Istaby ᴀfatʀ: Issues, Evidence, Arguments

Abstract

This paper discusses the long-standing problem of the Istaby runestone’s pre­po­sition ᴀfatʀ af^atʀ ‘after, in memory of’ and its final, unetymological ʀ. Three explanations from the literature are examined and assessed, each one asso­ciated with the views of a prominent scholar: ʀ/r-neutralization (Elmer Anton­sen), analogical r-palatalization (Ottar Grønvik), and analogy with com­par­a­tives in *-iz (Sophus Bugge). Arguments and counterarguments, some of which have not been fully appreciated or articulated before, are discussed for all three accounts. While none of the explanations can be ruled out with absolute cer­tain­ty, the one with the most support is Michael Schulte’s version of ʀ/r-neu­tral­i­zation, which emphasizes the fact that grammatical elements (function words) tend to be more vulnerable to phonetic reduction than lexical elements (con­tent words). This conclusion is based not only on the Istaby form but also on a number of other relevant forms (Tune after, Ribe uiþʀ, and aft/æft, at/æt).