Reflexives continued

[llama_nom]

Hails, Gaizahardu!

> (I can think of one kind of sentence that might call for *seins. 
It is 
> exemplified by "he is his own boss". Possibly Gothic would have 
used a more emphatic 
> word than *seins here, just as English would have "his own" rather 
than 
> simply "his". But at least *seins looks as if it would be 
grammatically 
> justifiable.)

Glad you spotted my belated reply!  I can't think of a "he is his 
own boss" example, but as you say, there are ways around the 
forbidden s-word: * silbins fauragaggja ist; * swes fauragaggja 
ist.  Comparisons are another place where 'is' has to stand in for 
the missing *seins.

Ganah siponi ei wairþai swe laisareis is jah skalks swe frauja is 
jah skalks swe frauja is;

ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὡς 
ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ.

It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the 
servant as his lord.

(Mt 10,25).

(Can anyone read those Greek characters there?  I just pasted them 
in; thanks for the fonts advice, Richard, Ingemar, Tore, David--I'll 
look into that.)  I still haven't found the answer to my original 
question that sparked all this off last year, namely, what happens 
with impersonal verbs with an oblique (?)subject.  Mt 6,7--þugkeiþ 
im auk ei in filuwaurdein seinai andhausjaindau--can't tell us 
because 'seinai', if I'm right, can only refer to the unstated 
passive subject of andhausjaindau.

> However there is one thing 
> I should like to say. It concerns the "missing" nominative form 
*seins. 
> Surely the reason for its non-existence is that normally there 
would be no reason 
> for it to be used. For example, in a statement like "his son is 
sick" you would 
> presumably have
> 
>         sunus is ist siuks,
> 
> because the son is the subject of the sentence and the his-word 
("is") refers 
> to someone else (the father). Even if the father is explicitly 
brought into 
> the sentence, as in "the father says that his son is sick", the 
son remains the 
> subject in its own clause:
> 
>         sa atta qiþiþ þatei sunus is ist siuks   (I think)

It could be that *seins is avoided by just never using 'þugkeiþ 
imma' to say "he thinks his son to be sick", but instead saying: * 
þugkeiþ imma, ei sunus is siuks sijai.  Or using a different verb.  
But what about "he likes his son" / "his son pleases him".  
Probably 'is' would be substituted whether 'imma' was actually 
treated as the subject or not.  But I wonder what would happen in a 
sentence such as "he likes his son's friends"?

* galeikaiþ imma frijonds sunaus (seinis?, is?)

> If instead an accusative and infinitive construction is used, 
("the father 
> declares his son to be sick") I believe this would be regarded by 
grammarians as 
> only one clause, and the reflexive pronoun would presumably be 
expected in 
> Gothic. But as it would be in the accusative case, it would still 
not be *seins:
> 
>         sa atta qiþiþ sunu seinana siukana wisan (I suppose)

I've seen accusative + infinitive explained as two clauses, and 
that's the way I framed my answer, but presumably Wright and 
Streitberg are treating it as one clause when they say that 
reflexives ALWAYS refer to the subject of their own clause.  But to 
treat it as a single clause might lead to contradictions since 
Streitberg certainly regards the accusative argument as the subject 
of the infinitive (which would explain the fact that reflexives can 
refer to it), so it seemed simplest to me to think of it as two, the 
embedded infinitive clause being the direct object of the finite 
verb in the main clause.  But I know very little about syntax as 
yet, so you could be right.  Any thoughts on L 1,51?

gatawida swinþein in arma seinamma, distahida mikilþuhtans gahugdai 
hairtins seinis;

ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ, διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ 
καρδίας αὐτῶν: 

He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in 
the imagination of their hearts. 

I suppose the most obvious, if disappointing, explanation would be 
that it's just a mistake caused by the apparent parallel with the 
first half of the senetence.  If the Greek symbols don't come out 
right, that's AUTOU (sg.) = seinamma in the first part, and AUTWN 
(pl.) = seinis in the second.

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/