Rit (Vísindafélag Íslendinga) - 01.06.1970, Page 616

614
the connection VC + C, i.e., when V is short. In some cases the
diphthongization is counteracted by metathesis (í erva, holva,
talv, etc.). I miss hamrar [hau-] (nom., acc.) and homrum
[hou-] (dat.), plur. of hamar(í), heard in Suðuroy; likewise,
the combination -iv-, for instance, in livna, livrar [hu-] (plur.
of livur).
The place-name Miðvágur is usually pronounced [miu-
waavcor], but a pronunciation [mYuwoavcor] may also be
heard.
Jorgen Rischel: Mr. Werner’s paper gives very essential
corrections of the pattern ofdiphthongs in Faroese as presented
in earlier literature on the subject, and I warmly welcome it,
although I wish to state that it still makes sense to distinguish
between true diphthongs and reflections of combinations with
/v/ in the ‘underlying form’.
Björn Hagström: Behind Werner’s lecture lies a piece of
excellent field work, and his paper is an important contribu-
tion to our knowledge of Faroese phonology. The following
comments concern, first, two points of Faroese articulation
which may help to explain the diphthongization in question,
and second, two points of phonemic notation.
(1) The diphthongization through vocalic pronunciation
of postvocalic /v/ may be connected with a characteristic
variation in the articulation of almost every postvocalic /v/ as
[v] (cons.) or [w] (semivowel), e.g. maður [msavcor] or
[msawcor]. Here, when intervocalic after a long vowel, [w]
belongs to the following syllable and has consonantal func-
tion; when, on the other hand, [w] is followed by a consonant,
the vocalic element of [w] dominates, in contrast to the fol-
lowing consonant, and the pronunciation may well be [u]
as in the ‘old’ diphthongs [uu] and [ou]. Thus, to the phonetic
variation between [v] (or [f]) and [w]/[u] corresponds, on
the phonological level, a variation between syllables of the
type VC: (C: = cluster with [f]/[v]) and V:C (V: = diph-
thong with [w]/[u]).
(2) Werner explains the diphthongal pronunciation /au/