After some research, during which I managed to confuse myself :-{ with thorn and yogh, (sorry
folks!) it would seem that the character we are calling -yogh- was in fact the OE -g- and -yogh-
was a ME innovation. This means that the pronunciation rules were the same as today i.e give /
get, hard -g- because followed by a frontal vowel sound and gybe / genome, soft -g- when not.
The -y- and Germanic -j- sound are derivatives of the latter and derive from the later ME usage
or vice versa.
There was no OE -yogh-, just the same written character carried over before the modern -G- came
into use. This means that for written alliterative purposes both would be the same letter and
possibly the same sound in the 8th C.
How do we know what the actual pronunciation was? All we have is the written text.
Roger
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Beowulf's Yogh
>
>
>>> So, Dr. Hamilton, is this your question: "Why does the author of Beowulf
>>> treat, for alliterative purposes, two distinct sounds ['y' as in 'yet', and
>>> 'g' as in 'get'] as if they were the same?
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>> And, further, you wonder: "Were voiced and voiceless velar fricatives
>>> distinct in Proto-Germanic?"
>>
>> I think that is what is puzzling me.
>>
>> (a) In Old English of the Eighth Century AD, as reflected in the text of Beowulf as we have
>> it, voiced [<g>] and voiceless [<y>] velar fricatives [both represented by the yogh character
>> in script] were distinct sounds.
>>
>> (b) Was there a period in Proto-Germanic (the ur-language which later divided up into
>> English, German, Norse, etc.) when there was a single sound which later split into voiced and
>> voiceless velar fricatives?
>>
>> (c) Hypothetically, does the composition, as opposed to the earliest written text, of
>> Beowulf, represent a period before this split?
>>
>> R.
>
|