[gothic-l] Re: Gothic and Old Bavarian

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Hi Francisc.
For the record we have a Norwegian name "Fartein" < Farþegn.
far = "farkost" (ship) and þegn = a man, a free man in service of a chief.
The verb "fara" (to travel, fahren) gives the noun "ferd" = a journey.
But Ferdinand seems to derive from OHG Fridunand, which would be an
example of Ferd- being a corruption of Frid-, as you say.
However, the Rugians had quite a few names on F:

Feua or Feba
Feletheus
Ferderuchus brother of Feletheus
Flaccitheus Rugian king
Fredericus, son of Feletheus.
(from Vita Severini)

You see that the two forms Ferd- and Fred- are coexisting.
The uncle has Ferd- and the nephew Fred-
That suggests the two forms were coexisting, and must
have been seen as not the same. Perhaps variants.


>Hi Keth,
>
>My impression is that "Ferderuchus" is in fact a corruption of 
>"Frederic(h)us", but maybe I'm wrong...
>Regarding the presumable consonant shift reflected in the "ch" of 
>"Ferderuchus", my opinion is that this is not necessarily a witness of 
>a High German-type second consonant shift.
>The shift k > ch can be found also in Gothic proper names quoted by 
>Iordanes: Alarichus (beside Alaricus), Eurichus; but the second 

True. But now we are already arguing that Jordanes
ortography can tell us things about sound shifts.
And that was my point. That Jordanes' spellings reflect
the real pronounciation by speakers of the Gothic language.

>consonant shift means not only k>ch, but also p>pf/ff, t>tz/ss, d>t, 
>b>p, þ,ð>d etc. Thus, the k>ch in Ferderuchus, Alarichus, Eurichus 

Yes, I was looking for examples of such things occurring in PN's
but all I found thus far was k --> ch.
Diederik (Dirk) is also funny, since it exhibits Th --> D,
but it isn't High German, but rather a typical Low German
name . (The early counts of Holland and Zeeland)

>etc. could mean only a weakening of k in final position, that appears 
>also in other non-High German Germanic languages, like the modern 
>Scandinavian languages (including modern Icelandic), where final k > g 
>(a fricative sound).

That is one of the marks of Danish k --> g.
(Nor. "eik" --> Dan. "eg"; et egetræ = ein eichenbaum)
But k>g is not the same as k>ch.
The g is a stop, but the ch a fricative.


>It is noteworthy to mention in this context that also the Crimean 
>Gothic language exhibits a shift k>ch, that doesn't necessarily mean 
>the second consonant shift:
>Wulfilan mekeis > Crimean mycha "sword"
Aha! That is a good example.
It also shows that Wulfilean Gothic was unaffected by the sound shift.
But can we be sure late Gothic wasn't?

>Wulfilan ik > Crimean ich "I".
>But no trace of p>pf/ff and t>tz/ss in Crimean Gothic.
I couldn't think of any PN's with pf in them.


>My conclusion is thus that not every k>ch is necessarily a proof of 
>the second consonant shift.

That appears reasonable. But relative to Gotic reiks --> rich
appears like quite a significant change.

Best regards
Keth
>> ----------------------------
>> 
>>     Can "ruch" be a version of "rug-" as in "Rugi"?
                         g>ch?



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/