Re: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar

As a matter of fact, the Scandinavian name of Rune 22 (discarded in the younger futhark) is unknown. *IngwaR is inferred from Anglo-Saxon "Ing".

There is no evidence that Rune 13 ever stood for a common Germanic diphthong. Its phonetic value is clearest in Old English inscriptions, where it can be used *either* for a vowel (/i:/ on the Dover Stone, the Loveden Hill urn) or a consonant (post-V /x/, usually the palatalised allophone [C], as on the Ruthwell Cross (<almeCttiG> 'almighty'). In the OE Runic Poem it is called Eoh, but e:oh [e:@x] is the normal OE development of *i:x.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 2:40 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar

But the name of the 22nd rune (<N>, i.e. <ng>) is already IngwaR. The thirteenth rune is problematical as to its pronunciation. It's usually transcribed <ï>, and given the sound value /i/ (but sometimes it apparently has to be read /h/, which would support the *i:hwaR thesis). However, why would the inventor(s) of the runes have created a sign for */ih/? It makes no sense. A sign for /i:/ makes little sense either [none of the rune signs for vowels distinguish length], although it at least has the precedent of the Gothic digraph <ei> (/i:/), which in the Gothic alphabet is the only distinctive long vowel explicitly marked as such (<e> and <o> are long, but have no short counterparts; <a>, <u>, <ai> and <au> are used for both short and long /a/, /u/, /E/ and /O/). The only option which makes sense to me is that the sign <ï> as a separate element of the futhark was originally intended to mark the diphthong /iu/ ~ /eo/ (PIE *eu). It's name, *i:waR, "yew", with /i:w/ instead of /iu/ may have been a bit of a misnomer, with hindsight, and probably the sign never really caught on because of that (it was thought to stand for /i(:)/, for which a simpler rune was already available).