--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Stuntie" <stuntie@...> wrote:
> 'auk' is the most common runic spelling - but given the fact
that 'o' was dropped so 'ok' was not possible, that is not cast iorn
proof for 'auk'.
We also see 'åuk' (for example, see Haddeby stone 2, south Jutland)
beside 'auk' and 'uk' in Viking age Denmark. Three spellings!
> Cleasby Vigfusson thinks its from a cognate of Gothic jah (with
loss of initial j and k from the 'h' - the phonteic sound looks like
an X but is a guttural 'ch' sound.
Maybe.
> German and English have 'und' and 'and' - so no help there.
No help.
> Also manuscripts use a shorthand type symbol for and, so once
again no help there...
No help here either.
> This is quite a hard question.
I agree. This simplest of words yields no simple answer.
> But I think it may be best to look towards the other languages for
possible answers rather than later Old Norse forms, as they have
often been altered during the transitional period and so can be
missleading.
Maybe - but there was a strong tendency on the part of old writers
to spell phonetically, to "spell it like it sounds". What can this
tell us? By what sound-shift can 'uk', 'auk' or 'åuk' become 'ok'?
> Cheers
> Stuntie.