I think this is just great. Looking all day in my norron grammatik
books I see no O from AU. It is not existing in any dialect. Good
work and very interesting. OG the brothers OK OG AUK are funny. I am
thinking we must have OK OG AUK in place of Sadam OG Bush in news. OG
its 8 hours grammatikal mean time OG now for the weeks phonological
headline: 'AUK calls OK a terrorist', 'OK denies AUK is legitimate',
'AUK backs resolution 476 against OK', 'OK threatens to invade OG to
destroy AUK', 'Denmark calls phonological police', 'AUK arrested OG
put in jail', 'OK accused of having weapons of phonological terror',
'brothers AUK OG OK to stand trial'. OG those are the phonological
headlines OG now for buisness news. Markets reacted negatively to
news of AUK being arrested OG shares of OK Inc. fell 17% after the
accusations about OK having weapons of phonological terror. OG now
for sports news....

Jon


--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
<konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:

> One mysterious day, the brothers 'Ok' and 'Auk' went to visit their
> relatives in Gotland. Old man Goti gave them a warm welcome. After

a

> traditional dinner, Goti brought out an old book and said "this may
> come as a surprise to the two of you, but you have six more

brothers

> and their names are written in this old book: Auc, Ac, Uc, Aug, Au,
> and Oc. They were all fine boys, but died a little before your

time.

> We old-timers still remember them well." Then 'Ok' stood up on the
> table and shouted "auuuuug! will the real conjuction please stand

up

> and introduce himself!" The old man looked puzzled.
>
> Kind reader, let us try to help the brothers make sense of this

mess.

> To begin with, the word "auk" is listed in Old Icelandic and both

an

> adverb and a conjuction - as an adverb it means "besides" and is

the

> same as in Modern Icelandic, as a conjuction it means "also/and"

and

> is translated as "ok". In Old English, "êac" is listed only as an
> adverb in the meaning "besides" and the word "and" is listed in the
> meaning "ok". So also in Gothic, where "auk" is listed as an adverb
> in the meaning "besides" and the word "jah" is said to mean "ok".
> Notice that all three languages, covering the extremes of Germania,
> list the word "auk" an an adverb meaning "besides". Notice also

that

> all three languages list a different word in the meaning "ok". Now,
> if there is any place in Scandinavia where you would expect not to
> find A-umlaut (that is, the mutation of U to O by A in a following
> syllable) it would be Gotland. In Gutiska, the language of the

Goths

> in south-eastern Europe, A-umlaut only occurs before R. In

Gutniska,

> the language of Viking Age Gotlanders, we also see a marked absence
> of A-umlaut. Brother "Uk" can even been seen in late 12th or early
> 13th century manuscripts. "Ok" can also be seen there. What does

all

> of this mean for the brothers "Ok" and "Auk"? Here are some

thoughts

> on this subject:
>
> 1) "auk" is a Proto-Germanic adverb meaning "besides", as testified
> to by Germanic languages of all three branches.
>
> 2) Germanic languages chose different conjuctions meaning "and",
> none of which are likely to have been identical to the adverb "auk".
>
> 3) One of the distinguishing features of Proto-Norse is retention

of

> unaccented A in positions where it disappeared in other languages,
> such as "Gothic". Here are some examples: N.M.Sg. Dagaz and A.M.Sg.
> Daga where "Gothic" shows N.M.Sg. Dags and A.M.Sg. Dag

and "English"

> shows N.M.Sg. Dæg and A.M.Sg. Dæg; Proto-Norse "ana" (=á)

and "tila"

> (=til) are further examples.
>
> 4) Norse suffered loss of initial J around 600 and underwent rather
> extensive A-mutation over a period of many centuries.
>
> 5) Gothic often shows U were Norse or Old English show A and visa
> versa. Here is an example: "sunjis" means "true" in Gothic, whereas
> Old Norse shows the form "sannr". There are many such examples.
>
> 6) If we restore J to "ok" and remove the effects of A-umlaut we

get

> the rather novel looking form "juka". While novel looking at first,
> "juka" is really no stranger than "jah" in reality. In fact, "juka"
> would explain why the various inscribers from places as divergent

as

> Gotland and "at eggjum" in Norway inscribed as they did; it would
> account for the various spelling trends that occur after A-umlauted
> "uk" had become dominant in Scandinavia; it would account for why
> the form "ok" is nearly universal in West Norse; it would account
> for why "og" remains almost unchallenged in modern Scandinavia; in
> short, it looks like a likely candidate for being the true ancestor
> of the common Old Norse conjuction "ok".
>
> Regards,
> Konrad.