Gripla - 20.12.2004, Blaðsíða 223

AFDRIF K K-TÁKNS FYRSTU MÁLFRÆ‹IRITGER‹ARINNAR 221
be taken to indicate that ‘¬’ was the regular notation for kk in the exemplars of these
manuscripts and that the scribes systematically replaced it with ‘k’ (and ‘c’).
As discussed in §4, orthographic deviations in medieval manuscripts can fre-
quently be traced to the exemplars. The representation of kk by single ‘k’ in AM 645 A
4to and AM 677 B 4to, on the other hand, is not a deviation but a regular feature of the
orthographic system employed by the scribes themselves; it can therefore hardly be
traced to the exemplars. There is nothing in the writing that suggests these two
manuscripts are written by a single scribe, but rather these appear to be the work of two
individuals. Since this kind of orthography is rare or even unique in thirteenth century
manuscripts, it seems not very likely that the two scribes adopted this orthographic
convention independently of each other; rather, it seems to suggest that the two scribes
were affiliated in one way or another.
The question as to how this orthographic convention could have come into being is
addressed in §5. The earliest Icelandic manuscripts show influence of the so-called
palatal rule, whereby ‘k’ is used to denote k before front vowels and ‘c’ before back
vowels. This rule was never rigorously observed in Icelandic manuscripts, and as it
was abandoned, two competing trends can be seen: one where ‘k’ replaces ‘c’ in all
positions and another where ‘k’ is restricted to word-initial position and ‘c’ is the main
symbol elsewhere (in medial and final positions). Orthography of the latter kind can be
seen, for instance, in AM dipl isl fasc LXV nr. 1 (Skipan Sæmundar Ormssonar) and
GKS 2365 4to (Codex Regius of the Elder Edda).
If ‘¬’ was employed for kk in an orthography of the latter kind, the opposition of
the symbols ‘¬’ and ‘k’ would have been neutralized, since the need to distinguish kk
and k (with ‘¬’ and ‘k’) never arose in word-initial position. In other words, the
symbols ‘¬’ and ‘k’ were not contrastive and could be used interchangebly. Ortho-
graphy of this kind could have served as the basis for an orthography where the letter
‘k’ was used for the non-geminate k in word-initial position and geminate kk in all
positions (in medial and final positions) and ‘c’ denoted non-geminate k in non-initial
positions.
The orthography attested in AM 645 A 4to and AM 677 B 4to does not fully
conform to this convention, but it could nonetheless derive from it. At any rate, it
shows a deliberate change of value for the letter ‘k’, a change that suggests an affilia-
tion of the two scribes, perhaps to the same scriptorium, either directly or indirectly
through intermediaries.
Haraldur Bernhar›sson
Hugvísindastofnun
N‡ja-Gar›i
Háskóla Íslands
101 Reykjavík
haraldr@hi.is