Afdrif KK-tákns fyrstu málfræðiritgerðarinnar

Um táknbeitingu nokkurra þrettándu aldar skrifara

Abstract

The symbol ‘¬’ was used to denote kk in a number of Icelandic manuscripts from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is rarely seen in manuscripts after 1300 and disappears altogether in the course of the fourteenth century. Its use for kk is unique to Icelandic manuscripts. As discussed in §2, the author of the First Grammatical Treatise proposes that geminate consonants be denoted with capital letters (or small capitals). For kk he introduces a separate symbol, namely ‘¬’, which has its own shape and is therefore easily distinguishable from ‘c’, the preferred symbol for non-geminate k. The practice of denoting kk with ‘¬’, even if seen in a number of Icelandic manuscripts, never became general, as discussed in §3, and already by the end of the twelfth century there are signs that this practice was unfamiliar to at least some scribes. This is suggested by sporadic instances of ‘kc’ or ‘k’ for kk, as well as the use of ‘¬’ to denote lk. Instances of this kind can be interpreted as indirect evidence for the use of ‘¬’ in the exemplars, as well as evidence for the scribes’ unfamiliarity with the use of ‘¬’. It is important to note that these are occasional deviations from the normal orthography. Interestingly, two manuscripts from the first half of the thirteenth century can be identified where the representation of kk by a single ‘k’ is not an exception, but rather a rule: (i) in AM 645 A 4to, containing the Miracles of St. fiorlákr and the lives of the apostles, kk is denoted 178 times by ‘k’ and 32 times by ‘c’ against a single instance with ‘cc’; (ii) in AM 677 B 4to, containing the Homilies and Dialogues of Gregory the Great, there are close to one hundred instances of ‘k’ and 25 of ‘c’ for kk, along with seven of ‘cc’ and three of ‘ck’. The question immediately arises, whether this should 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 frequently 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. Orthography 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 affiliation of the two scribes, perhaps to the same scriptorium, either directly or indirectly through intermediaries.