Talk:Harvaðafjǫll

Two words (and this was a TOUGH word to find...)

Okay, so as noted on the page already, this word is a Hapax Legomenon so far as I can tell, however, it is not Harvaðafjǫll, but rather Harvaða fjǫll (two words), it appears in chapter 11 of Hervarar Saga ok Heiðreks (see the Perseus link below). But this was not an easy word to find: Zoëga (1910) had nothing on it (unsurprising), de Vries (1977: pp.211, s.v. Harfaðafjǫll) had it spelt incorrectly (very surprising), and pointed to an article from Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum vol. 33, 1889 by Rudolf Much, which in turn pointed to the wrong chapter of Hervarar Saga ok Heiðreks (Much (1889: pp. 6) erroneously cites ch. 8, but it is from ch. 11, again, see Perseus link below). So this is all to say, I will edit this lemma to reflect the correct spelling of the mountains (as two distinct words), as well as the cognate entry on the page for Carpathian.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2003.02.0020%3Achapter%3D11

Edit: Okay, so I have absolutely no idea how to change this thing on here? Do I have to just scrap this page and create a new one or something?

Vindafarna (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Although Harvaða is the genitive of an unattested plural (maybe like *Harvaðar), this is never attested. On the other hand Harvaðafjǫll is attested, and thus it is compounded. Fundamentally there is no difference between Harvaða fjǫll or Harvaðafjǫll, so you can add an alternative form page if you want, since the first one is the one employed in certain editions. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is Harvaðafjǫll attested as a compound? Are you saying that in a different edition of the text the same term from above is just compounded? And if so, which edition? I would love to take a look because the only editions I found seem to be later editions with Harvaða fjöll even... Vindafarna (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Issues with Grimm's law in this word

The other issue with this term is that it may not actually reflect Grimm's law. Pre-ON *-þ- is voiced medially unless adjacent to a voiceless segment (like s, which is never voiced in ON). Thus, it is entirely possible that the term was borrowed in with an intervocalic *-þ- (a lenited form of *-t- from the original term), which was subsequently voiced to *-ð-... Vindafarna (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The initial H-, compared to Latin C-, definitely seems to reflect Grimm's law. What you appear to be describing is Verner's law...? Wiljahelmaz (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. There are three potential reflexes of Grimm's Law in this word. Initial */k/ > h, medial */p/ > f, and medial */t/(?) > þ (which could have been 'Verner's Lawed' into ð or which would have simply surfaced as /ð/ instead of /θ/ since intervocalic /θ/ always surfaces as /ð/ in ON). My comment was meant to highlight the fact that we cannot be sure that the medial -ð- is a Grimm's output of earlier *t, a Verner's output of a Grimm's (*)-þ-, or simply borrowed from the target language (which is unknown and may have had a phoneme /θ/ or /ð/ which was easily adopted into a Germanic dialect). I was talking specifically about the medial -ð- which could be an example of Grimm's Law (not Verner, because, again, Grimm's output -þ- and Verner's -ð- merged intervocalically in ON). I hope that makes things clearer?

Vindafarna (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)