[gothic-l] Gaut, Gapt

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Dear Andreas Schwarcz,
Thank you very much for taking the touble to find this text
for us!  That was most kind.

Below I have taken out some pieces of the German text, that seemed
important to me. I have tried to translate them for the benefit
of the non German-reading listmembers:

>monophthongisiert worden;
Here Reichert (=R.) mentions a phenomenon called "monophtongization".
I suppose this means that a diphtong (au, ei, oi etc..) becomes
changed into a monophtong (= a single vowel). The relevant example
in the case under discussion would be, if I have understood this
correctly, the change au -> o, that took place in the development
of Gothic. In our case this would then be further exemplified
by "Gautoi" becoming "Gotones". I am writing it up explicitly,
so that I may be corrected, if I have misunderstood. And corrections
by those who know, are appreciated!


>da das pi in griechischen Wörtern für einen stimmlosen Reibelaut,
>wohl ähnlich bilabialem f, steht. Diese Schreibgewohnheit wurde in
>lateinischen Texten bisweilen nachgeahmt, dies kann für die
>Amalerkanzlei angenommen werden.
(The "pi" of Greek words stood for a voiceless fricative, likely
similar to the bilabial "f". This style of writing was sometimes
imitated in Latin texts, which one may suppose was adopted by
the Amal chancellary.)

Here is an important point, that is also exemplified in Old Norse,
as I pointed out earlier. Viz. in ON manuscripts you frequently
see a vacillation between two different ways of writing "after",
namely as both "eptir" and "eftir". This is then taken as indication
that in Old Norse, the "f" was not labio-dental as it is in Scandinavian
languages today, but rather bi-labial. (please try to say an "f"
without using the teeth) A bi-dental "f" will then mean that spellings
will tend to vacillate. For example Gapt/Gaft.

>(Aptacharius für Authari bei Gregor von tours, vgl.8, XXVI und 107).
(In Gregor of Tour's writings we find the PN Authari written as
Aptacharius.)
This is an important example of the practice.
It surprises me that such an important example
was not mentioned earlier. This is probably the
Langobard king Authari who ruled from 584-590.
Gregor of Tours (538-594) was his contemporary.
Paulus Diaconus (725-795) writes the name as
"Authari".


>Cassiodors  Gotengeschichte  zurückgehende Schreibung ap,
>sondern die dahinterstehende diphthongische Aussprache.
(The spelling ap must go back to Cassiodor's History of the Goths.
It is not so much the spelling ap that needs an explanation,
but rather the diphtongic pronounciation that lies behind it.)
Here I thought R. was somewhat unclear. I take it he means
there are examples of this way of writing, but that the phonetic
mechanism is not sufficiently understood.
Cassiodor is here the writer "Senior" mentioned by Jordanes § 1-2.

> Monophthongisierungstheorie
>'Archaisierungshypothese'
(The theory of monophtongisation, and the hypothesis of archaisation)
Two important elements in the proposed explanation model.

I suppose the Reallexicon allows one to look up under "theory of
monophthongisation" and find further explanations there.
(if the volume exists yet)
Archaisation hypothesis is easier. It means that one supposes
genealogies were proclaimed at official gatherings, using old-fashioned
pronounciations.


>aber nur der Erklärung  des Namens Gaut wegen getroffene Ad-hoc-Annahme ohne
>weitere   Stütze.
(but [this hypothesis of archaisation] is an ad-hoc supposition, made for the
 sole purpose of explaining the name "Gapt", and has no further support.)

>(z.b. Bauto : Oduin);
Another example of how Latin sources spelled Gothic names that
contained au [in Gothic].

>für eine eindeutige Klärung der ursachen ist das Material zu gering
(for a unique clarification of the causes, the available material is too
little.)

>Daß, falls sowohl Gapt als auch Gauthigoth auf Cassiodor zurückgehen,
(that, in case both Gapt and Gauthigoth go back to Cassiodor,
the latter followed differing spelling traditions, may be for different
reasons, that do not necessarily have anything to do with the pronounciation.)

Here is also an important point, and it is indeed very instructive to
put the two names Gapt and Gautigoth (both from the Getica) next to
each other for the purpose of comparison. For, if - as hypothesis
seeks to establish - Gapt is indeed only a specific chancellary
style of spelling Gaut, then uniformity in the use of spelling rules,
seems to require that the Getica (or Cassiodor's lost Historia
upon which the Getica is based) contain no Gothic names or words
that contain the cluster -aut-. But since the name Gautigoth
obviously does not conform to such a hypthesis of uniformity
in the applied spelling rules, one is left rather baffeled.
R. comments that such variable spelling rules may have different
causes, and that such causes are not necessarily related to
pronounciation.


>To paraphrase this long passage shortly in English, Reichert points    out
>that it is quite  usual for Latin writers in the sixth century to    write apt
>for spoken aut, following in this learned Greek tradition    (and not Greek
>manuscripts). He sees a bigger problem in the    spoken au, but remains
>undecided why this was not transposed to    long o, as it should have
>been in Gothic, because there is not    enough evidence for a convincing
>scientific explanation. Reichert    firmly points to Cassiodorus as the
>source for Jordanes (so did, by    the way, already Mommsen in the
>critical edition of the MGH), and    both point out the connection
>between the genealogy given in    Jordanes Getica, XIV 79, and
>Cassiodor, Variae 9, 25 and 11,1, a    connection known to everyone who
>ever worked seriously with the    texts of Jordanes and of Cassiodorus.
>So I think you can stop this    futile search for non-existant Greek sources
>of Jordanes for the    Amal genealogy. Jordanes  took it over from
>Cassiodorus and    Cassiodorus from oral tradition, as Jordanes
>expressedly states    Get.79: Horum ergo heroum, ut ipsi suis in fabulis
>referunt, primus    fuit Gapt, qui genuit Hulmul.

I am not familiar with the "Variae". But it sounds like it might be
interesting to take a look at them.
In the above Latin quote that you were kind enough to point to,
is also exemplified why I think access to the Latin source is
so important. In fact, when I read Nordin's no doubt correct
transalation, he uses the word sägner (legends), whereas the
Latin text has "fabulis".

Kind regards
Keth


PS My comment: What I missed was, if possible, a pointer towards
the rarity of the cluster -apt- in Germanic PN's. For if this
is a cluster that _only_ occurs in Gapt, the it is very
reasonable to see it as something accidental. If it only occurs
in Latin renderings of Germanic PN's, but is extremely rare
in Germanic phonology, then it appears reasonable to eliminate
all such clusters from Germanic PN's in Latin manuscripts where it
is relevant. During our discussion I did however point to
such words as ON "raft" (with bi-dental f), and wondered if
the Vandal name "Raptus" may not be etymologized in terms
of such wooden structures as indicated in ON "raft".
(the example was supplied by Dirk)



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/