004:62). 1Â4iuÂ:ida:x(x?)exxxxa:hahwar: (Nedoma 2004a:314). As Krause notes (1966:290), the inscription runs all the way around the edge with no clear indication of where it begins and ends. In my diplomatic reading I have followed the majority. Diplomatic reading: Â/wiuÂ/w:ida:?e????a:hahwar:
478
Catalogue
References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:360–363, 375–380); Düwel (1994b:295); Krause (1966:290); Looijenga (2003a:262); McKinnell et al. (2004:62); Nedoma (2004a:312–321); Opitz (1987:48, 190–194); Schwab (1998a:412–417); Schwerdt (2000:233). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 33, 43) (photographs); Krause (1966 Taf. 63) (photograph of a plaster cast).
83. Weingarten I Concordance KJ 164; L VII.48; Ma I3; O 53; Sch AB. Object Silver gilt S-fibula. Find-site Weingarten, Kr. Ravensburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 48’ N, 9° 38’ E). Context Girl’s grave (no. 272) in a row-gravefield on the western edge of the presentday town, excavated in 1955 (Düwel 1989a:43; 2002c:25; Kokkotidis 1999:151; Wein 1957:142). For further details, see Roth and Theune 1995:10–12; Wein (op.cit.). Provenance Wein (1957:142) identifies the gravefield as Alamannic. Datings 7th century (Krause 1966:307). Mid-6th century (Looijenga 2003a:262; Roth 1981a:66). 6th century (Opitz 1987:49; Schwerdt 2000:233). 560–600 (Stein 1987:1394–1395. Also Düwel 1989a:43; Martin 2004:184 Anm. 60; Nedoma 2004a:176). Beginning of 6th century (Roth 1994:310). Mid-6th century or 550–600 (Düwel 2002c:25).
Weingarten I
479
Location of inscription On the back, complexes I and II either side of the pin-holder, reading left to right. Readings [a] alirguÂx(x)x [b] feha:writ/// (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:127; Düwel 2002c:26; Krause 1966:306). [a] alirguÂ:ik [b] feha:writ:la (Bammesberger 2002:119; Beck 2001:309; Opitz 1987:49; Schwerdt 2000:233). aerguÂ:? feha:writ: ia (Looijenga 2003a:262). [I] alirguÂ:?? [II] feha:writ’[x(x)]ia (Nedoma 2004a:176). a(1–2?)rguÂ(' 1–?) | feha ' writ(1–2? a) (Kiel). Following gu there appear to be two staves with faint marks between them which could conceivably be the twigs of m, but could equally be incidental abrasions. After the second stave is what might be a sign made up of two curves, possibly with a stem. I cannot guess what it might be. In complex II, the twigs of t are discernible, but very faint. Following it is a partial stave with what may be a side-twig. There is a substantial gap (sufficient for 1–2 additional runes, though I can see no trace of carving) between this and the following signs – an observation which in my view casts doubt on the reading writila, proposed by Bammesberger (2002:120). Diplomatic reading: [I] ali/erguÂ:?(??) [II] feha:writ? … i/la References Arntz and Jänichen (1957:126–128); Bammesberger (2002); Beck (2001); Düwel (1989a; 2002c); Krause (1966:306); Looijenga (2003a:262–263); Nedoma (2004a:176–180, 292–297); Opitz (1987:49, 199–201); Roth (1998); Roth and Theune (1995:79–80); Schwab (1998a:418–419; 1999a:13–14); Schwerdt (2000:233–235); Wagner (1994/95); Wein (1957). Images Arntz and Jänichen (1957 Taf. 65) (photographs); Düwel (1997a:494) (drawings); Krause (1966 Taf. 70) (photographs); Roth (1998:184) (drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
480
Catalogue
84. Weingarten II Concordance KJ 164; L VII.49; Ma I2; O 54; Sch AC. Object Silver gilt S-fibula. Find-site Weingarten, Kr. Ravensburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (47° 48’ N, 9° 38’ E). Context Female grave (no. 179) in the Weingarten gravefield, excavated in the 1950s (see 83. Weingarten I). Provenance See Weingarten I. Datings 7th century (Krause 1966:307). 6th century (Opitz 1987:50; Schwerdt 2000:235). Mid 6th century (Looijenga 2003a:263; Roth 1981a:66). Beginning of the 6th century (Roth 1994:310). 526–575 (Martin 2004:184). This is a dating for the earlier S-fibulae (including this item and 31. Hailfingen II) as a group. c.550 (Nedoma 2004a:267, citing Roth 1981a). Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. Readings dado (Arntz and Jänichen 1957:128; Krause 1966:306; Opitz 1987:50; Looijenga 2003a:263; Roth and Theune 1995:54; Schwerdt 2000:235). dando (Opitz 1987:168 (alternative reading); Schwerdt 2000:236). da(0–1?)do (Kiel). The second rune is rather cramped, with very small twigs. The mark that Opitz regards as the cross-piece of n is higher on the stem than would be expected (Opitz 1987:168; Nedoma 2004a:267). Diplomatic reading: dado
†Weser
I
481
References Arntz and Jänichen (1957:128); Krause (1966:306–307); Looijenga (2003a:263); Martin (2004:183–184, 186–187); Nedoma (2004a:266–272); Opitz (1987:50, 168–169); Roth (1994:310; 1998); Roth and Theune (1995:54); Schwab (1998a:396–397); Schwerdt (2000:235–236). Images Düwel (1997a:493) (drawings); Krause (1966 Taf. 70) (photograph); Martin (2004:183) (drawings); Roth (1998:183) (drawings); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
85. †Weser I [My numbering. In the literature on the Weser bones, they are either unnumbered, or referred to by their museum catalogue numbers (see Concordance).] Concordance O Anhang. Catalogued in the Oldenburg Museum as OL4988. Object Subfossile bone (distal end of horse tibia). Find-site According to Ahrens’ report (see Context, below), the find-spot is Sandstedt, Kr. Cuxhaven, Niedersachsen, Germany (53° 22’ N, 8° 32’ E). Context One of a number of bones with carvings, sold to the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde und Vorgeschichte Oldenburg by Ludwig Ahrens in 1927–28. According to Ahrens, the bones had been turned up by dredging in the lower Weser (Antonsen 2002:315). Although they were brought to the museum as separate finds, Pieper (1989:152, 154) speculates that Ahrens found them together and sold them individually in order to raise the price (see also Appendix 2). Provenance Saxon? (Pieper 1989). Nedoma (2004a:326) identifies the dialect as pre-OS, Seebold as OLG (Seebold et al. 2001:16).
482
Catalogue
Datings 6th century (Opitz 1987:54). 560–690 (Pieper 1987:232). This dating is based on amino acid analysis. Pieper speculates that it might be too recent, without going into detail about why. 380–500 (Pieper 1989:105, 241). This is the result of 14C dating. 5th century, probably 401–450 (Pieper 1989:244; Düwel 2008:56; Nedoma 2004a:325). This dating takes into account the chemical analyses. Pieper also refers to the â-like sign as a “missing link” form of ŋ (see Readings, below), and a comparison of the pictorial carvings on the bones with iconography on other objects from the period as evidence for this dating. c.400 or earlier (Antonsen 1993:4–5). Location of inscription Along the bone in three rows, all read left to right. Readings latam : hari kunni : we hagal (Holthausen 1931:304; Antonsen 2002:325; Opitz 1987:55). latam : ing : hari | kunni : ing : we | hagal (Pieper 1989:153–154 (cited by Antonsen 2002:318; Looijenga 2003a:267)). [I] latam?hari [II] kunni?xe [III] hagal (Nedoma 2004a:325). latam(1–3?)hari | kunni(1–3? w)e | hagal | (0–2?) (Kiel). Where Pieper has ing, he is transliterating a sign which resembles the English ŋ-rune â. Antonsen, Opitz and Nedoma read the â-like signs as separators
rather than runes (on the difficulties with Pieper’s proposed development of forms ¦á¦ > â (Pieper 1989:153, 166–177) – i.e., as a ligature of a regular ŋ-rune with two dividers – see Nedoma 2004a:326). In defence of his interpretation of the sign as a rune, Pieper (1987:237) – working on the assumption that all three inscriptions form a single text – observes that each of the others (nos. 86–87, below) contains a divider of the more common type made up of two points. The u-rune in complex II has a peculiar, angular shape. The same form is found on 87. †Weser III, but has no parallels elsewhere (Nedoma 2004a:325). The sign which most sources transliterate as w in line II resembles a Roman Y. It is discussed in more detail in the text (§ 4.1). h is single-barred in all three Weser inscriptions. Diplomatic reading: [I] latam(ŋ)hari [II] kunni(ŋ)?e [III] hagal
†Weser
II
483
References Antonsen (1993; 2002:315–328); von Buttel-Reepen (1930); Düwel (2008:65–66); Ellmers (1994); Holthausen (1931:304–305); Karsten (1930); Looijenga (2003a:267–268); Nedoma (2004a:325–330); Pieper (1987; 1989; 1991); Schneider (1969); Seebold (1991a:501–502). Images Pieper (1987:223) (drawings); Pieper (1989:75–79, 113) (photographs and drawings). Pieper’s drawings are reproduced in a number of other places.
86. †Weser II [On the numbering, see 85. †Weser I] Concordance O Anhang. Catalogued in the Oldenburg Museum as OL4990. Object Subfossile bone (distal end of cow tibia). Find-site (According to Ahrens) Hammelwarden, Brake (Unterweser), Kr. Wesermarsch, Niedersachsen, Germany (53’ 20° N, 8° 29’ E). Context See Weser I. Provenance See Weser I. Datings 675–795 (Pieper 1987:232). This dating is based on amino acid analysis. 350–450 (Pieper 1987:241). This is a 14C dating. Location of inscription Along one side, running left to right, towards the natural end of the bone (the other end of the object has been cut and shaped artificially).
484
Catalogue
Readings lokom : her (Antonsen 2002:325; Ellmers 1994:126; Holthausen 1931:305; Kiel; Nedoma 2004a:325; Opitz 1987:55; Pieper 1989:184 (cited by Antonsen 2002:319; Looijenga 2003a:267)). k has the shape of the “standard” Older FuÂark S, but full line height (a form attested only here and on the Belland stone (KJ 83)) (Nedoma 2004a:325). References See Weser I. Images Pieper (1987:223) (drawings); Pieper (1989:75–79, 117) (photographs and drawings).
87. †Weser III [On the numbering, see 85. †Weser I] Concordance O Anhang. Catalogued in the Oldenburg Museum as OL4991. Object Subfossile bone (cow metatarsus), pierced at one end for threading onto something. Find-site (According to Ahrens) Hammelwarden, Brake (Unterweser), Kr. Wesermarsch, Niedersachsen, Germany (53’ 20° N, 8° 29’ E). Context See Weser I. Provenance See Weser I. Datings 550–690 (Pieper 1987:232). This dating is based on amino acid analysis. Pieper implies that it may be too recent and that the bone is actually older (see Weser I). 380–500 (Pieper 1989:105, 241). This a 14C dating.
Wijnaldum B
485
Location of inscription Along one side, running left to right. Readings ulu:hari dede (Antonsen 2002:326; Holthausen 1931:305; Nedoma 2004a:325; Opitz 1987:55; Pieper 1989:184 (cited by Antonsen 2002:319; Looijenga 2003a:268)). References See Weser I. Images Pieper (1987:223) (drawings); Pieper (1989:71, 79, 119) (photographs and drawings).
88. Wijnaldum B [Wijnaldum A is a bone or antler object bearing an obscure runic inscription( ? ); see Appendix I] Concordance L IX.19. Object Gold pendant. Find-site Wijnaldum, Gem. Harlingen, Friesland, Netherlands (53°12’ N, 5° 28’ E). Context Stray find, discovered by an amateur on the Wijnaldum terp in 1990. Provenance The pendant belongs to a type found in a number of women’s graves in Mittelfranken (a district of Bavaria), and Lombardy. Looijenga identifies the style as Langobardic (Looijenga 1991:12, 2003a:323). Datings c.600 (Looijenga 2003a:323).
486
Catalogue
Location of inscription On the back, running left to right. Readings hiwi (Looijenga 2003a:323). The h in this inscription is single-barred !, which Looijenga (2003a:323) says is unique among the Continental inscriptions. In fact, it does have parallels on the Bergakker sheath fitting (see Appendix 1 for references); 18. Donzdorf; and 85–87. †Weser I–III. The Donzdorf example is generally believed to be of Scandinavian origin. References Looijenga (1991; 1996; 2003a:323–324). Images Looijenga (1991:12) (drawings).
89. Wremen [aka Fallward]. Concordance L VII.17. Object Wooden footstool (Looijenga 2003a:231). Schön identifies the wood as alder (Schön et al. 2006:318). Düwel (1994e:14) describes the object as a rectangular wooden board decorated with geometric designs on the top and a hunting scene on the underside. He is noncommittal about its function. Find-site In the Fallward marsh near Wremen, Kr. Cuxhaven, Niedersachsen, Germany (53° 39’ N, 8° 31’ E). Context Male boat grave in a 5th-century gravefield, excavated in 1994 (Düwel 1994e:14; Schön et al. 2006:318).
Wurmlingen
487
Provenance Saxon (Martin 2004:167). Schön speculates (based on the quality and style of the grave-finds) that the occupant of the grave had been a soldier serving in the Roman army (Schön et al. 2006:318). Datings c.425 (Looijenga 2003a:239). 431 (Düwel 1999b:49; Nedoma 2004a:240; Theune-Großkopf and Nedoma 2006:52), based on dendrochronology. Martin gives the dendrochronological dating as “shortly after 421” (typographical error?) (2004:167). Location of inscription On the edge, running right to left, in two complexes with a substantial gap between them. Readings [I] ksamella [II] lguskaÂi (Düwel 1994e:14; Kiel; Looijenga 2003a:240; Schön et al. 2006:322–323; Theune-Großkopf and Nedoma 2006:53). References Düwel (1994e); Looijenga (2003a:239–241); Schön et al. (2006); TheuneGroßkopf and Nedoma (2006:53–59). Images Looijenga (2003a plate 17a-b) (photographs); Schön et al. (2006:317, 319) (photographs); Theune-Großkopf and Nedoma (2006:54–55) (photographs). Note that these authors are all reproducing the same set of photographs.
90. Wurmlingen Concordance AZ 40; Graf 1; Grün H1; KJ 162; L VII.50; Ma Wa1; O 56; Sch AD. Object Iron spearhead. Find-site Wurmlingen, Kr. Tuttlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (48° 0’ N, 8° 47’ E).
488
Catalogue
Context Male grave (no. 2) in a row-gravefield at the southwestern edge of the modern town, excavated in 1929 (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:418). Provenance Alamannic (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:418; Krause 1966:305). Datings Beginning of 7th century (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:418–419; Krause 1966:305; Opitz 1987:51; Roth 1981a:66; Schwerdt 2000:236). 7th century (Düwel 1981b:157). c.600 (Looijenga 2003a:263). 567–600 (Grünzweig 2004:125). 550/560-early 7th century (Martin 2004:185 Anm. 66). 550/560–600/620 (Nedoma 2004a:281). 551–600 or early 7th century (Graf 2010:71). Location of inscription On one side, running left to right. Readings ?:/idorih (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:419). ?idorih (Krause 1966:304). ?:dorih (Opitz 1987:51; Düwel 1981b:157; Graf 2010:72; Grünzweig 2004:130; Looijenga 2003a:263; Nedoma 2004a:281; Schwerdt 2000:236). (1Z 1?)dorih (Kiel). Closer inspections of the second sign in 1975 and again in 2003 indicated that there was no continuous groove and that the reading i is not possible (Düwel 1981b:157; Graf 2010:72; Nedoma 2004a:281; Opitz 1987:85). This is clearly visible on Waldispühl’s photographs (see Images). The symbol indicated by ? is a fork-shaped sign resembling an inverted Y. Similar signs appear on other spearheads found in southwestern Germany, on some Anglo-Saxon coins (standing for Lat. rex) and on various Scandinavian artefacts including a number of bracteates (Graf 2010:74, 76–79; Grünzweig 2004:129; Looijenga 2003a:263). In spite of its resemblance to a form of k found on two Frisian inscriptions (Hantum ivory plate (AZ 20; L IX.15); “Skanomodu” solidus (L IX.9)), the runological community seems to share Arntz’ confidence (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:419) that this sign in the Wurmlingen inscription is not a rune.
Wurmlingen
489
On the other side of the spearhead is a series of paratextual symbols, some of which are similar in shape to the one described above. Diplomatic reading: ?:dorih References Arntz and Zeiss (1939:418–421); Düwel (1981b:157–158); Graf (2010:71–87); Grünzweig (2004:125, 129–131); Krause (1966:304–305); Looijenga (2003a:263); Martin (2004:185, 205); Nedoma (2004a:281–288); Opitz 1987:51, 84–96; Schwerdt (2000:236–238). Images Arntz and Zeiss (1939 Taf. 36) (photographs); Graf (2010:71) (photograph); Krause (1966 Taf. 69) (photographs); Nedoma (2004a:282) (photographs); Waldispühl (pers.comm.) (photographs).
490
Catalogue
Appendix 1: Handlist of Continental runic inscriptions excluded from the corpus Inscriptions with find-sites in the study area, but dated before c.400 AD Dahmsdorf spearhead (An 7; AZ 1; KJ 32; RMR A2). Meldorf fibula (Düwel 1981c; Düwel and Gebühr 1981; Kabell 1988; Mees 1997; 2006; Odenstedt 1983; 1989) (also excluded due to doubtful runic character) Inscriptions with find-sites in the study area, but positively identifiable as non-WGmc †Arguel pebble (Bizet 1948; 1964). This item is generally regarded as a fake; Bizet, who believes it to be genuine, identifies it as linguistically Burgundian. Nebenstedt I-B bracteate (An 63; IK 128; KJ 133; L VI.29; RMR E27; SUR 62). Inscriptions outside the study area, possibly classified as WGmc, but excluded due to early date Illerup III shield grip (L V.3. Stoklund 1985). Sedschütz pot (AZ 5. Raschke 1934). Vrløse rosette fibula (An 100; KJ 11; RMR G6; SUR 121). Vimose buckle (An 99; L V.10; KJ 24; RMR B2; SUR 118). Frisian inscriptions excluded due to use of additional runes Amay( ? ) comb (AZ 43; L IX.1). Harlingen solidus (AZ 21; L IX.6). Schweindorf solidus (L IX.8. Düwel and Tempel 1968/70:380–383). Inscriptions (or rune-like carvings) with find-sites in the study area, but of doubtful runic character Arbedo clay vessel (Kiel). Asch (Aˇs) sandstone piece (Gierach 1925). Basel-Kleinhüningen bow fibula (Ma A2. Giesler-Müller 1992). Bopfingen finger-ring (Graf 8; O 7a). Bopfingen sheath fitting (Graf 9; Ma Wa4). Chaouilley sword pommel (IRF 3). †Coburg stone piece (Arntz 1956; Düwel 2008:214). Elstertrebnitz-A bracteate (IK 239). Geltorf I-A bracteate (IK 254).
Excluded inscriptions
491
Hamburg-B bracteate (IK 71). Hamburg-Fuhlsbüttel urn (Tischler 1937). Heilbronn-Böckingen II fitting (O 24). Hohenstadt bow fibula (L VII.65; Ma A4 O 26). Kaltbrunn strap ends( ? ) (L VII.66. Düwel 1998:17) Krefeld-Gellep disc fibula (Arntz 1937a; Düwel 2008:67). Liebenau tweezers (Düwel 1988; Pieper 1990b:10). München-Aubing IV disc fibula (Ma K2; O 30). München-Sendling strap end (Düwel 1994b:247–248). Osterrönfeld ceramic fragment (Dietz et al. 1996; Marold 1994; 1995). Peigen disc fibula (Graf 7; L VII.69; Ma E4). Rungholt bone (Düwel and Pieper 2004). Saint-Brice bow fibula (Düwel 1986). Sirnau disc fibula (Düwel 1994b:276). Sorcy-Bauthemont buckle (Fischer 1999). Trossingen I-B strap end (KJ 163; Ma C5b; O 46). Wehden urn (Düwel 2008:67; Waller 1961). Weißenburg disc fibula (Ma F2; O 55). Inscriptions with find-sites in the area which are positively identified as runic, but have no linguistic interpretation Aschheim I bow fibula (Ma D3. Düwel 2002b; Reimann et al. 1999). Bad Krozingen B disc fibula (Düwel 2002b). Dischingen II bow fibula (KJ 155; L VII.60; Ma C1b; O 12). Dittigheim disc fibula (Düwel 2002b:13–14). Eckernförde-C bracteate (IK 237). Gräfelfing sax (L VII.61; Ma Wa5; O 19). Herbrechtingen bow fibula (AZ 22; KJ 154; L VII.64; Ma C3; O 25). Kantens comb case (L IX.21). Kirchheim disc fibula (Düwel 2002b). Lauchheim bow fibulae (pair, grave 660) (Bauer 2010:1). Maisach strap end (Düwel 2002b:12–13; Reimann and Düwel 2001). München-Aubing III disc fibula (L VII.68; Ma K3; O 31). Nebenstedt II-B bracteate (IK 129,1; KJ 115). Nebenstedt III-F bracteate (IK 309). Schretzheim IV bow fibula (Ma B3). Tannheim hinge (L VII.70; O 44). Trossingen I-A bow fibula (KJ 163; L VII.71; Ma C5a; O 45). Trossingen II-A strap end (KJ 163; L VII.72; Ma Gü5b; O 48). Trossingen II-B strap end (KJ 163; L VII.73; Ma Gü5a; O 47). Vörstetten-Schupfholz finger-ring (Bücker 2001).
492
Appendix 1
Weingarten III amber bead (Graf 10; L VII.74. Düwel 1989b). Wijnaldum A bone/antler object (AZ 39; L IX.23). †Zirchow limestone piece (Arntz 1939a; Eggers 1968:7). Inscriptions found in the area but consisting only of (partial) fuÂarks Breza column (AZ 8; KJ 5; L VII.10; O 8). Trossingen chair (Düwel 2008:70; Theune-Großkopf and Nedoma 2006). Items known to be modern forgeries Maria Saaler Berg bone (Düwel 1994c:104–105). Additional exclusion (see § 1.2.2) Bergakker scabbard mount (Grün F1; L IX.7. Bammesberger 1999b; Bosman and Looijenga 1996; Malzahn 1998; Mees 2002; Odenstedt 1999; Quak 1997; 1999; Seebold 1999; Vennemann 1999).
Suspect inscriptions
493
Appendix 2: Suspect inscriptions. Possible forgeries and the assessment of authenticity The corpus contains nine items whose authenticity has been called into question at one time or another. It is rare for a forgery to be proven beyond all doubt, as in the case of the bone from the Maria Saaler Berg, which was exposed as a fake by chemical analysis and by the confession of the forger (Düwel 1994c:104–105). The items included in this study and marked as suspect with a dagger † in the text range from those which have been re-examined and to some extent rehabilitated (the Weser bones are now widely, if not universally, accepted as genuine, while the Kleines Schulerloch cave inscription has received renewed interest in recent years) to those which are generally rejected, but not conclusively proven to be forgeries. This appendix briefly summarises the discussions about authenticity in the literature on each of these items.
32. †Hainspach pendant Reportedly discovered in 1932 and brought to the attention of scholars the following year (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:249–250; Kern 1935:110–111), this item was at first taken seriously. Arntz and Zeiss do not regard it as suspect (1939:250). Krause was at one stage confident of its authenticity (1935a:38; 1935b:127), although his chief argument is that a forger would have created a text made up of whole words, rather than a sequence of runes making no obvious sense. Unfortunately, he supports this argument by reference to the Maria Saaler Berg inscription, which was exposed as a forgery in 1937. In publications after this date, Krause dismisses the Hainspach find as a fake (1937:468; 1966:8). It is disregarded in subsequent literature. As far as I am aware, it was not subject to any scientific examination.
42. †Kärlich fibula According to Arntz (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:268), there is evidence that parts of the inscription show signs of having been cut through the patina on the fibula. This has not been confirmed by forensic examination. Perhaps the most striking feature indicating a forgery is the use of the Younger FuÂark ç in hailag. This form of h appears only in Scandinavian inscriptions, and not before c.800 (the “star-rune” does appear in 7th-century inscriptions with
494
Appendix 2
the value [a], conventionally transliterated A, making it a precursor to the Younger FuÂark , a˛ ; and it also appears as a form of j in English and Frisian inscriptions), but the chronology of the fuÂarks was not well understood in Germany until the publication of the German edition of Wimmer’s study of the runic script (Wimmer 1887). Arntz suggests that the forger was trying to cover his tracks by using an alternative form of h rather than the normal ! of the Pietroassa ring (AZ 4; An 97; KJ 141), which Arntz believes was the model for hailag). Concluding his discussion on the authenticity of the inscription, Arntz admits that a forgery is not proven beyond doubt, but he does not accept the Kärlich inscription as genuine (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:272). In later literature, it is mentioned only briefly as a fake or suspect inscription, with little or no discussion of the grounds for suspicion (Düwel 1994c:105, 2001:214; Krause 1966:8; Opitz 1987:53–54).
46. †Kleines Schulerloch rock inscription This inscription is one of the few suspect items which has received a substantial amount of attention in the literature, having been regarded as a fake since soon after the discovery of the inscription. The best-known case against authenticity is that advanced by Rosenfeld (1984), but the inscription received renewed attention after the discovery of 7. Bad Krozingen A, which has a structurally similar text, but which cannot have been a model for a forger as it was not discovered until more recently. The Schulerloch inscription was the subject of an interdisciplinary discussion at Eichstätt in 2003, papers from which were published in 2006 (Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:315–393). The arguments for and against authenticity are far-ranging in scope. Nedoma (2003:491–492; 2006b:350–353) argues that the name Birg (§ 5.1) is morphologically problematic, and that the pers.ns. in the inscription are traceable to a particular edition of Meichelbeck’s (1792/1794) edition of the Historia Frisingensis (see also Eichner 2006:374). Otto Rieger, the discoverer of the carvings, has also been subject to scrutiny regarding his character (he is suspected of involvement in the creation of supposedly prehistoric carvings at the nearby Kastlhänghöhle – Bohmers 1939; Düwel 2006:324–325; Eichner 2006:363; Zotz and Freund 1951/1952:102) and his capabilities (in the opinion of Dr. Walter Boll, who dealt with Rieger at the time of the discovery, he had neither the intelligence nor the specialist knowledge required to execute a sophisticated hoax – see Eichner 2006:358). A particular bone of contention is the position of the carvings relative to a stone “seat” (actually a place where the rock was cut, probably in the
Suspect inscriptions
495
19th century, to accommodate a gate – Düwel 2006:334; Rosenfeld 1984:170). Eichner (2006:369) is certain that the carvings show signs of having been made after this stonework; and that the layer of sinter into which the carvings are made partly covers the worked stone, strongly suggesting that it postdates the workings. Züchner (2006), on the other hand, argues that the inscription actually follows a natural bulge in the rock; and that the properties of the sinter as well as the slow regrowth of lichen and algae removed by chemical cleaning in 1937 indicate that the carvings could not have been recent. In 2005 Augusto Mangini took sinter samples for thorium-uranium dating (Pieper 2006:390–392), the results of which have not been published, and are unlikely to be in future. According to Pieper (pers. comm. 12/08/10), Mangini dated the sinter to the late Palolithic, which does not bear directly on the age of the carvings, but would invalidate Eichner’s arguments about the date of the “seat” as evidence for a forgery. At the time of writing, a further physical investigation is being planned by Gaby Waxenberger and Kerstin Kazzazi.
64. †Rubring stone piece The first publication on this item is by Haas (1958), who is ambivalent on the issue of authenticity: the content of the inscription (which Haas regards as a mixture of runes and Roman letters)1 gives him grounds for suspicion; but if it is treated as being purely runic, this does not apply. He considers the possibility that the inscription could have been made by the children who found the object, but dismisses it on the grounds that they are unlikely to have had sufficient knowledge of runic script (1958:72–73). Haas reports a microscopic examination of the stone undertaken in the 1950s, which indicated that the carvings had been made only a few years earlier. He objects to this finding, arguing that the stone may not have been exposed to the elements, but could have been buried in a container which was destroyed by the bomb-blast. This is pure speculation, but it does leave the case for a forgery unproven. Haas also cites another professional opinion (that of Prof. R. Pittioni) that crystallisation in the cuts rules out recent manufacture; but Pittioni’s investigation has not been published and no details are available. The inscription is accepted as genuine by Klingenberg (1976c:373; 1976d:186) and Opitz (1987:36–37, 179). No additional defence of its authenticity is offered. 1 Steinhauser’s statement that Haas regarded the script as Venetic some other “North Italic” script (Steinhauser 1968a:3) is incorrect.
496
Appendix 2
Nedoma (2003) sees the uncertain circumstances of the find and the long period between the item’s discovery and its presentation to the museum as good reasons to be cautious. The unusual form of the ŋ-rune is also suspicious.
65. †Rügen stone piece This object is generally regarded as a forgery and is almost entirely ignored in the literature. It merits no mention at all from Krause (1966), Looijenga (2003a), or Opitz (1987). Düwel (2008:214) mentions it only to state that it is disregarded as a fake. The object is not mentioned in the RGA entry on Rügen (Leube 2003; Udolph 2003). Arntz (1937) is convinced of the object’s authenticity. He does not, however, include it in his corpus of Continental inscriptions, only giving it a brief mention (Arntz and Zeiss 1939:256), presumably because he considers it Scandinavian in origin. Eggers (1968:7) remarks that the circumstances of the find, while unhelpful to the interpreter, are not by themselves grounds for doubting its authenticity.
78. †Trier serpentine object Where it is mentioned in the runological literature, this object is generally dismissed as a fake with little or no comment (Düwel 2003b:518; 2008:214; Opitz 1987:56). The only author to discuss the object or its inscription in detail is Schneider (1980), who accepts it as genuine without explicitly defending it.
85–87. †Weser I–III bones Since shortly after their discovery in 1927–8, these inscriptions were rejected by the runological community as fakes: Krause (1966:8) mentions them only in a list of items to be excluded from his corpus because of doubts about their authenticity. Antonsen (2002:315) cites as reasons for their rejection the circumstances of the find; the unique character of the objects; the fact that several other bones with pictorial carvings produced by the same individual (Ludwig Ahrens) were shown to be forgeries (see Pieper 1987:225–233); and the atmosphere of suspicion surrounding the exposure of the Maria Saaler Berg forgery in 1937 (on which see Düwel 1994c:104–105). Pieper observes
Suspect inscriptions
497
that in 1928, after suspicions were aroused, Ahrens’ talent for finding artefacts declined rapidly (Pieper 1987:222). The physical and chemical analysis conducted by Pieper (1987; 1989) has rehabilitated the rune-inscribed bones, although it has not eliminated suspicion (see, for example, Looijenga 2003a:23, 268).
General comments Of the nine suspect items in the corpus, six (Rubring, Rügen, Trier, Weser I–III) are on loose pieces of stone or bone with no identifiable function (and all of which are assigned an amuletic or magical function by those who regard them as authentic). All nine items (except the Kleines Schulerloch inscription, which is not on a portable object) are stray finds discovered by amateurs.2 These two characteristics mark the suspect items out from the bulk of the material in the corpus. They need not be diagnostic, however: we have, for example, an inscription ga on a piece of sandstone found at Aˇs in the Czech republic (Gierach 1925). This is a stray find and a loose piece of stone, the runic character of which is doubtful; but its authenticity has not been questioned.
2 The same applies to several other small stones with runic or rune-like inscriptions – all believed to be fakes – from Arguel (Bizet 1948; 1964), Coburg (Arntz 1956; Düwel 2008:214) and Zirchow (Arntz 1939a).
498
Appendix 3
Appendix 3: The “Berlin” scabbard mouthpiece While this book was in production, Prof. Düwel kindly drew my attention to a new find, recently published. Below is an additional catalogue entry for this item, followed by my comments on the inscription in the context of the findings presented in the body of this book. Concordance None. Object Silver gilt scabbard mouthpiece, belonging to a gold-hilted spatha. Find-site Unknown (see Context, below). Context Part of a collection of items acquired by the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin in 2007. It had previously been in private hands and its earlier history is not known, although it is thought to represent the inventory of a high-status male grave (Bertram 2011:189-191). The inscription was only discovered during restoration of the object at the museum (Born and Krebstakies 2011). Provenance The assemblage is comparable to high-status burials of the late Imperial/early Migration Period around the Rhine frontier. Bertram (2011:192) suggests an origin east of the Rhine – perhaps in the Alamannic cultural area – based on the absence of cloisonné decoration and the presence of the runic inscription. Datings 400-450 (Bertram 2011:192). This dating is based on comparison with similar assemblages of finds at other sites. Location of inscription On the back, read from right to left.
The “Berlin” scabbard mouthpiece
499
Readings lÂlik (Düwel and Nedoma 2011:203). Reading is hampered by incidental scratches and abrasions resulting from wear, as well as slight damage from an earlier attempt at restoration (Born and Krebstakies 2011:197; Düwel and Nedoma 2011:204). The sign transliterated b does not have the gap between the loops which is common in Continental inscriptions. This sign could alternatively be read as two runes, 1( M is (still reading right to left), but Düwel and Nedoma favour b, pointing out that a form without separate loops is attested on the Continent (in 69 Schretzheim III1 (g)abau/r; 79. Weimar I hiba, liub(i), leob; 80. Weimar II bubo, hiba) (Düwel and Nedoma 2011:206). Both transliterations are considered in the commentary below. gi/ m/ il / b d e t
References Bertram 2011; Born and Krebstakies 2011; Düwel and Nedoma 2011. Images Bertram (2011:191) (photograph of the spatha and sheath, showing the uninscribed front surface); Born and Krebstakies (2011:196-201) (photographs); Düwel and Nedoma (2011:204-207) (photographs and drawings of the inscribed surface). Commentary The possible transliteration detbalÂ- might have a parallel in the MN D¯etibaldus, attested in a 6th or 7th-century Latin inscription; however, D¯eti- is a Romanised representation of a reflex of PGmc *Âeuda-, and it does not seem likely that a rune-carver would adopt Roman letter-substitutions (Düwel and Nedoma 2011:209). Düwel and Nedoma also mention and quickly reject a connection with OHG tezzo “nipple”. While det- seems to me to be a plausible transliteration of the characters as they appear in the published photographs, I can offer no alternative interpretations. The reading of the initial sequence which Düwel and Nedoma favour is gimil- M g¯ımil “little opening” (to PGmc *g¯ıma/-¯on > OIc gíma f. “opening”; modG (Alem.) g¯ım m. “split”; modE (Lincolnshire dial.) gime, gyme “hole washed out by rushing water” (OED)).2 According to Düwel and Nedoma, 1 This item (the ring-sword) is numbered Schretzheim IV by Nedoma (2006) and Graf (2010). See my catalogue entry on 67. Schretzheim I for a note on the numbering of the Schretzheim finds. 2 Coates gives two more lengthy definitions: “a pool, but one specifically created in a dip in neighbouring low-lying land by the overflow and/or seepage from a high-banked
500
Appendix 3
*g¯ıma/-¯on is derived from the verb *g¯ınanan (> ON gína “to yawn, gape”; OE OS g¯ınan “to yawn”; OHG adv. ginanto “gapingly”); Orel (2003, s.v. *¯ım¯on) relates both of these to PGmc *gi¯enanan > OHG gi¯en “to strive, aspire” (non-Gmc cognates of which (e.g., Lat. hi¯o) also have meanings like “open, gape”). -il is here interpreted as the dim. suffix; but we could alternatively follow Nedoma’s treatment of several pers.ns. in /-il/ (14. Bülach fridil; 61. Pforzen I aigil) and interpret gimil as a nomen agentis “opener, gaper”. Düwel and Nedoma (2011:208-209) treat the more easily legible sequence balÂlik as a nom.sg.masc. form of an adjective balÂl¯ık “bold, (over?)confident, ready” (: OHG (UG) paldlih; adverbial OHG baldl¯ıhho, OS baldl¯ıko, OE bealdlice). There is certainly no difficulty in interpreting -lik as the suffix -l¯ık < PGmc *-l¯ıkaz. The base represented by bal would be a reflex of PGmc *balaz/*baldaz. If 75. Steindorf -?ald represents the same element (which is doubtful), d is most readily interpreted as a reflex of */d/ (§7.1.2.1). If we accept the presence of this element in both Steindorf and the “Berlin” inscription, then we must posit the co-existence of two Verner alternants: ePGmc *bálÂ- > bal > OHG bald (the usual form); vs. ePGmc *bal´- > bald- (via Verner’s Law) > OHG balt. For more discussion of Verner’s Law in relation to PGmc */θ/ ~ */d/, see §7.1.2.2.3. The interpretation put forward by Düwel and Nedoma produces a text g¯ımil balÂl¯ık “the little opening (is) ready” (compare Düwel’s interpretation of 7. Bad Krozingen A boba:leub “B¯oba (is) dear …” (§3.1.1)). As noted above, we could also interpret g¯ımil as “opener, gaper” (reference to the sword as a causer of wounds? Byname for the owner?). Whatever the precise meaning, from a graphemic and phonological point of view, these interpretations are entirely plausible in the context of the larger corpus of Continental runic material. If we read is instead of b (see Readings), this might supply the copula is (3.sg.pres.). This would be an irregular form in OHG (only appearing in the Leiden ms. of Williram’s commentary on the Song of Songs – BR §379), as against the normal ist (probably attested in 81. Weimar III isd, and conceivably – though much less likely – in the same form in 67. Schretzheim I (see entries in §5.1; §7.1.2.1)). Both is and ist are frequent in OS (Gallée 1910 §422). We cannot plausibly read the sign following b/is as t or d.
river which has become an almost permanent feature of the landscape” and “water lying in a field as the result of a flash flood” (2007:89). This is, he suggests, probably a loanword (highly specialised in meaning) from ON gíma.
The “Berlin” scabbard mouthpiece
501
If the copula is present here, its complement would be represented by alÂlik (or salÂlik, if s is treated as a haplograph). This does not suggest any promising interpretations: salÂ- could perhaps be construed as a reflex of PGmc *s¯eli¯o (> ON sæld, OE sælð, OS s¯al¯da, OHG s¯alida “happiness”) with syncope of the medial /-i-/. An adj. built on the same base (PGmc *s¯eliz) is attested in ON sæl-ligr “healthy, wealthy, blissful”; OE ge-sæl-(l)¯ ¯ ıc “happy” (Orel 2003, s.v. *s¯eli-l¯ıkaz), but I am not aware of any parallels for the proposed structure *s¯ali-iÂ-l¯ık. While the reading b can be questioned, the alternative is does not produce a more satisfactory interpretation.
502
The “Berlin” scabbard mouthpiece
Maps
Maps
503
504
Maps
1. Distribution of runic inscriptions included in the study
Maps
505
2. Reflexes of PGmc */au/ represented as a digraph
506 Maps
3. u vs. w spellings in the verb “write” (PGmc *wr¯ıtanan)
Maps
507
4. j vs. i spellings for consonantal /j/
508 Maps
References
509
Bibliography Abbreviations for journals and corporate authors ABäG – Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik ERGA – Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde FmaS – Frühmittelalterliche Studien ISRR – International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions JEGP – Journal of English and Germanic Philology JIES – Journal of Indo-European Studies GGA – Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen NoR – Nytt om Runer NOWELE – NOrthWestern European Language Evolution PBB – Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (“Paul und Braunes Beiträge”) PBB/H – PBB “Ostausgabe” (Halle/Saale) PBB/T – PBB “Westausgabe” (Tübingen) RGA – Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. ZfdA – Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur ZfdPh – Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie
References Allen, W. Sidney (1978): Vox Latina: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Latin (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andersen, H. Hellmuth, H.J. Madsen and O. Foss (1976): Danevirke. Københaven: i kommission hos Gyldengal. Andersen, H. Hellmuth (1998): Danevirke og Kovirke: arkologiske undersøgelser 1861–1993. Højbjerg: Jysk arkologisk selskab. Anton, H.H. (1981): “Burgunden. II. Historisches.” RGA 4:235–248. Antonsen, Elmer H. (1964): “Zum Umlaut im Deutschen.” PBB/T 86:177–196. Antonsen, Elmer H. (1970): “Toward a new runic grammar.” In Benediktsson 1970: 313–321. Antonsen, Elmer H. (1972): “The Proto-Germanic Syllabics (Vowels).” In van Coetsem and Kufner 1972:117–140. Antonsen, Elmer H. (1975): A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Antonsen, Elmer H. (1986): “Die ältesten Runeninschriften in heutiger Sicht.” In Beck 1986:321–343. Antonsen, Elmer H. (1987): “The Oldest Runic Inscriptions in the Light of New Finds and Interpretations.” In ISRR 1987:17–28.
510
Bibliography
Antonsen, Elmer H. (1993): “The Weser runes: magic or message?” NOWELE 21/22:1–20. Antonsen, Elmer H. (2002): Runes and Germanic Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. Antonsen, Elmer H. (2003): “Where have all the women gone?” In Heizmann and van Nahl 2003:9–19. Antonsen, Elmer H., and Hans Heinrich Hock (eds.) (1991): STÆFCRÆFT: Studies in Germanic Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Armitage, Lionel (1911): An Introduction to the Study of Old High German. Oxford: Clarendon. Arntz, Helmut (1935a): “Neue deutsche Runendenkmäler: Die Inschriften von Gammertingen und Herbrechtingen und die friesischen Denkmäler von Hantum und Wijnaldum.” Forschungen und Fortschritte 11:358–359. Arntz, Helmut (1935b): “Ein neues deutsches Runendenkmal: Die Amulettkapsel von Schretzheim.” Forschungen und Fortschritte 11:394–395. Arntz, Helmut (1936a): “Ein bajuwarischer Sax mit Runen von Steindorf, BA. Fürstenfeldbruck.” Germania 20:127–132. Arntz, Helmut (1936b): “Neue Runenfunde.” Offa 1:150–156. Arntz, Helmut (1937): “Das Runenamulett von Rügen.” Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit 13:6–8. Arntz, Helmut (1939a): “Das Steinchen von Zirchow.” Berichte zur Runenforschung 1:14–24. Arntz, Helmut (1939b): “Awa Leubwinie.” Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen 175:204. Arntz, Helmut (1944): Handbuch der Runenkunde (2nd ed.). Halle: Niemeyer. Arntz, Helmut (1956): “Das Runensteinchen von Coburg.” In Schilling 1956:63–75. Arntz, Helmut, and Hans Jänichen (1957): “Neue Runeninschriften aus Württemberg.” Fundberichte aus Schwaben N.F. 14:117–131. Arntz, Helmut, and Hans Zeiss (1939): Die einheimischen Runendenkmäler des Festlandes. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Askedal, John Ole, Harald Bjorvand, and Eyvind Fjeld Halvorsen (eds.) (1991): Festskrift til Ottar Grønvik på 75-årsdagen den 21. oktober 1991. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Babucke, Volker (1993): “Ausgrabungen im frühmittelalterlichen Reihengräberfeld von Pforzen, Landkreis Ostallgäu.” Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben 86:7–21. Babucke, Volker (1999a): “Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgäu) – Aspekte der Deutung: 1. Zur Herkunft und Datierung: Archäologischer Befund.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:15–24. Babucke, Volker (1999b): “Die Runeninschrift auf dem Elfenbeinring von Pforzen (Allgäu). 1. Der archäologische Befund.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:121–126. Babucke, Volker (2003): “Pforzen. § 1. Archäologisches.” RGA 23:114–116. Babucke, Volker, and Klaus Düwel (2001): “Eine Bügelfibel mit Runeninschrift aus dem frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfeld von Mertingen.” In Bakker 2001:161–170. Bach, Adolf (1952/53): Deutsche Namenkunde I,1–2. Die deutschen Personennamen (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Winter. Bachran, Walter (1993): Das alamannische Reihengräberfeld von Schwangau, Landkreis Ostallgäu. Ph.D. Mainz. Bahlow, Hans (1985): Deutschlands geographische Namenwelt: Etymologisches Lexikon der Fluß- und Ortsnamen alteuropäischer Herkunft (2nd ed.). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
References
511
Bakker, Lothar (ed.) (2001): Augsburger Beiträge zur Archäologie, vol. 3: Sammelband 2000. Augsburg: Wißner. Bammesberger, Alfred (1969): “Zur Runeninschrift auf dem Sax von Steindorf.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 25:7–10. Bammesberger, Alfred (1989): “Urgermanisch *lugaÂur(ij)a-.” In Heller et al. 1989: 17–28. Bammesberger, Alfred (1990): Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg: Winter. Bammesberger, Alfred (ed.) (1991): Old English Runes and their Continental Background. Heidelberg: Winter. Bammesberger, Alfred (1995/96): “Zum Namen der Stadt Nürnberg.” Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 32/33:151–156. Bammesberger, Alfred (1999a): “Pforzen: Eine Anmerkung zu gas¯okun.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:118. Bammesberger, Alfred (1999b): “Die Runeninschrift von Bergakker: Versuch einer Deutung.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:180–185. Bammesberger, Alfred (1999c): “Lauchheim: Eine linguistische Anmerkung zu Iä%äAIãI.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:203–204. Bammesberger, Alfred (2002): “Zur Runeninschrift auf der Fibel von Weingarten.” Historische Sprachforschung 115:119–121. Bammesberger, Alfred, and Gaby Waxenberger (eds.) (1999): Pforzen und Bergakker. Neue Untersuchungen zu Runeninschriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bammesberger, Alfred, and Gaby Waxenberger (eds.) (2006): Das fuÂark und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen. ERGA 51. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bandle, Oskar, Jürg Glauser and Stefanie Würth (eds.) (2004): Verschränkung der Kulturen. Der Sprach- und Literaturaustausch zwischen Skandinavien und den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Festschr. Hans-Peter Naumann. Tübingen, Basel: Francke. Barnes, Michael (1994): “On Types of Argumentation in Runic Studies.” In Knirk 1994:11–30. Barrack, Charles M. (1978): “The high German consonant shift: Monogenetic or polygenetic?” Lingua 44:1–48. Bauer, Alessia (2010): “Recent finds from the Continent: Problems and Perspectives of the Alamannic ‘Runic Province’.” Web 02/01/2012. . Beck, Heinrich (ed.) (1986): Germanenprobleme in heutiger Sicht. ERGA 1. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Beck, Heinrich (2003): “Zum Problem der 13. Rune (.).” In Heizmann and van Nahl 2003:77–83. Beck, Heinrich, Detlev Ellmers and Kurt Schier (eds.) (1992): Germanische Religionsgeschichte, Quellen und Quellenprobleme. ERGA 5. Berlin: de Gruyter. Beck, Wolfgang (2001): “Runisch feha. Namenkundliches zur S-Fibel von Weingarten.” Historische Sprachforschung 114:309–318. Benediktsson, Hreinn (ed.) (1970): The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics: Proceedings of the International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, July 6–11, 1969. Reykjavík: Visindafélag Íslendinga. Bennewitz, Ingrid (ed.) (2002): Lektüren der Differenz. Studien zur Mediävistik und Geschlechtergeschichte. Festschrift für Ingvild Birkhan. Bern: Lang. Bergmann, Rolf, Heinrich Tiefenbach and Lothar Voetz. (eds.) (1987): Althochdeutsch (2 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter.
512
Bibliography
Bertram, Marion (2011): “Da Grab eines ‘Chef militaire’ mit Goldgriffspatha. Vorbericht zu einer Neuerwebung des Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 43:189-193. Betz, Werner (1979): “Dän. AUJA ‘Glück’ bei den Alemannen um 575? Zur Inschrift der neugefundenen Oettinger Scheibenfibel.” Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 216: 241–245. Betz, Werner, Evelyn S. Coleman, and Kenneth Northcott (eds.) (1964): Taylor Starck Festschrift 1964. The Hague: Mouton. Beumann, Helmut (ed.) (1974): Historische Forschungen für Walter Schlesinger. Köln/ Wien: Böhlau. Birkhan, Helmut (ed.) (1976): Festgabe für Otto Höfler zum 75. Geburtstag. Wien: Braumüller. Birkmann, Thomas (1995): Von Ågedal bis Malt: die skandinavischen Runeninschriften vom Ende des 5. bis Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts. ERGA 12. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Bizet, J.A. (1948): “L’inscription runique d’Arguel.” Études Germaniques 3:1–12. Bizet, J. (1964): “Die runische Inschrift von Arguel.” Jahrbuch des Marburger Universitätsbundes 1964:41–52. Blackburn, Mark (1991): “A Survey of Anglo-Saxon and Frisian Coins with Runic Inscriptions.” In Bammesberger 1991:137–189. Blank, Walter (ed.) (1976): Alemannica: landeskundliche Beiträge. Festschrift für Bruno Boesch zum 65. Geburtstag. Bühl: Verlag Konkordia. Bohmers, Assien (1939): “Die Felszeichnung in der Kastelhänghöhle.” Germania 1939:39–40. Bohnsack, D., and W. Schöttler (1965): “Reiches Kriegergrab mit Runenscheibe aus dem Beginn des 5. Jhds. n. Chr. von Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg.” In Uslar 1965:233–255. Boppert, Wallburg (1971): Die frühchristlichen Inschriften des Mittelrheingebietes. Mainz: Zabern. Born, Hermann, and Susanne Krebstakies (2011): “Vorbericht zur Restaurierung und Herstellungstechnik des silbervergoldeten Scheidenmundblechs mit Runeninschrift aus dem neu erworbenen Goldgriffspatha-Grab.” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 43:195-201. Bosman, A.V.A.J., and Tineke Looijenga (1996): “A Runic Inscription from Bergakker (Gelderland), The Netherlands.” ABäG 47:9–16. Bosworth, Joseph, and T. Northcote Toller (1898): An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Supplement published 1921). Braune, Wilhelm (1874): “Zur Kenntnis des Fränkischen und zur hochdeutschen Lautverschiebung.” PBB 1:1–56. Braune, Wilhelm (1877): “Zur althochdeutschen Lautlehre.” PBB 4:540–566. Braune, Wilhelm (2004): Althochdeutsche Grammatik I. Laut- und Formenlehre. 15. Auflage, bearbeitet von Ingo Reiffenstein. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bremer, Otto (1886): “Die lautgesetzliche Entwicklung des idg. e¯ in den ältesten germanischen Sprachen.” PBB 11:1–76. British Museum website. Web 13/07/2009. . Bücker, Christel (2001): “Vörstetten: Ein Siedlungsplatz der frühen Alamannen im Vorfeld der spätantiken Rheingrenze.” Archäologische Nachrichten aus Baden 65:3–18. Buttel-Reepen, Hugo von (1930): Zur Vorgeschichte Nordwest-Deutschlands. Funde von Runen mit bildlichen Darstellungen und Funde aus älteren vorgeschichtlichen Kulturen. Mit Beiträgen von E. Schnippel. Oldenburg: Stalling.
References
513
Campbell, A. (1959 [2003]): Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Christlein, R. (1973): “Besitzabstufungen zur Merwingerzeit im Spiegel reicher Grabfunde aus West- und Südwestdeutschland.” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 20:147–180. Clark Hall, J.R. (1960): A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clavadetscher, U., K. Düwel, K. Hauck, and L. v.Padberg (eds.) (1984–1989): Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit. 3 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter. Coates, Richard (2007): “Azure Mouse, Bloater Hill, Goose Puddings, and One Land called the Cow: continuity and conundrums in Lincolnshire minor names.” Journal of the English Place-Name Society 39:73-143. Coetsem, Frans van (1972): “Proto-Germanic morphophonemics.” In van Coetsem and Kufner 1972:174–209. Coetsem, Frans van (1975): “Generality in language change. The case of the OHG vowel shift.” Lingua 35:1–34. Coetsem, Frans van (1994): The vocalism of the Germanic parent language: systemic evolution and sociohistorical context. Heidelberg: Winter. Coetsem, Frans van, and Herbert L. Kufner (eds.) (1972): Toward a Grammar of ProtoGermanic. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Connolly, Leo A. (1977): “Indo-European i > Germanic e: an explanation by the laryngeal theory.” PBB(T) 99:173–205; 333–358. Connolly, Leo A. (1979): “¯e2 and the laryngeal theory.” PBB(T) 101:1–29. Cosack, E. (1982): Das sächsische Gräberfeld bei Liebenau. Berlin: Mann. Däcke, Franz-Olaf (2001): Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Kirchheim/Teck Flur “Rauner” – Die Ausgrabung von 1970. Marburg/Lahn: Tectum. Dannheimer, Hermann (1998): Das baiuwarische Reihengräberfeld von Aubing, Stadt München (2 vols.). Stuttgart: Theiss. Davis, Garry W. (2008): “Toward a Progression Theory of the Old High German Consonant Shift.” JGL 20:197–241. Davis, Garry W., Gregory K. Iverson and Joseph C. Salmons (1999): “Peripherality and markedness in the spread of the High German Consonant Shift.” PBB 121:177–200. Dictionary of Old English (DOE), online version. Web 02/09/09. . Dietz, Martina, et al. (1996): “Eine frühkaiserzeitliche Scherbe mit Schriftzeichen aus Osterrönfeld, Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernförde.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 26: 179–188. Dijkman, Wim (2003): “The Merovingian cemetery of Borgharen and an early Frank named BOBO.” In Taayke et al. 2003:212–230. Doppelfeld, Otto, and Renate Pirling (1966): Fränkische Fürsten aus dem Kölner Dom, von Krefeld-Gellep und Morken. Düsseldorf: Rheinland-Verlag. Drew, Katherine Fischer (1991): The Laws of the Salian Franks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Durrell, Martin (1977): “The OHG monophthongization.” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 44:50–80. Düwel, Klaus (1970): “Die Runen des Brakteaten von Hitsum.” In Hauck 1970:284–287. Düwel, Klaus (1972): “Die Runeninschrift auf der silbernen Scheibe von Liebenau.” Die Kunde 23:134–141. Düwel, Klaus (1981a): “Charnay. § 2. Runologisches.” RGA 4:373–375. Düwel, Klaus (1981b): “Runeninschriften auf Waffen.” In Schmidt-Wiegand 1981:128–167.
514
Bibliography
Düwel, Klaus (1981c): “The Meldorf Fibula and the Origin of Writing.” Michigan Germanic Studies 7:8–18. Düwel, Klaus (1982): “Runen und interpretatio christiana. Zur religionsgeschichtlichen Stellung der Bügelfibel von Nordendorf I.” In Kamp and Wollasch 1982:78–86. Düwel, Klaus (1984): “Zu den theriophoren Runenmeisternamen, insbesondere in Brakteateninschriften.” FmaS 18:321–333. Düwel, Klaus (1986): “Neufunde 1985.” NoR 1:14. Düwel, Klaus (1987): “Neufunde 1986.” NoR 2:12. Düwel, Klaus (1988): “Neufunde 1987.” NoR 3:11. Düwel, Klaus (1989a): “Runenritzende Frauen.” In Elmevik et al. 1989:43–50. Düwel, Klaus (1989b): “Neufunde 1988.” NoR 4:10. Düwel, Klaus (1990): “Neufunde 1989.” NoR 5:8. Düwel, Klaus (1991): “Kontinentale Runeninschriften.” In Bammesberger 1991:271–286. Düwel, Klaus (1992a): “Runeninschriften als Quellen der germanischen Religionsgeschichte.” In Beck et al. 1992:336–364. Düwel, Klaus (1992b): “Zur Auswertung der Brakteateninschriften. Runenkenntnis und Runeninschriften als Oberschichten-Merkmale.” In Hauck 1992:32–90. Düwel, Klaus (1993): “Neufund 1991.” NoR 8:10–11. Düwel, Klaus (ed.) (1994a): Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung: internationales Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung vom 24.–27. Juni 1992 in Bad Homburg. ERGA 10. Berlin: de Gruyter. Düwel, Klaus (1994b): “Runische und lateinische Epigraphik im süddeutschen Raum zur Merowingerzeit.” In Düwel 1994a:229–308. Düwel, Klaus (1994c): “Fälschungen.” RGA 8:104–107. Düwel, Klaus (1994d): “Neue Runenfunde aus Deutschland.” NoR 9:14–16. Düwel, Klaus (1996a): “Neufunde 1995.” NoR 11:13. Düwel, Klaus (1996b): “Die Macht der Schrift im östlichen Frankenreich.” In Wieczorek et al 1996:540–552. Düwel, Klaus (1997a): “Frühe Schriftkultur bei den Barbaren. Germanische Runen, Lateinische Inschriften.” In Fuchs et al. 1997:491–498. Düwel, Klaus (1997b): “Neufunde 1996.” NoR 12:18–19. Duwel, Klaus (1997c): “Zur Runeninschrift auf der silbernen Schnalle von Pforzen.” Historische Sprachforschung 110:281–291. Düwel, Klaus (1998a): “Neufunde 1997 (und früher).” NoR 13:16–17. Düwel, Klaus (1998b): “Zu den Runeninschriften der Fibeln von München-Aubing.” In Dannheimer 1998:1:75–80. Düwel, Klaus (1999a): “Neufund 1998.” NoR 14:15. Düwel, Klaus (1999b): “Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgäu) – Aspekte der Deutung: 3. Lesung und Deutung.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:36–54. Düwel, Klaus (1999c): “Die Runeninschrift auf dem Elfenbeinring von Pforzen.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:127–137. Düwel, Klaus (2000a): “Neufund 1998/1999.” NoR 15:14–15. Düwel, Klaus (2000b): “Zur Runeninschrift.” In Wamers 2000:19–23. Düwel, Klaus (2001): “Liebenau. § 2. Runologisches.” RGA 18:353–354. Düwel, Klaus (2002a): “Niederstotzingen. § 2. Runologisches.” RGA 21:194. Düwel, Klaus (2002b): “Neufunde 2001.” NoR 17:12–16. Düwel, Klaus (2002c): “Runenkundige Frauen im Mittelalter.” In Bennewitz 2002:23–35. Düwel, Klaus (2002d): “Nordendorf. § 2. Runologisches.” RGA 21:275–277. Düwel, Klaus (2002e): “Oberflacht. § 2. Runologisches.” RGA 21:479.
References
515
Düwel, Klaus (2003a): “Pforzen. § 2. Runologisches.” RGA 23:116–118. Düwel, Klaus (2003b): “Runenfälschungen.” RGA 25:518–519. Düwel, Klaus (2003c): “Neufunde 2002.” NoR 18:11–16. Düwel, Klaus (2006): “Zur Runeninschrift im Kleinen Schulerloch bei Kelheim/Donau (Bayern).” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:317–346. Düwel, Klaus (2008): Runenkunde (4th ed.). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Düwel, Klaus, and Michael Gebühr (1981): “Die Fibel von Meldorf und die Anfänge der Runenschrift.” ZfdA 110:159–175. Düwel, Klaus, Günter Müller and Karl Hauck (1975): “Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, IX: Die philologische und ikonographische Auswertung von fünf Inschriftenprägungen.” FmaS 9:143–185. Düwel, Klaus, and Robert Nedoma (2011): “Zur Runeninschrift auf dem Scheidenmundblech einer neuerworbenen Goldgriffspatha im Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin.” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 43:203-214. Düwel, Klaus, and Sean Nowak (eds.) (1998): Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung: Abhandlungen des vierten internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.–9. August 1995. ERGA 15. Berlin: de Gruyter. Düwel, Klaus, and Peter Pieper (2004): “Neufunde 2003.” NoR 19:11–13. Düwel, Klaus, and Helmut Roth (1977): “Die Runenfibel von Donzdorf.” FmaS 11:409–413. Düwel, Klaus, and W.D. Tempel (1968/1970): “Knochenkämme mit Runeninschriften aus Friesland.” Palaeohistoria 14:353–391. Eggers, Hans Jürgen (1968): “Wikinger-Runen aus Pommern.” Baltische Studien N.F. 54:7–13. Eichner, Heiner (1999): “Gürtelschnalle von Pforzen: Addendum.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:110–113. Eichner, Heiner (2006): “Zum Problem der Runeninschrift im Kleinen Schulerloch bei Oberau/Altessing.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:356–379. Elliott, Ralph W.V. (1989): Runes: an Introduction (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ellmers, Detlev (1994): “Germanischer Runenzauber mit der Darstellung eines römischen Handelsschiffes.” In Keller and Staubach 1994:124–131. Elmevik, Lennart (1999): “De urnordiska inskrifternas alu.” In Elmevik et al. 1999:21–28. Elmevik, Lennart, et al. (eds.) (1989): Studia Onomastica. Festskrift till Thorsten Andersson 23. Februari 1989. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell. Elmevik, Lennart, et al. (eds.) (1999): Runor och namn. Hyllningsskrift till Lena Peterson den 27 januari 1999. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Fabian, Bernhard, and Ulrich Suerbaum (eds.) (1969): Festschrift für Edgar Mertner. München: Fink. Faltings, Volkert F., Alastair G.H. Walker and Ommo Wilts (eds.) (1995): Friesische Studien II. Beiträge des Föhrer Symposiums zur Friesischen Philologie vom 7.–8. April 1994. Odense: Odense University Press. Feist, Sigmund (1939): Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Gotischen Sprache (3rd ed.). Leiden: Brill. Felder, E. (1978): Germanische Personennamen auf merowingischen Münzen. Studien zum Vokalismus. Heidelberg: Winter. Fiedler, Resi (1962): Katalog Kirchheim unter Teck. Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Funde im Heimatmuseum. Stuttgart: Silberburg.
516
Bibliography
Findell, Martin (2010): “East Germanic and West Germanic in contact: n-stem personal names in the Continental runic inscriptions.” In Judith Mills and Marjolein Stern (eds.): North and South, East and West: Movements in the Medieval World, Proceedings of the 2nd Postgraduate Conference of the Institute of Medieval Research, University of Nottingham. Web 02/01/2012. . Fingerlin, Gerhard (1977): Neue alamannische Grabfunde aus Hüfingen. Texte zu einer Ausstellung. Freiburg: Förderkreis. Fingerlin, Gerhard (1981): “Eine Runeninschrift der Merowingerzeit aus dem Gräberfeld von Neudingen, Stadt Donaueschingen, Schwarzwald-Baar-Kreis.” Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1981:186–189. Fingerlin, Gerhard (1998): “Ein früher Stützpunkt fränkischer Herrschaft am Oberrhein. Neue merowingerzeitliche Grabfunde aus Bad Krozingen, Kreis Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald.” Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1998:200–203. Fingerlin, Gerhard (1999): “Fränkischer Stützpunkt.” Archäologie in Deutschland 1999 (4):30. Fingerlin, Gerhard, and Klaus Düwel (2002): “Neudingen.” RGA 21:108–111. Fingerlin, Gerhard, Klaus Düwel and Peter Pieper (2004): “Eine Runeninschrift aus Bad Krozingen (Kreis Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald).” In Naumann 2004:224–265. Fingerlin, Gerhard, Josef Fischer and Klaus Düwel (1998): “Alu und ota – Runenbeschriftete Münznachahmungen der Merowingerzeit aus Hüfingen.” Germania 76:789–822. Fischer, Svante (1999): “Merovingertida runfynd i Ardennerna, Frankrike.” NoR 14:12–13. Fischer, Svante (2004): “Alemannia and the North – Early Runic Contexts Apart (400–800).” In Naumann 2004:266–317. Fischer, Svante (2007): Les Seigneurs des Anneaux. Inscriptions runiques de France, vol. 1. Condé-sur-Noireau: Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne. Fischer, Svante, and Jean-Pierre Lémant (2003): “Epigraphic evidence of Frankish exogamy.” In Taayke et al. 2003:241–266. Fischer, Svante, and Jean Soulat (2009): “Runic Swords and Raw Materials – Anglo-Saxon Interaction with northern Gaul.” Vitark 7:72–79. Förstemann, Ernst (1900): Altdeutsches Namenbuch I. Personennamen (2nd ed.). Bonn: Hanstein. Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta (1999): Vestigia longobarde in Italia (568–774). Lessico e antroponomia. Rome: Artemide. Frings, Theodor (1957): Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (3rd ed.). Halle (Saale): Niemeyer. Fuchs, Karlheinz, et al. (1997): Die Alamannen. Begleitband zur Ausstellung Die Alamannen. Stuttgart: Theiss. Gallée, Johan Hendrik (1910): Altsächsische Grammatik (2nd ed.). Halle: Niemeyer. Geuenich, Dieter, and Ingo Runde (eds.) (2006): Name und Gesellschaft im Frühmittelalter. Hildesheim: Olms. Gibbs, Marion E., and Sidney M. Johnson (2000): Medieval German Literature. New York/ London: Routledge. Gierach, E. (1925): “Ein Stein mit Runen bei Asche?” Sudeta 1:145–146. Giesler-Müller, Ulrike (1992): Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Basel-Kleinhüningen. Katalog und Tafeln. Derendingen/Solothurn: Habegger. Goosens, Jan (1968): “Pseudo-Lautverschiebung im niederländischen Sprachraum.” Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 91:7–41. Gordon, E.V. (1927): An Introduction to Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References
517
Gottschald, M. (1982): Deutsche Namenkunde: unsere Familiennamen (5th ed.). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Götze, A. (1912): Die altthüringischen Funde von Weimar (5.–7. Jahrhundert). Berlin: Wasmuth. Graenert, Gabriele, et al. (eds.) (2004): Hüben und drüben. Räume und Grenzen in der Archäologie des Frühmittelalters: Festschrift für Prof. Max Martin zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Liestal/Schweiz: Archäologie und Museum Baselland. Graf, Martin Hannes (2010): Paraschriftliche Zeichen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften. Zürich: Chronos. Grienberger, Theodor von (1903): “Rez. Ludv. F. A. Wimmer, Sønderjyllands runemindesmrker (København 1901).” GGA 165:705–715. Grienberger, Theodor von (1908): “Die Inschrift der Spange von Balingen.” ZfdPh 40:257–276. Grønvik, Ottar (1981): Runene på Tune-steinen. Oslo/Bergen/Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget. Grønvik, Ottar (1985): “Über den Lautwert der Ing-Runen und die Auslassung von Vokal in den älteren Runeninschriften.” Indogermanische Forschungen 90:168–195. Grønvik, Ottar (1987): “Die Runeninschrift der Nordendorfer Bügelfibel I.” In ISRR 1987:111–129. Grønvik, Ottar (1998): Untersuchungen zur älteren nordischen und germanischen Sprachgeschichte. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. Grønvik, Ottar (2003): “Die Runeninschrift von Pforzen.” In Heizmann and van Nahl 2003:174–185. Grünzweig, Friedrich E. (2004): Runeninschriften auf Waffen. Inschriften vom 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. bis ins Hochmittelalter. Wien: Edition Praesens. Gutenbrunner, Siegfried, and Heinz Klingenberg (1967): “Runenschrift, die älteste Buchstabenschrift der Germanen.” Studium generale 20:432–448. Gütter, Adolf (2003): “Zur Chronologie des Primärumlauts von /a/ im Altoberdeutschen, vor allem im Altbairischen.” PBB 125:1–23. Haas, Otto (1958): “Ein problematischer Fund.” Archaeologia Austriaca 24:71–73. Harbert, Wayne (1997): “Underspecification and the old High German monophthongization.” In Rauch and Carr 1997:70–86. Häßler, Hans-Jürgen (1985): Das sächsische Gräberfeld bei Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (Weser), Teil 3. Hildesheim: Lax. Haubrichs, Wolfgang (1987): “Lautverschiebung in Lothringen. Zur althochdeutschen Integration vorgermanischer Toponyme der historischen Sprachlandschaft zwischen Saar und Mosel.” In Bergmann et al. 1987, II:1350–1391. Haubrichs, Wolfgang (1998): “Veru – taz ist spiz. Ein ‘Spinnwirtelspruch’ im Sangallensis 105?” In Schmitsdorf et al. 1998:23–31. Haubrichs, Wolfgang (2003): “Remico aus Goddelau. Ostgermanen, Westgermanen und Romanen im Wormser Raum des 5./6. Jahrhunderts.” In Heizmann and van Nahl 2003:226–242. Haubrichs, Wolfgang (2004): “Frühe alamannische Personennamen (4.–8. Jh.). Eine komparatistische Studie.” In Naumann 2004:57–113. Haubrichs, Wolfgang (2006): “Ostgermanische Personennamen in rheinischen Inschriften des frühen Mittelalters (5./6. Jahrhundert).” In Geuenich and Runde 2006:293–309. Hauck, Karl (1970): Goldbrakteaten aus Sievern. München: Fink. Hauck, Karl (ed.) (1992): Der historische Horizont der Götterbild-Amulette aus der Übergangsepoche von der Spätantike zum Frühmittelalter. Göttingen: Ruprecht and Vandenhoeck.
518
Bibliography
Haugen, Einar (ed.) (1972): First grammatical treatise: the earliest Germanic phonology: an edition, translation and commentary (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Hawkes, Sonia Chadwick, and R.I. Page (1967): “Swords and runes in south-east England.” Antiquaries Journal 47:1–26. Heizmann, Wilhelm (2004): “Die Hüfinger Kleinbrakteaten und die völkerwanderungszeitlichen Goldbrakteaten.” In Naumann 2004:371–385. Heizmann, Wilhelm, and Astrid van Nahl (eds.) (2003): Runica – Germanica – Mediaevalia. ERGA 37. Berlin: de Gruyter. Heller, Karin, Oswald Panagl and Johann Tischler (eds.) (1989): Indogermanica Europaea. Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid. Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Graz. Helten, W. van (1887): Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters. Helten, W. van (1900): “Zu den malbergischen Glossen und den salfränkischen Formeln und Lehnwörtern in der Lex Salica.” PBB 25:225–542. Helten, W. van (1909): “Zu den Trierer Glossen Ahd. Gl. IV 195–211.” Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 11:239. Hermann, Rüdiger (1989): “Attos Gabe. Die Inschriften der Ruennfibel von Soest und ihre Sprache.” Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 112:7–19. Hessels, J.H. (1880 [2004]): Lex Salica: The Ten Texts with the Glosses, and the Lex Emendata. London: John Murray. Heuser, Wilhelm (1903): Altfriesisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Glossar. Heidelberg: Winter. Hickey, Raymond (1984): “Phonotactically conditioned alternation. Instances from Old High German and Irish English.” Linguistics 22:673–686. Hills, C. (1991): “The Archaeological Context of Runic Finds.” In Bammesberger 1991:41–59. Höfler, Otto (1957): “Die zweite Lautverschiebung bei Ostgermanen und Westgermanen.” PBB/T 79:161–350. Holthausen, Ferdinand (1921): Altsächsisches Elementarbuch (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Winter. Holthausen, Ferdinand (1931): “Neue deutsche Runenfunde.” Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift 19:304–305. Holthausen, Ferdinand (1967): Altsächsisches Wörterbuch (2nd ed.). Köln: Böhlau. Howell, Robert B. (1991): “Modern Evidence for Ancient Sound Changes: Old English Breaking and Old High German Vowel Epenthesis Revisited.” In Antonsen and Hock 1991:103–113. ISRR (1987): Runor och Runinskrifter: föredrag vid Riksantikvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11 september 1985. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Iverson, Gregory K., and Joseph C. Salmons (1995): “Aspiration and Laryngeal Representation in Germanic.” Phonology 12:369–396. Iverson, Gregory K., and Joseph C. Salmons (2006): “Fundamental Regularities in the Second Consonant Shift.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18:45–70. Jacobsen, Lis, and Erik Moltke (1941–42): Danmarks runeindskrifter. København: Munksgaard. Jänichen, Hans (1951): “Eine neue Runeninschrift von Schretzheim bei Dillingen.” Germania 29:226–230. Jänichen, Hans (1962): “Neue Runeninschriften aus Württemberg.” Fundberichte aus Schwaben N.F. 16:155–159. Jänichen, Hans (1967a): “Die Runeninschrift auf der silbernen Riemenzunge aus Grab 3a.” In Paulsen 1967:45–46.
References
519
Jänichen, Hans (1967b): “Neue Inschriften aus alamannischen Gräbern des 7. Jahrhunderts.” Fundberichte aus Schwaben 18/1:232–238. Jänichen, Hans (1974): “Eine neue Runeninschrift von Schretzheim bei Dillingen.” In Beumann 1974:518–523. Joos, Martin (1952): “The medieval sibilants.” Language 28:222–231. Jungandreas, Wolfgang (1972): “God fura dih, Deofile.” ZfdA 101:84–85. Kabell, Aage (1970): “Nordendorf A.” PBB/T 92:1–16. Kamp, Norbert, and Joachim Wollasch (eds.) (1982): Tradition als historische Kraft; interdisziplinärer Forschungen zur Geschichte des früheren Mittelalters. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Karsten, Torsten Evert (1930): Die neuen Runen- und Bilderfunde aus der Unter-Weser (Oldenburg). Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Kaufmann, H. (1968): Altdeutsche Personennamen. Ergänzungsband [to Förstemann 1900]. München: Fink / Hildesheim: Olms. Keck, Anna, and Theodor Nolte (eds.) (1999): Ze hove und an der strâzen: Die deutsche Literatur des Mittlealters und ihr “Sitz im Leben”: Festschrift für Volker Schupp zum 65. Geburtstag. Stuttgart: Hirzel. Keller, R. (1961): German Dialects: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Keller, Hagen, and Nikolaus Staubach (eds.) (1994): Iconologia sacra. Mythos, Bildkunst und Dichtung in der Religions- und Sozialgeschichte Alteuropas. Festschr. Karl Hauck. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Kent, Roland Grubb (1945): The sounds of Latin: a descriptive and historical phonology (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Kern, Josef (1935): “Die Reiterscheibe und das Runenamulett von Hainspach in Böhmen.” Sudeta 11:110–117. Kesting, Peter (ed.) (1975): Würzburger Prosastudien II. Untersuchungen zur Literatur und Sprache des Mittelalters. Festschrift für Kurt Ruh. München: Fink. Kiss, Attila (1980): “Germanische Funde von Szabadbattyán aus dem 5. Jahrhundert.” Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis 18:105–132. Klein, Thomas (2001): “Merowingerzeit. § 1. Sprachliches.” RGA 19:579–587. Klingenberg, Heinz (1973): “Das Runenwerk von Balingen – Literarische Kleinkunst aus der alamannische Frühzeit.” Alemannisches Jahrbuch 1971/1972:1–19. Klingenberg, Heinz (1974): “Eucharistischer Runenlöffel aus alamannischer Frühzeit.” ZfdA 103:81–94. Klingenberg, Heinz (1976a): “Die Runenschrift aus Bülach.” Helvetia Archaeologica 27/28:116–121. Klingenberg, Heinz (1976b): “Runenfibel von Bülach, Kanton Zürich. Liebesinschrift aus alamannischer Frühzeit.” In Blank 1976:308–325. Klingenberg, Heinz (1976c): “Schwaben-Dag und Suebia. Suebische Vorzeit in exemplarisch-aktuellen Runeninschriften.” In Birkhan 1976:337–385. Klingenberg, Heinz (1976d): “Die Drei-Götter-Fibel von Nordendorf bei Augsburg. Zum Typus der mythologischen, exemplarisch-aktuellen Runeninschrift.” ZfdA 105:167–188. Klingenberg, H., and Ursula Koch (1974): “Ein Ringschwert mit Runenkreuz aus Schretzheim Kr. Dillingen a.d. Donau.” Germania 52:118–130. Kluge, Friedrich (2002): Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (24th ed., bearbeitet von Elmar Seebold). Berlin: de Gruyter. Knirk, James E. (ed.) (1994): Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk.
520
Bibliography
Köbler, Gerhard (1993): Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch (4th ed.). Web 28/09/09. . Köbler, Gerhard (2000): Altsächsisches Wörterbuch (3rd ed.). Web 23/06/09. . Köbler, Gerhard (2006): Häufigkeitswörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Web 22/09/09. . Koch, Ursula (1977): Das Reihengräberfeld bei Schretzheim (2 vols.). Berlin: Mann. Koch, Ursula (1997): “Der Ritt in die Ferne. Erfolgreiche Kriegszüge im Langobardenreich.” In Fuchs et al. 1997:403–415. Koch, Ursula (2001): Das alamannisch-fränkische Gräberfeld bei Pleidelsheim. Stuttgart: Komissionsverlag Theiss. Kokkotidis, Klaus Georg (1999): Untersuchungen zur Paläodemographie der Alamannen des Frühmittelalters. Ph.D. Universität Köln. Krause, Wolfgang (1934): “Die Runeninschrift von Sedschütz.” Altschlesien 5:382–386. Krause, Wolfgang (1935a): Was man in Runen ritzte. Halle: Niemeyer. Krause, Wolfgang (1935b): “Die Runeninschrift auf der Amulettaxt von Hainspach.” Sudeta 11:122–127. Krause, Wolfgang (1937): Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. Halle: Niemeyer. Krause, Wolfgang (1957): “Die Inschrift des Runenbrakteaten von Sievern.” Die Kunde N.F. 8:134–137. Krause, Wolfgang (1962): “Die Inschrift der Runenspange von Aquincum.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 14:439–444. Krause, Wolfgang (1964): “Noch einmal zu der Runeninschrift von Aquincum.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16:357–358. Krause, Wolfgang (1966): Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark, von Wolfgang Krause; mit Beiträgen von Herbert Jankuhn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Krause, Wolfgang (1971): Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Winter. Krause, Wolfgang, and Joachim Werner (1935): “Die Runenfibel von Bad Ems, HessenNassau.” Germania 19:329–333. Kühn, Herbert (1942): “Die Danielschnallen der Völkerwanderungszeit.” Jahrbuch für prähistorische und ethnographische Kunst 1942:140–169. Kühn, Herbert (1981): Die germanischen Bügelfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Lane, George S. (1963): “Bimoric and trimoric vowels and diphthongs. Laws of Germanic finals again.” JEGP 62:155–170. Laur, Wolfgang (1961): Runendenkmäler in Schleswig-Holstein. Neumünster: Wachholtz. Lehmann, Winfred P. (1986): A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Lehmann, Winfred P. (2005–2007): A Grammar of Proto-Germanic. Web 24/09/09. . Leube, A. (2003): “Rügen. § 2. Archäologisches.” RGA 25:421–427. Liberman, Anatoly (1991): “Phonologization in Germanic: Umlauts and Vowel Shifts.” In Antonsen and Hock 1991:125–137. Looijenga, Tineke (1991): “A new runic inscription from Wijnaldum, Friesland.” NoR 6:12. Looijenga, Tineke (1996): “Checklist Frisian Runic Inscriptions.” In Looijenga and Quak 1996:91–108. Looijenga, Tineke (1999): “The Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:80–87.
References
521
Looijenga, Tineke (2000): “New Runic Find from Borgharen (Maastricht), the Netherlands.” NoR 15:12–13. Looijenga, Tineke (2003a): Texts and Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. Looijenga, Tineke (2003b): “Two runic finds from the Netherlands – both with a Frankish connection.” In Taayke et al. 2003:231–240. Looijenga, Tineke (2003c): “A Very Important Person from Borgharen (Maastricht), Province of Limburg.” In Heizmann and van Nahl 2003:389–393. Looijenga, Tineke, and Arend Quak (eds.) (1996): Frisian Runes and Neighbouring Traditions. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Frisian Runes at the Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 26–29 January 1994. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lühr, Rosemarie (1988): Expressitivität und Lautgesetz im Germanischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Lüthi, Katrin (2004): “Von ÁruÂhild und Hariso: Alemannische und ältere skandinavische Runenkultur.” In Naumann 2004:318–339. Lund Hansen, Ulla, (ed.) (1995): Himlingøje – Seeland – Europa. København: Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselkab. MacLeod, Mindy (2002): Bind-Runes: An Investigation of Ligatures in Runic Epigraphy. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk. Malzahn, Melanie (1998): “Die Runeninschrift von Bergakker. Zur Beziehung von Runenmetaphorik und Skaldenpoesie.” [Review of Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999]. Die Sprache 40,1:85–101. Marckwardt, Albert H. (ed.) (1964): Studies in Languages and Linguistics in Honor of Charles C. Fries. Ann Arbor: English Language Institute, University of Michigan. Marold, Edith (1994): “Keramikscherbe aus Osterrönfeld.” NoR 9:16. Marold, Edith (1995): “Notiz zur Scherbe von Osterrönfeld.” NoR 10:13. Marold, Edith (2004): “Die Schnalle von Pforzen und die altnordische Heldensage.” In Bandle et al. 2004:217–238. Marstrander, Carl J.S. (1929): “De gotiske runeminnesmerker.” Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 3:25–157. Marstrander, Carl J.S. (1939): Review of Arntz and Zeiss 1939. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 11:280–339. Martin, Max (1977): “Die Runenfibel aus Bülach Grab 249. Gedanken zur Verbreitung der Runendenkmäler bei den Westgermanen.” In Stüber and Zürcher 1977:120–128. Martin, Max (1981): “Burgunden. III. Archäologisches (443–700).” RGA 4:248–271. Martin, Max (2004): “Kontinentalgermanische Runeninschriften und ‘alamannische Runenprovinz’ aus archäologischer Sicht.” In Naumann 2004:165–212. McKinnell, John, and Rudolf Simek with Klaus Düwel (2004): Runes, Magic and Religion. Wien: Fassbaender. Mees, Bernard (1997): “A New Interpretation of the Meldorf Fibula Inscription.” ZfdA 126:131–139. Mees, Bernard (2002): “The Bergakker Inscription and the Beginnings of Dutch.” ABäg 56:27–40. Mees, Bernard (2006): “Runes in the First Century.” In Stoklund et al. 2006:201–231. Meli, Marcello (1988): Alamannia Runica. Runi e cultura nell’alto Medioevo. Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice. Menghin, Wilfried (1983): Das Schwert im Frühen Mittelalter. Chronologisch-typologische Untersuchungen zu Langschwertern aus germanischen Gräbern des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderst n. Chr. Stuttgart: Theiss.
522
Bibliography
Moltke, Erik, and Gustav Neckel (1934): “Ein alamannischer Sax mit Runen?” Germania 18:36–43. Morlet, Marie-Thérèse (1968): Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l’ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe siècle. I: Les noms issus du germanique continental et les créations gallo-germaniques. Paris: Centre National de la recherche scientifique. Morris, Richard (1985): “Northwest-Germanic r¯un- ‘rune’. A case of homonymy with Go. r¯una ‘mystery’.” PBB 107:344–358. Moulton, William G. (1961): “Zur Geschichte des deutschen Vokalsystems.” PBB/T 83:1–35. Moulton, William G. (1972): “The Proto-Germanic non-syllabics (consonants).” In van Coetsem and Kufner 1972:141–173. Moulton, William G. (1986): “Die Vennemannsche Lautverschiebungstheorie.” PBB/T 108:1–15. Müller, Günter (1970): Studien zu den theriophoren Personennamen der Germanen. Köln & Wien: Böhlau. Müller, Wilhelm, and Friedrich Zarncke (1854–1861): Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel. Munksgaard, E. (1978): “Brakteaten. I. Archäologisches. § 1. Nordeuropa.” RGA 3:337–341. Nagel, K. (1962): “Heilbronn-Böckingen.” Fundberichte aus Schwaben N.F. 16:279. Naumann, H.-P. (ed.) (2004): Alemannien und der Norden. Internationales Symposium vom 18.–20. Oktober in Zürich. ERGA 43. Berlin: de Gruyter. Nedoma, Robert (1992): “Votrilo und die Runeninschrift auf der Kapsel von Arlon.” ABäG 35:1–6. Nedoma, Robert (1998a): “Geisel. § 1. Sprachliches; § 2. Namenkundliches.” RGA 10:572–573. Nedoma, Robert (1998b): “Vier altgermanische Übernamen: Grindio, swarta, STRUBILO und SCALLEO.” In Tuczay et al. 1998:115–131. Nedoma, Robert (1999a): “Die Runeninschrift auf dem Halsring von Aalen.” Studia Anthroponymica Scandinavica 17:11–19. Nedoma, Robert (1999b): “Die Runeninschrift auf der Gürtelschnalle von Pforzen – ein Zeugnis der germanischen Heldensage.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:98–109. Nedoma, Robert (2000): “Runologische Deutung der Inschrift.” In Wamers 2000:24–28. Nedoma, Robert (2003): “Die Runeninschrift auf dem Stein von Rubring. Mit einem Anhang : Zu den Felsritzungen im Kleinen Schulerloch.” In Heizmann and van Nahl 2003:481–495. Nedoma, Robert (2004a): Personennamen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Winter. Nedoma, Robert (2004b): “Noch einmal zur Runeninschrift auf der Gürtelschnalle von Pforzen.” In Naumann 2004:340–370. Nedoma, Robert (2006a): “Schrift und Sprache in den südgermanischen Runeninschriften.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:109–156. Nedoma, Robert (2006b): “Zu den Personennamen in der Runeninschrift vom Kleinen Schulerloch.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:347–355. Neuffer, Eduard M. (1972): Der Reihengräberfriedhof von Donzdorf (Kreis Göppingen). Stuttgart: Müller und Graff. Neumann, Günter (1982): “Dänen. § 1. Namenkundliches.” RGA 5:174–175. Nielsen, Hans Frede (1991): “Unaccented vowels in Runic Frisian and Ingvaeonic.” In Bammesberger 1991:299–303.
References
523
Nielsen, Hans Frede (2000): The Early Runic Language of Scandinavia: Studies in Germanic Dialect Geography. Heidelberg: Winter. Nielsen, Karl Martin (1978): “Brakteaten. § 6. Runeninschriften.” RGA 3:354–359. Noreen, Adolf (1923): Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik: Laut- und Flexionslehre (4th ed.). Halle/Saale: Niemeyer. Nowak, Sean (2003): Schrift auf den Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Untersuchen zu den Formen der Schriftzeichen und zu formalen und inhaltlichen Aspekte der Inschriften. Ph.D. Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen. Odenstedt, Bengt (1983): “The Inscription on the Meldorf Fibula.” ZfdA 112:153–161. Odenstedt, Bengt (1989): “Further Reflections on the Meldorf Inscription.” ZfdA 118:77–85. Odenstedt, Bengt (1999): “The Bergakker Inscription. Transliteration, Interpretation, Message: Some Suggestions.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:163–173. Opitz, Stephan (1978): “Zur Wortgeschichte von as. gi-bada.” Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 101:21–27. Opitz, Stephan (1979): “Neue Runeninschriften aus alamannischen Gräbern des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts.” Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 4:364–370. Opitz, Stephan (1981): “Runeninschriftliche Neufunde: Das Schwert von Eichstetten/Kaiserstuhl und der Webstuhl von Neudingen/Baar.” Archäologische Nachrichten aus Baden 27:26–31. Opitz, Stephan (1982): “Neue Runeninschriften.” Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 7:481–490. Opitz, Stephan (1987): Südgermanische Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark aus der Merowingerzeit (3rd ed.). Kirchzarten: Burg-Verlag. Orel, Vladimir (2003): A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Leiden: Brill. Oxford English Dictionary (online version). Web 23/09/09. . Page, R.I. (1968): “The Old English Rune eoh, íh ‘Yew-tree’.” Medium Ævum 37:125–136. Reprinted in Page 1995:133–144. Page, R.I. (1994): “English Runes Imported into the Continent.” In Düwel 1994a:176–194. Page, R.I. (1995): Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Woodbridge: Boydell. Page, R.I. (1999): An Introduction to English Runes (2nd ed.). Woodbridge: Boydell. Parsons, David (1994): “Anglo-Saxon runes in Continental manuscripts.” In Düwel 1994a:195–220. Parsons, David (1996): “The origins and chronology of the ‘Anglo-Frisian’ additional runes.” In Looijenga and Quak 1996:151–170. Parsons, David (1999): Recasting the Runes. The reform of the Anglo-Saxon futhorc. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk. Paul, Hermann, Thomas Klein, Hans-Joachim Solms and Klaus-Peter Wegera (2007): Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (25th ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Paulsen, Peter (1967): Alamannische Adelsgräber von Niederstotzingen (Kreis Heidenheim). Stuttgart: Müller & Gräff. Penzl, Herbert (1947): “The Development of Germanic ai and au in Old High German.” The Germanic Review 22:174–181. Penzl, Herbert (1961): “OHG and its phonetic identification.” Language 37:488–496. Penzl, Herbert (1964a): “The Evidence for the Change from th to d in Old High German.” In Marckwardt 1964:169–185. Penzl, Herbert (1964b): “Die Phasen der ahd. Lautverschiebung.” In Betz et al. 1964:27–41. Penzl, Herbert (1968): “Die mittelhochdeutschen Sibilanten und ihre Weiterentwicklung.” Word 24:340–349.
524
Bibliography
Penzl, Herbert (1970): “Zu den Methoden der historischen Lautbestimmung: Die ahd. Sibilanten.” Folia Linguistica 4:104–109. Penzl, Herbert (1971): Lautsystem und Lautwandel in den althochdeutschen Dialekten. München: Hüber. Penzl, Herbert (1986): “Zu den Methoden einer neuen germanischen Stammbaumtheorie.” PBB/T 108:16–29. Perseus Latin Dictionaries. Web 24/06/09. . Peterson, Lena (ed.) (1993): Personnamn i nordiska och andra germanska fornspråk. Handlingar från NORNA:s artonde symposium i Uppsala 16–19 augusti 1991. Uppsala: NORNA. Peterson, Lena (1994): “On the relationship between Proto-Scandinavian and Continental Germanic personal names.” In Düwel 1994a:128–175. Peterson, Lena (2004): Lexikon över urnordiska personnamn. Web 16/07/07. . Pieper, Peter (1987): “die Oldenburger Runenknochen. Die Ergebnisse der naturwissenschaftlichen Echtheitsprüfungen und die Vorstellung eines neuen Lesungsvorschlages.” In ISRR 1987:221–244. Pieper, Peter (1989): Die Weser-Runenknochen, Neue Untersuchungen zur Problematik: Original oder Fälschung. Oldenburg: Isensee. Pieper, Peter (1990a): “A new runic inscription from Stetten on the Danube, Germany.” NoR 5:6–7. Pieper, Peter (1990b): “Anmerkungen zur Liebenauer Pinzette, zum Doijum-Knochen und zu den Deventer-Knochen.” NoR 5:10–12. Pieper, Peter (1991): “The Bones with Runic Inscriptions from the Lower Weser River. New Results of Scientific Investigations Concerning the Problem: Original(s) or Fake(s).” In Bammesberger 1991:343–358. Pieper, Peter (1993): “Amelgund. Zur Runeninschrift aus dem Frauengrab 133 von Stetten a.d. Donau und zur Frage alamannischer ‘Runenmeisterinnen’. Resümee.” In Peterson 1993:81–84. Pieper, Peter (1999): “Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgäu) – Aspekte der Deutung: 2. Technologische Beobachtungen und runographische Überlegungen.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:25–35. Pieper, Peter (2006): “Die Gravuren im Kleinen Schulerloch: ‘Echt’ oder ‘falsch’? Überlegungen zum Problem ihrer Qualifikation und Datierung.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:385–393. Pieper, Peter (2010): “‘Wiederentdeckung’ einer bereits alt bekannten und bislang verkannten Runeninschrift mittels Rasterelektronenmikroskopie (REM).” Web 02/01/2012. . Pokorny, Julius (1959–1969): Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (2 vols.). Bern: Francke. Polomé, Edgar C. (1996): “Beer, Runes and Magic.” JIES 24:99–105. Prokosch, E. (1939): A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Quak, Arend (1997): “Eine neue Runeninschrift in den Niederlanden: Bergakker.” NoR 12:15–17. Quak, Arend (1999): “Zu den Runenformen der Inschrift von Bergakker.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:174–179.
References
525
Raschke, Georg (1934): “Ein Runentopf in dem wandalischen Männergrabe von Sedschütz, Kr. Neustadt, OS.” Altschlesien 5:376–381. Rauch, Irmengard (1999): “Feature Spreading in Old High German and Old Saxon: Umlaut, Monophthongization, Pragmatics.” In Rauch and Carr 1999:201–209. Rauch, Irmengard, and Gerald F. Carr (eds.) (1997): Insights in Germanic linguistics II: Classic and Contemporary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rauch, Irmengard, and Gerald F. Carr (eds.) (1999): New insights in Germanic linguistics. New York: Lang. Reichert, Hermann (1987): Lexikon der altgermanischen Namen. 1. Teil. Text. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Reichert, Hermann, and Robert Nedoma (1990): Lexikon der altgermanischen Namen. 2. Teil. Register. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Reimann, D., and Klaus Düwel (2001): “Recycling im Frühmittelalter: Maisach Grab 50.” Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 2001:109–110. Reimann, D., Klaus Düwel and A. Bartel (1999): “Vereint in den Tod – Doppelgrab 166/167 aus Aschheim.” Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1999:83–85. Reutercrona, Hans (1920): Svarabhakti und Erleichterungsvokal im Althochdeutschen bis ca. 1250. Heidelberg: Winter. Ringe, Don (2006): From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. A Linguistic History of English, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, Orrin W. (1992): Old English and its Closest Relatives. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1960): Vom Vulgärlatein zum Altfranzösischen. Einführung in das Studium der altfranzösischen sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Roosens, H., and J. Alenus-Lecerf (1965): Sépultures mérovingiennes au ‘Vieux Cimétière’ d’Arlon. Bruxelles: Institut archéologique du Luxembourg. Rosenfeld, Hellmut (1984): “Die germanischen Runen im Kleinen Schulerloch und auf der Nordendorfer Bügelfibel A.” ZfdA 113:159–173. Roth, Helmut (1981a): “New Chronological Aspects of Runic Inscriptions: The Archeological Evidence.” Michigan Germanic Studies 7:62–68. Roth, Helmut (1981b): “Charnay. § 1. Archäologisches.” RGA 4:372–373. Roth, Helmut (1994): “Runenkunde und Archäologie. Bemerkungen zu den süddeutschen Runenfunden.” In Düwel 1994a:309–312. Roth, Helmut (1998): “Nochmals zu den süddeutschen Runenfunden.” In Düwel and Nowak 1998:180–185. Roth, Helmut, and Claudia Theune (1995): Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld bei Weingarten (Kr. Ravensburg). 1. Katalog der Grabinventare. Stuttgart: Theiss. Routier, Jean-Claude (1996): “Le complexe médiéval (motte, église, cimetière) et la nécropole mérovingienne de Fréthun.” Bulletin de la Commission Départementale d’Histoire et d’Archéologie du Pas-de-Calais 14,3:525–556. Runenprojekt Kiel. Web 23/09/09. . Runge, Richard (1973): “The Phonetic Realization of Proto-Germanic /r/.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 87:228–247. Runic inscriptions from Bryggen [online database of the Bergen inscriptions]. Web 24/11/2011 . Sasse, Barbara (2001): Ein frühmittelalterliches Reihengräberfeld bei Eichstetten am Kaiserstuhl. Stuttgart: Kommissionsverlag K. Theiss. Scardigli, Piergiuseppe (1986): “Das Problem der suebischen Kontinuität und die Runeninschrift von Neudingen/Baar.” In Beck 1986:344–347.
526
Bibliography
Scardigli, Piergiuseppe (1994): Der Weg zur deutschen Sprache. Von der indogermanischen bis zur Merowingerzeit. Bern: Lang. Schiek, Siegwalt (1992): Das Gräberfeld der Merowingerzeit bei Oberflacht (Gemeinde Seitingen-Oberflacht, Lkr. Tuttlingen). Stuttgart: Theiss. Schilling, Friedrich (ed.) (1956): Coburg mitten im Reich. Festgabe zum 900. Gedenkjahr der ersten Erwähnung der Ur-Coburg. Kallmünz: Lassleben. Schmidt, Bernhard (1894): Der Vocalismus der Siegerländer Mundart: Ein Beitrag zur fränkischen Dialektforschung. Halle: Niemeyer. Schmidt-Wiegand, Ruth (ed.) (1981): Wörter und Sachen im Lichte der Bezeichnungsforschung. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Schmidt-Wiegand, Ruth (2001): “Malbergische Glossen.” RGA 19:184–186. Schmitsdorf, Eva, Nina Hartl an Barbara Meurer (eds.) (1998): Lingua Germanica. Studien zur deutschen Philologie. Festschrift für Jochen Splett. Münster: Waxmann. Schneider, Karl (1969): “Runische Inschriftzeugnisse zum Stieropferkult der Angelsachsen.” In Fabian and Suerbaum 1969:9–54. Schneider, Karl (1980): “Zu einem Runenfund in Trier.” ZfdA 109:193–201. Schön, Matthias D., Klaus Düwel, Rolf Heine and Edith Marold (2006): “Zur Runeninschrift auf dem Schemel von Wremen.” In Stoklund et al. 2006:315–332. Schönfeld, Moritz (1965 [1911]): Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen: nach der Überlieferung des klassischen Altertums. Heidelberg: Winter. Schramm, Gottfried (1957): Namenschatz und Dichtersprache. Studien zu den zweigliedrigen Personennamen der Germanen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schrodt, Richard (2004): Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schützeichel, Rudolf (1955): “Der Lautwandel von ft zu cht am Mittelrhein.” Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 20:253–275. Schützeichel, Rudolf (1976): Die Grundlagen des westlichen Mitteldeutschen (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schützeichel, Rudolf (2006): Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch (6th ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schwab, Ute (1981): “The inscription of the Nordendorf Brooch I: a double reading in line III?” Michigan Germanic Studies 7:38–49. Schwab, Ute (1998a): “Runen der Merowingerzeit as Quelle für das Weiterleben der spätantiken christlichen und nichtchristlichen Schriftmagie?” In Düwel and Nowak 1998:376–433. Schwab, Ute (1998b): “-bada – ein runisches Wunschwort.” In Tuczay et al. 1998: 139–156. Schwab, Ute (1999a): “Zweierlei Runenwünsche aus alamannischen Fundstätten.” In Keck and Nolte 1999:12–27. Schwab, Ute (1999b): “Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgäu) – Aspekte der Deutung: 4. Diskussion.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:55–79. Schweikle, Günther (1964): “Akzent und Artikulation. Überlegungen zur ahd. Lautgeschichte (Umlaut, Monophthongierungen, Diphthongierungen, westgerm. Konsonantengemination, 2. Lautverschiebung).” PBB/T 86:197–265. Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Zürich (2006): Vergangenheit im Boden vom Anfang bis 800. Begleitheft zur archäologischen Ausstellun des Schweizerischen Landesmuseum Zürich (2nd ed.). Zollikerberg: Feldegg. Schwerdt, Judith (2000): Die 2. Lautverschiebung. Wege zu ihrer Erforschung. Heidelberg: Winter.
References
527
Searle, William George (1897): Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum. A list of Anglo-Saxon proper names from the time of Beda to that of King John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seebold, Elmar (1991): “Die Stellung der englischen Runen im Rahmen der Überlieferung des älteren Futhark.” In Bammesberger 1991:439–569. Seebold, Elmar (1996): “Wie friesisch ist der Brakteat von Wurt Hitsum?” In Looijenga and Quak 1996:181–198. Seebold, Elmar (1999): “Bemerkungen zur Runeninschrift von Pforzen.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:88–90. Seebold, Elmar et al. (2001): Chronologisches Wörterbuch des deutschen Wortschatzes. Der Wortschatz des 8. Jahrhunderts (und früherer Quellen). Berlin: de Gruyter. Shaw, Philip (2002): Uses of Wodan: the development of his cult and medieval literary responses to it. Ph.D. University of Leeds. Siegmund, Frank (ed.) (2000): Alemannen und Franken. ERGA 23. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sierke, Sigurd (1939): Kannten die vorchristlichen Germanen Runenzauber? Königsberg/ Berlin: Albus-Universität. Söderberg, Sven (1890): “Eine neu entdeckte allemannische Runeninschrift.” Prähistorische Blätter 2:33–41. Sonderegger, Stefan (1961): “Das Althochdeutsche der Vorakte der älteren St. Galler Urkunden.” Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 28:251–286. Sonderegger, Stefan (1979): Grundzüge deutscher Sprachgeschichte: Diachronie des Sprachsystems. Vol I: Einführung – Genealogie – Konstanten. Berlin: de Gruyter. Stanton Cawley, Frank (1939): “The Figure of Loki in Germanic Mythology.” Harvard Theological Review 32:309–326. Statham, H. Heathcote (1914): Review of Vitruvius: The Ten Books of Architecture, translated by Prof. Morris H. Morgan. Journal of Roman Studies 4,2:234–235. Stein, Frauke (1987): “Zur archäologischen Datierung einiger kontinentaler Runendenkmäler.” In Bergman et al. 1987:1392–1400. Stein, Frauke (1991): Alamannische Siedlung und Kultur: das Reihengräberfeld in Gammertingen. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke. Steinhauser, Walter (1968a): “Die Runeninschrift von Rubring an der Enns und der Eisriese Iring.” Archaeologia Austriaca 44:1–28. Steinhauser, Walter (1968b): “Die Wodansweihe von Nordendorf.” ZfdA 97:1–29. Stiles, Patrick (1984): “On the interpretation of Older Runic swestar on the Opedal stone.” NOWELE 3:3–48. Stiles, Patrick (1995): “Remarks on the ‘Anglo-Frisian’ Thesis.” In Faltings et al. 1995:177–220. Stoklund, Marie (1985): “De nye runefund fra Illerup ådal og en nyfundet runeindskrift fra Vimose.” Danske Studier 1985:5–24. Stoklund, Marie (1991): “Die Runeninschrift auf der Rosettenfibel von Udby.” In Askedal et al. 88–101. Stoklund, Marie (1995): “Die Runen der römischen Kaiserzeit.” In Lund Hansen et al. 1995:317–346. Stoklund, Marie, Michael Lerche Nielsen, Bente Holmberg and Gillian Fellows-Jensen (eds.) (2006): Runes and their Secrets. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Stork, Ingo (2001): “Lauchheim.” RGA 18:131–136. Stüber, Karl, and Andreas Zürcher (eds.) (1977): Festschrift Walter Drack zu seinem 60. Geburtstag. Beiträge zur Archäologie und Denkmalpflege. Stäfa: Gut.
528
Bibliography
Swan, Toril, Endre Mørck and Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.) (1994): Language change and language structure: Older Germanic languages in a comparative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Syrett, Martin (1994): The Unaccented Vowels of Proto-Norse. Odense: Odense University Press. Szulc, Aleksander (1987): Historische Phonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Taayke, E., J.H. Looijenga, O.H. Harsema and H.R. Reinders (eds.) (2003): Essays on the Early Franks. Groningen: Barkhuis. Theune-Großkopf, Barbara, and Robert Nedoma (2006): “Ein Holzstuhl mit Runeninschrift aus dem frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfeld von Trossingen, Lkr. Tuttlingen (Baden-Württemberg). Mit einem Exkurs lguskaÂi auf dem Schemel von Wremen.” Die Sprache 46:38–64. Tischler, Fritz (1937): Fuhlsbüttel. Ein Beitrag zur Sachsenfrage. Neumünster: Wachholz. Tischler, Johann (1982): “Die Aufschriften der burgundischen Danielschnallen. Mit Zeichnungen von R. Moosbrugger-Leu.” Beiträge zur Namenforschung N.F. 17:113–160. Trier, M. (2002): “Nordendorf. § 1. Archäologisches.” RGA 21:273–275. Tuczay, Christa, et al. (eds.) (1998): Ir sult sprechen willekomen. Grenzenlose Mediävistik. Festschrift für Helmut Birkhan. Bern: Lang. Udolph, Jürgen (2003): “Rügen. § 1. Namenkundliches.” RGA 25:417–421. Unwerth, Wolf von (1916): “Zur Deutung der längeren Nordendorfer Runeninschrift.” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde 226:81–85. Uslar, Rafael von (ed.) (1965): Studien aus Alteuropa, Teil 2. Köln: Böhlau. Veeck, Walter (1931): Die Alamannen in Württemberg. Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit 1. Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter. Vennemann, Theo (1972): “Phonetic detail in assimilation: Problems in Germanic phonology.” Language 48:863–892. Vennemann, Theo (1984): “Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch: Die Verzweigungstheorie der germanisch-deutschen Lautverschiebungen.” PBB 106:1–45. Vennemann, Theo (1994a): “Dating the division between High and Low Germanic: A summary of arguments.” In Swan et al. 1994:271–303. Vennemann, Theo (1994b): “Zur Entwicklung der reuplizierenden Verben im Germanischen.” PBB 116:167–221. Vennemann, Theo (1999): “Note on the runic inscription of the Bergakker scabbard mount.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:152–156. Vernadsky, George (1951): “Der sarmatische Hintergrund der Völkerwanderung.” Saeculum 2:310–392. Voyles, Joseph B. (1971): “The Problem of West Germanic.” Folia Linguistica 5:117–150. Voyles, Joseph B. (1972): “The Phonetic Quality of OHG z.” JEGP 71:47–55. Voyles, Joseph B. (1989): “Bifurcational Germanic and Glottonic Indo-European: A Critique.” PBB 111:16–34. Vries, Jan de (1961): Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill. Wagner, Norbert (1975): “Zu einigen Personennamen aus Quellen zur gotischen Geschichte.” In Kesting 1975:19–33. Wagner, Norbert (1989a): “Zum Fugenkonsonantismus und anderem in westfränkischen Personennamen.” Beiträge zur Namenforschung N.F. 24:120–145. Wagner, Norbert (1989b): “Adaric und ahd. atahaft.” Beiträge zur Namenforschung N.F. 24:310–317. Wagner, Norbert (1994/95): “Alir- und *Alis- in deutschen Personennamen sowie ahd. sp¯ırboum.” Beiträge zur Namenforschung N.F. 29/30:164–170.
References
529
Wagner, Norbert (1995): “Zu den Runeninschriften von Pforzen und Nordendorf.” Historische Sprachforschung 108:104–112. Wagner, Norbert (1999a): “Zur Runeninschrift von Pforzen.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:91–97. Wagner, Norbert (1999b): “Ahd. Eigil(-).” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 1999:114–117. Waller, Karl (1961): Der Urnenfriedhof in Wehden. Hildesheim: Lax. Wamers, Egon (2000): Der Runenreif aus Aalen. Frankfurt a.M.: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Waterman, John Thomas (1966): A history of the German language, with special references to the cultural and social forces that shaped the standard literary language. Washington D.C.: Washington University Press. Waxenberger, Gaby (2006): “The FuÂark and its Further Developments in Individual Linguistic Traditions, Eichstätt, 20–24 July 2003.” NoR 19:31–33. Wein, Gerhard (1957): “Das alamannische Gräberfeld in Weingarten (Kr. Ravensburg).” Fundberichte aus Schwaben 14:142–145. Weis, Matthias (1999): Ein Gräberfeld der späten Merowingerzeit bei Stetten an der Donau. Stuttgart: Theiss. Weis, Matthias, Peter Pieper and Petra Konieczka (1991): “Ein neuer Runenfund aus dem Merowingerzeitlichen Gräberfeld von Stetten, Stadt Mühlheim a. D., Kreis Tuttlingen.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 21:309–316. Wells, John C. (1990): Althochdeutsches Glossenwörterbuch: einschliesslich des von Prof. Dr. Taylor Starck begonnenen Glossenindexes. Heidelberg: Winter. Werner, Joachim (1950): Das alamannische Fürstengrab von Wittislingen. München: Beck. Werner, Joachim (1953): Das alamannische Gräberfeld von Bülach. Basel: Birkhäuser. Wieczorek, A., (et al.) (eds.) (1996): Die Franken, Wegbereiter Europas. Mainz: von Zabern. Wilson, David M. (1978): Civil and Military Engineering in Viking Age Scandinavia. London: National Maritime Museum. Wimmer, Ludvig F.A. (1887): Die Runenschrift. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Wright, Joseph (1906): An Old High German Primer (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. Wright, Joseph (1954): Wright’s Grammar of the Gothic Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. Wright, Joseph (1955): A Middle High German Primer (5th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. Wührer, Barbara (2004): “Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Erpfting, Stadt Landsberg am Lech: Ein Vorbericht.” In Graenert et al. 2004:305–318. Wulfila Project (electronic editions of Gothic texts). Web 24/06/09. . Zimmermann, Ute (2010): “Bier, Runen und Macht – ein Formelwort im Kontext.” Web 02/01/2012. . Zotz, Lothar F., and Gisela Freund (1951/1952): “Eine paläolithische Felszeichnung im kleinen Schulerloch?” Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 18/19:102–106. Züchner, Christian (2006): “Überlegungen zum Alter der Felsbilder im Kleinen Schulerloch.” In Bammesberger and Waxenberger 2006:380–384.
530
Bibliography
Fonts Etruscan mid/late. 15/08/08. Gothic 1. 06/10/08. Junicode. 07/06/07.
Index of inscriptions
531
Index of inscriptions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Aalen Aquincum Arlon Aschheim II Aschheim III Bad Ems
7. Bad Krozingen A 8. Balingen 9. Beuchte 10. Bezenye I 11. Bezenye II 12. Bopfingen 13. Borgharen 14. Bülach 15. Charnay 16. 17. 18. 19.
Chéhéry Dischingen I Donzdorf Eichstetten
20. 21. 22. 23.
Engers Erpfting Ferwerd Freilaubersheim
24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.
Fréthun I Friedberg Gammertingen Geltorf II Gomadingen Griesheim Hailfingen I
31. Hailfingen II 32. †Hainspach
§ 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.3.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.3.1; § 4.4.3.3; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 4.4; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.2; § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 7.1.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.4.4; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.3.1; § 5.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.3.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.3.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1
532
Index of inscriptions
33. Heide 34. Heilbronn-Böckingen I 35. Hitsum 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
Hohenstadt Hoogebeintum Hüfingen I Hüfingen II Hüfingen III Igling-Unterigling †Kärlich
43. “Kent” 44. Kirchheim/Teck I 45. Kirchheim/Teck II 46. †Kleines Schulerloch 47. Lauchheim I 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.
Lauchheim II Liebenau Mertingen München-Aubing I München-Aubing II Neudingen-Baar I
54. Neudingen-Baar II 55. Niederstotzingen 56. Nordendorf I 57. Nordendorf II 58. Oberflacht 59. Oettingen 60. Osthofen 61. Pforzen I 62. Pforzen II 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.
Pleidelsheim †Rubring †Rügen Saint-Dizier Schretzheim I
§ 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.3.3; § 4.4.4; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1 § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1 § 3.3.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.3.3; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.2; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.2.2; § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.3.3; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1 § 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.3.1; § 4.4.3.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 4.4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.2; § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 4.4.3.3; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.3.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.2.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1 § 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 4.4.3.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1
Index of inscriptions 68. Schretzheim II 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.
Schretzheim III Schwangau Sievern Skodborg Skonager III Soest Steindorf Stetten Szabadbattyán †Trier Weimar I Weimar II Weimar III
82. Weimar IV 83. Weingarten I 84. Weingarten II 85. †Weser I 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.
†Weser II †Weser III Wijnaldum B Wremen Wurmlingen
533
§ 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.3.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 4.4.2; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.3.1; § 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.3.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 4.4.2; § 4.4.3.1; § 4.4.3.3; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.1.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1 § 3.1.1; § 3.2.2; § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.3.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 6.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1; § 7.2.2.1 § 4.1; § 5.1; § 7.1.2.1; § 7.1.3.1; § 7.2.1.1