Íslenzk tunga - 01.01.1963, Síða 109

DET ISLANDSKA ACCENTBRUKET
107
In OHfr and StH, too, there is unquestionable evidence of the same scribal
intention. The liigh percentages speak for themselves, hut in addition it is no-
ticeable that the acute is absent chiefly in those cases where shortening of the
vowel may be assumed to have occurred, viz.
1) in the proclitic prepositions á and í, and, in final position, in monosyllabic
words which normally have weak stress (e. g. the pronouns sá, þá, þú),
2) finally in monosyllabic first members of compounds (e. g. hótíþ), and
3) in hiatus (e. g. búinn).
The pioneers in matters of writing and spelling, in the absence of a scribal
tradition or of etymological knowledge to guide them in determining vowel
length, had to rely upon their ear for prosody, and in so doing the scribes of
StH and OHfr (or of their prototypes) probably listened especially to coherent
speech, while the lexical pronunciation is likely to have been determinative for
the writer of AnR.
It is tempting to trace the use of the acute in these three MSS (by altogcther
eight scribes) back to the unknown author of the FGT; for, undoubtedly, he
aimed at a regular denotation of vowel length. And even if, as Iloltsmark be-
lieves, his intention was to mark length only where there was a risk of misunder-
standing, tliere may still be a connection, since the author’s words may easily
have been understood, by later scribes, as a recommendation to use the acute
consistently in tbis function. Tbe accentuation of the diphthongs au, ei, ey, too,
may be explained on the basis of the grammarian’s proposals.
There are several arguments in favour of this view.
First, it should be emphasized that the consistent use of the acute mark to
denote vowel length is unknown in any other European orthography, with the
possible exception of Irish, which, however, cannot have influenced Nordic
orthography in any way. Nor is sucli a use recommended in any earlier gramma-
tical work. On the other hand, we find it later, in the Second Grammatical
Treatise (dependent on the FGT), from the beginning of tbe tbirteenth century.
Tlien, this manner of writing appears first in StH, and this points towards
the FGT. According to one, apparently well-founded, opinion, StH is the earliest
document in which the ideas set forth in the FGT find a clear, though far from
consistent, expression. An indication in the same direction is that in StH and
OHfr the acute is used, practically without exception, in the only function
which the FGT recommends.
Finally, it is not without significance that the acute mark is a more general
and more obstinately surviving phenomenon in Icelandic orthography tlian in
any other.
My examination has shown tliat in the preserved Old Icelandic docunients —
no doubt a rather small proportion of what once existed — we find eight scribes,