Heill Konrad!

"konrad_oddsson " wrote:

> Heill Daníel!
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Bray <dbray@...> wrote:
> > Heilir Stuntie and Konrad!
> >
> > It is interesting to note that the symbol used for 'ok' is the
> same as that used for 'agus' "and" in Irish (<OIr 'acus'). Perhaps
> this is a case of Irish influence, especially considering the Irish
> were using it long before the Norse had Latin letters?
>
> This is not very likely, in my opinion. Whether in Latin or Runic
> letters, the Norse tended to just "spell it like it sounds".
>

In this case, I was referring to the possible importation of the shorthand
symbol (which sort of looks like a 7 in subscript), rather than the words or
sounds themselves.

>
> > German and (archaic) English have 'auch' and 'eke', beside 'und'
> and 'and' for "and". Also, Irish has 'ach' for "but". Ultimately, it
> seems to be a particle of Indo-European antiquity (*-kwe), from
> which is derived, in addition to the above, Gothic 'ja-h', Latin '-
> que', Mycenaean '-qe' > Greek 'kai' and 'te', Armenian '-k'',
> Hittite '-ki', Avestan and Sanskrit 'cha', all meaning "and"
> (Mallory and Adams, "Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture", 1996).
>
> Some great references here. I am noticing that most of the citations
> feature a vowel after the consonant K/CH/Q and that quite a few of
> them are enclitic as well. This tells me something about 'ok'.
>
> > Furthermore, Cleasby points out similar constructions that
> strengthen the identity (ie. Lat. 'ne-que' = Goth. 'ne-uh' (PGmc *ne-
> hu > ON 'né') = Irish 'na-ch'). According to Cleasby, 'ok' or 'auk'
> is derived from a similar compound '*já-uh' 'auh' 'auk' 'ok'.
>
> This is interesting. How does he account for the change to 'o' found
> in the spelling 'ok'? Does he include translations or derivations
> for the various elements he cites?
>

Cleasby doesn't say anything specific about the transition to "o" in 'ok'.
Regarding the derivations, it seems he is borrowing heavily from Grimm.

>
> " 'Auk' was also in use in ON, as an adverb and conjunction
> meaning "besides" "also". I think this derivation is much more
> likely than from any verb.
>
> In citing the verbs, I did not mean to imply that either one was the
> true origin of 'ok'. They were simply intended as food for thought.
> In citing 'auka', however, I did mean to uncover ON 'auk' "besides",
> though without implying any connection with 'ok'. I agree that 'ok'
> is more likely to have had some such origin rather than a direct
> derivation from a verb. How would you account for the 'o' in 'ok'?

Personally, I think it is just a case of flattening the vowel sound over
time, something that extremely frequently-used words tend to do. However, it
is also possible that it developed differently from the same root-word and
existed side by side with 'auk' from antiquity...

--
Daniel Bray
dbray@...
School of Studies in Religion A20
University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
catastrophe." H. G. Wells (1866 - 1946)