Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2003, Side 104

102
Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen
script symbol. It seems therefore quite likely that ‘q’ + tittle does not
stand for /kEr/, but for /kvEr/, where E stands for any vowel that can
be written ‘e’. Indeed, “qitif’ 78rl7 certainly stands for quaeritis.A
And possibly the tittle is a replacement for ver also in “hvcRe” 34rl0,
“hvcrso” 32r36, 37rl2, 38r20.4 5 It seems reasonable to suppose that
also where the ‘u’ or ‘v’ is not explicitly written, it is implied by the
spelling ‘q’.
The non-existence of a nekker- paradigm would have some conse-
quences for Hreinn Benediktsson’s reasoning at one point. He splits
the change nekkver- to nokkur- into 3 steps:
(1) a. the disappearance of the /j/ in the endings
b. the disappearance of /v/ in the second syllable
c. the change from /e/ resp. /a/ in the second syllable to / u / (writ-
ten ‘o’ or ‘u’)
He refutes the possibility that steps l.b and l.c were a combined
change /ve/ to /u/, as in dagverðr, dQgurðr, on the ground that the
nekker- forms show loss of /v/, but have still /e/ in the second sylla-
ble. If the proposed nekkerr forms are in fact nekkverr forms, as I
believe they are, there is no reason not to look upon 1 .b and 1 .c as a
combined change. Apart from the forms from S, which all have ‘q’ +
tittle, he cites here the evidence from AM 645 4°, which in Larsson’s
Ordförrádet also has nekker- forms. Here too, we are dealing with
forms spelled with ‘q’ + tittle, where in my opinion we should expand
“quer”. The form “nqcqeriom ” from S (203:25 in Wisén’s edition,
95r32 in the manuscript) reads in my edition “necqueriom”. The var-
ious forms with nokkvor- do not contradict the assumption of a com-
bined change, as a dative nocquorom and Nsg.f. or N/Apl.n. nocquor
can be seen as belonging to the nakkvar- paradigm. Forms like nom.
sg. masc. nocquorr can then be seen as analogical formations.6
4 The only other word where ‘q’ + tittle occurs is “kévquer" 97v4.
5 The same abbreviation is found in AM 645. See below.
6 The silent assumption in this reasoning is that ‘o’ in the manuscripts under con-
sideration can stand for /q/. However, in the case of AM 655 XXI, four nocquor- exam-
ples are found, but no certain examples of ‘o’ for /o/. This fragment is admittedly