[gothic-l] Re: Scandinavian Inscriptions - East/North/West Germanic

[llama_nom]

> The E-W-N classification system for the inscriptions (aka 
Antonsen) 
> is not really realistic, in my view. 
> 

I'd like to know more about this.  Are you saying it's unrealistic 
only in the context of the Scandinavian inscriptions, or unrealistic 
per se?  The usual assumption with the (admittedly sparse) south 
east European inscriptions is that Gothic -s (from Gmc -z or -s) is 
spelt with the S-rune (cf. Szabadbattyan, Kovel, Letcani).  Are 
there any clear examples of S being used for etymological Gmc Z in 
the Scandinavian corpus?  And if there were, would this be evidence 
for East Gmc?  What, if anything, would consitute evidence?  The 
change z > R (palatal voiced alveolar) doesn't show up in runic 
spelling, so that might make it difficult to distinguish between the 
ancestors of North and East Gmc dialects.  And when did z > r in 
West Germanic?

Latin, I think, had no way of distinguishing [s] and [z], but maybe 
there is evidence from Greek records of barbarian names - except 
that the most common example (the usual nominative singular ending) 
is usually obscured in classical writings by the Greek/Latin 
terminations.

Something I've always wondered is, how much evidence actually exists 
for the traditional list of the "East Germanic" tribes: Vandals, 
Sueves, Gepids, Herulians, Skirians, Rugians, Burgundians, etc.  Are 
there specific Gothic-like features discernable in names, loan 
words, legal terms, or whatever - or is this list made largely on 
the basis of assumed geagraphical origin/habitation?

The one example that does come to mind, is the name of the Vandal 
dynastic founder twin Raus (cf. Modern German: Rohr).  There is also 
the French roseau 'reed', probably borrowed from either the 
Visigoths or the Burgundians, as far as I know.

> 
>   But would I be 
> > right in thinking that when an inscription consists of a single 
> name it is usually in the nominative?
> 
> No, there are examples of genitive only, like keþan in Norway and 
> several others of this type. If a name occurs by itself on a stone 
> and in the genitive, then it means that the stone/memorial belongs 
> to this person. 

Ah yes, thanks for putting me right there - and I've just remembered 
the Caister inscription from England: RAIHAN, which is taken to 
mean "of a deer".


 However, there was no æ rune (always long). Writers 
> used both -ai and -e (ê) to represent this sound, in verbs from 
the 
> original *-æ- and in dat.sgs. from monothongization of ai to 
æ'(also 
> written ê, but not identical to regular long ê). If Antonsen is 
> right in thinking that the sixth vowel rune, which was 
discontinued 
> before the old inscriptions, represented æ' (as in *jæ'ran), then 
it 
> disappeared because of stressed æ'-to-â change in NG, leaving the 
æ' 
> in unstressed positions to be represented by -ai or -e, which 
never 
> represents this sound in stressed positions. Thus, talgidai is 
just 
> as normal as talgide, as far as spelling goes. 

> The unstressed æ'(ê) in the 3rd sg.pres. of weak verbs is NWG, not 
> just proto-norse. It predates the earliest inscriptions. 
> 

So where does ô fit into all this?, as on the Gallehus horn: TAWIDO.

I wonder if the convention of equating /e/ and /ai/ spread beyond 
Scandinavia.  If so, that undermines the usefulness of the form U(N)
ThF(I)NTHAI, on the Charnay fibula, for establishing the value 
of /ai/ in Gothic (or Burgundian in this case).  Which is a shame...


>   there still wouldn't have to be 
> > many anomalies to completely throw modern researchers.  In these 
> > cases, as you've said, a default assumption of Norse seems best.
> 
> True, any anomality, even a scrible, can throw modern researchers. 
A 
> grade school teacher teaching the alphabet and spelling might be 
in 
> a good position to access the frequency of mistakes/mispellings ;)

Mine more than most, I think...



> 
> Llama, join Theudiskon at yahoogroups if you haven't already. 
There 
> is no topic there except the language and runic inscription are 
not 
> off topic. You clearly have an interest in the early language(s) ;)
> 
> Regards,
> Konrad


Thanks for the tip - I shall!
 
Llama Nom




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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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