I also thought Gazariah's explanation was pretty interesting.

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Jarrod Clark
<shortbus_bully@...> wrote:

> aha now i get it (oh and with the u i was thinking of german i just

was writing in a hurry and didn't catch the typo)

> thanks
> Jarrod
> Daniel Prohaska <daniel@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> <is i-umlaut the same as i -mutation?

It was Grimm himself who introduced the terminology
"Umlaut" and "Ablaut". These are German terms, and
they became internationally accepted, since Germany was
at that time one of the leading countries in the study
of Germanic languages.

However, these very efficient designations are virtually
impossible to translate directly to English. Just try
saying "about-sound", "off-sound", or some similar term.
It sounds awkward. Hence English needed to take recourse
to Latin terminology, in order to find appropriate
english-sounding terms. ("mutare" = Latin).

>
>
> <an example from old english being the verb cuman
>
>
> <cume
>
>
> <cymst
>
>
> <cymþ
> <it seems to me that in old norse it is only a half step. instead

of u -y it is u - ü.

>

The two dots above German vowels seems to have developed
from the single accent. At least, that is what the conclusion was
when this question came up about a year ago: German books printed
in the 17th and 18th centuries did not use the double dots.

Any way, it seems to me that German needed only one type
of mark to indicate the umlaut, since it was the I-umlaut
that was so pervasive in German.

Old Icelandic, however, seems to have had more need of a mark
to indicate a change in the direction of the u - i.e.
the U-umlaut - and this was done by affixing a small
semicircle underneath the vowel so affected. Thus, in some
Icelandic manuscripts, you see a "hooked o", as well as
a "hooked e". They are both recognizable as the vowel
"o" or "e" with a small "hook" underneath them. One may think
of this "hook" simply as a miniature letter "u".

In the same way, one may think of the German "umlaut" accent
as a miniature letter "i" that was put above the vowel
so affected.

In Icelandic the space above the vowel was reserved for an
accent that would indicate vowel length. Hence it was
convenient to use the space *underneath* the vowel to
indicate the umlaut. This in contrast to German, where
accents were not used to indicate vowel length (instead
one could double the following consonant), and the space
above the vowels hence was free to use as the place
to put umlaut marks.

> <but this is only uneducated speculation.
>

As long as the speculation "works" it is okay.
Explanations are often great tools to facilitate remembering
stuff.

> <Jarrod
>
>
>
> Yes, i-umlaut and i-mutation are two different terms for the same

thing.

>
>
>
> The quality of the vowel has nothing to do with the way it is spelt.

I can't remember ever seeing ü in Old Norse.

>

No, because umlauts were put *under* the vowels
in Old Norse. The Icelandic "ö" is much more recent
and was, as far as I know, not used before after the
Middle ages. If any one knows when Icelandic first
began using "ö", I should be very interested to hear about it.

>
> As far as conventional reconstructions are concerned Old English and

Old Norse <y> and German <ü> are/were vowels of similar, if not the
same pronunciation.

It is the same way today.
Norwegian "y" is quite similar to the German "ü".
In fact, that is one of the standard ways of detecting
Germans who have learned to speak Norwegian: You just
listen to how they say "lys", which they are not able to
say. Instead the say "lüs", which is easily detectable
for the Norwegian ear.


Best regards
Xigung

>
>
> There is no `half-step' involved.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>