Re: [tied] Rune-essay Mads Peder Nordbo

Hi,--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 17:01:24 -0000, "malmqvist52"
> <malmqvist52@...> wrote:
>
> >There were also some new points about the origin of the p-rune.
> >If I may summarize the theory I undrestood it as if there

originally

> >were only one sound( or the b- and p- sounds were too similar to

have

> >different runes).
>
> The reason is that /p/ did not exist in Proto-Germanic (because */b/
> did not exist in PIE).

OK

> >Then came a change in the language wich made the p-
> >rune necessary.
>
> The emergence of /p/ as a separate phoneme (borrowings from Latin,
> etc.)

OK, we are in agreement here.

> >For some reason the rune carvers in scandinavia then switches back

to

> >write with only th b-rune (cf. the Vadstena bracteate). This

Nordbo

> >dates to ca 550.
>
> Shortly afterwards,

Well, if you don't count the partly "enigmatic" Rök and Sparlösa
stones there is a long gap in Sweden to the tenth century, and the
datings of the Blekinge stones (with g- and d-runes) is far from
settled as it seems.

the /d/ and /g/ runes were abandoned as well,

> leaving only B, T and K to represent the stops b/p, d/t, g/k.

Yes, but why? Did it improve the alphabeth?
The

> reason B was dropped first, is because it never was used much anyway
> (because few if any native Germanic words contain /p/).

Ok, but one may certainly ask why- in line - with the foregoning. Why
invent a p-rune and then drop it shortly after?

> The relevance of Grimm's (and Verner's) law is that it turns the PIE
> *b hole (near absence of */b/ in Proto-Indo-European), into a
> Proto-Germanic *p hole (near absence of */p/: PIE *p > PGmc. *f/*b,
> PIE *bh > PGmc. *b, and no */b/ to turn into */p/.

Thanks, I'm beginning to understand the theory, but I'm still
wondering why this happened.
Anders
The sequence *sp,

> which is usually regarded as unaffected by Grimm's law, is in fact
> better analyzed as Proto-Germanic */sb/).

> mcv@...