Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin?

At 5:30:53 AM on Thursday, May 1, 2003, g wrote:

> Of course, Romans didn't write W. But their V stood for
> [v], [u], and [w]? Three sounds graphically represented by
> one font.

I was under the impression that it stood for [u] and [w],
the latter eventually becoming [B] and [v] in suitable
contexts.

>>e.g. Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant!

> actually AVE CAESAR MORITVRI TE SALVTANT.

> Moreover, the confusion between [u, w] and [v] was almost
> rampant until way into the 2nd millennium after Christ's
> birth. Just have a look at original medieval texts in
> Latin throughout Europe (lots of "unde", "vir", "ultra"
> were spelled "vnde", "uir", "vltra";

Medieval <u> and <v> were merely orthographic variants, so
this does not represent any confusion of sounds. In fact
one of the more common medieval orthographic conventions was
to use <v> initially and <u> everywhere else.

> and "uu" for (the English&OldGerman) "w". Uulfila =
> Wulfila).

Yes, but this isn't a particularly good example, since in
<Uulfila> one can interpret the first <U> as [w] and the
second as [u]; a better example is <Uualahfrid>.

Brian