qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni *gasehvun* (right after all!)

[llama_nom]

After all that discussion, and in spite of what we concluded at the 
time, Streitberg was quite right to print:

qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni gasehvun (Mk 2:12)

...as opposed to 'gasehvum'.  On closer inspection, I see that there 
are in fact different suspension marks used for 'm' and 'n' in the 
Codex Argenteus.  The 'm' is distinguished from 'n' by a very slight 
downward hook in the middle of the line.  For the 'm' sign, see e.g. 
imma Mk 2:18, imma Mk 6:14, þammei Mk 6:16, þaim Mk 6:21 [ 
http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/311mc6f.html 
]--see the end of the 6th line down.

And for the 'n' sign: unhulþons Mk 3:15, standan Mk 3:24, 
saihvandans Mk 4:12, marein Mk 4:39, afhvapnodedun Mk 5:13, iddjedun 
Mk 5:24, jah qeþun Mk 5:31, ufkunþa Mk 5:29, handugeino Mk 6:2--and 
Mk 2:12 [ 
http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/284mc2f.html 
]--end of line 10.

There's no doubt that 'n' is intended at Mk 2:12, although the signs 
are similar, and it's easy to imagine that confusion would be 
possible when reading faded letters or a degraded/damaged 
manuscript, or that the two nasal signs might get mixed up 
occasionally by accident.  Maybe some such reason is behind the 
apparent divergeance from the Greek text here.  Even so, it's 
probably still best to print the text as it appears in the Codex 
Argenteus, since we can't be sure that this is a mistake; and even 
if it is, the mistake might be significant--either for the study of 
Gothic syntax, or in identifying the Greek Vorlage.  As ever, 
appologies for misleading everyone!  The article I read didn't make 
this m/n difference clear.

Llama Nom



--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard" 
<budelberger.richard at ...> wrote:
>
> 20 nivôse an CCXIV (le 9 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 23h08.
> 
> ---- Message d'origine ----
> De : llama_nom
> À : Gothic-L
> Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2006 21:58
> Objet : [gothic-l] nasal abbreviations + þatei / ei before 
indirect speech
> 
> >> Existe-t-il une différence suffisante entre les signes
> >> d'abréviation pour distinguer un *m* d'un *n* ?
> >
> > Apparently not:
> >
> > "The CODEX ARGENTEUS is written in an alphabet devised by 
Wulfila,
> > though it seems quite likely that some changes have been made in 
the
> > intervening century and a half. The Gothic alphabet has two 
styles,
> > one (I will call it style I) using a sigma-like -sign and a nasal
> > suspension for n only, and the other (I will call it style II) 
uses
> > the Latin and suspension marks for both n and m (Fairbanks and
> > Magoun). The CA is written in Style II, and it seems quite likely
> > that this is a later development, probably in Ostrogothic Italy."
> > [ http://www.florin.ms/aleph2.html ].
> >






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/