It's a naive question : I can't decide what's the value of "ġe" in Old English :

  • either it's a digraph to be read [j], hence "ġeong" = [joŋɡ] (or [juŋɡ] ? as stated here). Such digraphs exist in French (e.g. the first name "Georges"=[ʒɔʁʒ], not [geɔʁge]). It seems to me that this record reads the line #13 "ġeong in ġeardum..." more or less this way : [joŋɡ in jardum], not [jeo̯ŋɡ in jæa̯rdum] as it would have to be said with the diphthongs "eo" and "ea". But if "ġe" stands for [j], what about a word like ġēotan ("to pour") ?

  • either it's simply "ġ" followed by the vowel [e], leading e.g. to read a diphthong in the word "ġeong" = [jeo̯ŋɡ]. This interpretation would fit with the following extract from Don Ringe's The development of Old English, p.29 : "PGmc *jungaz 'young" (Goth. juggs) > ON ungr, OE iung ~ ġeong", showing that both forms (without/with diphthongaison) existed. Did such a diphthongaison occur in the course of the phonological history of English ? I can't find any evidence of it.

The only book I have (A guide to Old English, 6th edition, pp 14-15) only recalls that the diphthongs "eo" and "ēo" exist in Old English and that "[b]efore e and i, [...] g is usually pronounced like [...] y in MnE 'yet'".

  • 1
    Wikipedia mentions the issue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… According to the account there, "geong" would have been a false diphthong but "geaf" would have been a true one. – brass tacks Feb 7 '17 at 22:37
  • 2
    The Ringe quote simply shows that both spellings existed; I wouldn't take the ~ as necessarily implying a variation in pronunciation. – TKR Feb 8 '17 at 18:39

The Old English letter <­g> (specifically not using the overdot as that is a much later convention) is a fickle beast: it pulled double duty as it represented both /g/ (as in <­græf>) and /j/ (as in <­gist>). Because English of the day had no grapheme like <­j>, and since it used <­y> only as a vowel (to mark the front-rounded vowel /y/), it had to adapt what letters it had to the phonetics of its words. Many Proto-Germanic words that had /*g-/ in them (like <*girnijaną>) ended up undergoing palatalisation of that /*g-/ to a palatal sound in Old English, i.e. what we assume to be /j/ (as in <­giernan>).

One must really differentiate between orthography and phonetics here: the way a word is spelled has little effect on how it's pronounced. The letter <­g> in Old English was generally pronounced as /j/ when it was followed by a grapheme used for a front vowel, even if that vowel wasn't actually pronounced (or even, wasn't ever even a thing) there. As such, you'll see a lot of <­e> inserted into Old English words in places where they didn't belong only because the Anglo-Saxons had no other way they could think of to represent /j/; this could lead one to confusion (as it has led you too!) and might make you believe all such <­ge> were pronounced as a plain, vowelless /j/. This isn't the case, as the <­e> in this <­ge> could easily have come from a diphthong, as is the case in <­geard> (whence your <­geardum>) that had the short diphthong <­ea>, or in verbs such as <­giefan> /jiefan/ and <­gēotan> /je:otan/.

On a bit of a sidenote, you'll also see that, due to this palatalisation of Germanic /*g-/, almost no native, directly inherited English word actually has an initial /g/ before a front vowel; words such as <­gift> and <­give> are usually loans from a language with /g/ in such a position (most commonly Old West Norse); the only exceptions to this are English words that underwent i-umlaut (<­geese> is a good example) after the g-palatalisation had already happened.

  • Thank-you, @Darkgamma. I had to look up 'get' immediately, and indeed that's a later borrowing! – David Garner Feb 13 '17 at 16:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.