Print

Print


On 2012-05-27 22:44, And Rosta wrote:
> BPJ, On 26/05/2012 13:34:
>> On 2012-05-26 10:34, And Rosta wrote:
>>> Padraic Brown, On 26/05/2012 00:31:
>>>> Even if we dìd borrow "Yeshua" back in the early days of
>>>> Christianisation in England, we probably wouldn't be
>>>> pronouncing it
>>>> that way now. I don't know how the sound changes would sort out.
>>>
>>> So, BPJ et al, had we borrowed "Yeshua" back in the early days of
>>> Christianization in England, what would its orthographical and
>>> phonological forms have been when first borrowed and be now?
>>>
>>> We know from Ray that "Yēshūa‘ would be a better transcription" of
>>> the original, i.e. with long vowels and [ʕ].
>>
>> Well, you'd still probably have borrowed it from Latin, probably,
>> so _Gíesu_ probably, > modern _Yees_!
>
> So if it had been borrowed from the Hebrew, then _Gíesua_ maybe?
> (My ignorant _Gesciwa_ guess doesn't take account of the long e &
> u in the Hebrew.) So what would that become? (My knowledge of the
> history of English phonology goes back only to Middle English --
> can anybody recommend a good book that gives a reasonably
> comprehensive account of OE > ME?)

Probably _Gíescúa_, or -- if they heard the final consonant
of [jeːʃuːaːʕ] as such --, _Gíescúág_, both of which would give
modern _Yeshow_, ending in the GOAT vowel -- although I rather
believe both Old and Modern English would use Syriac script in
such a timeline! ;-)

_sc_ was [ʃ] in OE, and didn't need any diacritic front vowel,
but it frequently got one anyway, so that spellings like
_Gíesceo(w)a_ or even _Gíesceu(w)a_[^1] might be possible.
The jury is and for ever will be still out on if and when
_i_ in _cie, gie, scie_ was diacritic or not.  I tend to
bolong to the "yes probably mostly" camp.


[^1]:   "In late West Saxon, spellings like sceucca, sceocca are
         found beside scucca; sceufan, sceofan beside scufan;"
         Penzl 1947 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/409706>