new and in search of help Go.thunrs and thrums

[akoddsson]

Hails Walhahrabn!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hails Walhahrabn! 
> 
> Hails jah-hailists, Kunjareth!
> 
> Great to hear such an informative comment! Thanks a lot.
> 
> > *qath than, as 'than' cannot stand first in Gothic, unlike in ON.
> 
> Then, maybe, thanuh qath thata Thrums..., to keep up with ON and 
the alliteration? BTW, Þrymr is a masculine i-stem, = Go. 
Thrums, right?

I think so, yes.
 
> > *hamars, I think, masc. a-stem, so: bairith inn hamar
> 
> Good, then what's your suggestion for "summer" I wonder? I myself 
am constantly wavering between *sumars M.-a and smth like *sum(b)rus 
M.-u (cf. wintrus). Or, maybe, it was another word, maybe asans? But 
this seems to have been borrowed by the Slavs as jesenÜ "autumn" 
(Old Prussian assanis "idem"; typologically cf. NHG Herbst – NE 
harvest). And what could be the word for "spring"?

ON vetr is from masc. u-stem *wintrus. ON vintr is also attested in 
West Norse from about 1000 (Norðmøri, Norvegr on the Kule Stone). ON 
sumar is a neut. a-stem from PN *sumara. The Gothic equivalent, 
following masc. wintrus, u-stem, assuming 'summer' would likewise be 
parallel, would be *sumar, neut. a-stem. But this word is usually 
considered problematic (see etymological dictionaries/works). East 
Norse preserved the form vintr much longer than West Norse, which 
universalized vetr over the against older parallel vintr. 

> > *milluneis, I think, is the Gothic for ON mjollnir. The double l 
is original, being from Proto-Norse *mellunijaz (w/Sievers). It means
the 'crusher', despite etymologies to the contrary via Lithuanian,
Latvian and Russian word for or relating to lightening. The 
relation to lightning is natural enough, but is not confirmed by the 
word's phonological development to it's ON form, hence: *milluneis

> > No need to postulate a ld or lth. Here are two reasons: 1) ld 
would have survived in ON as **mjoldnir and 2) lth would have become 
ld instead of ll - it defies the rule of lth-to-ll because it comes 
before -n-. The word is shortend to mjolnir in some ON sources, and 
medieval writers seem not to have known exactly how to spell the 
word (ll or l), but the older form with ll is also attested. 
Furthermore, this ll is also suggested by comparison to the Baltic 
and Slavic, as well as from internal ON evidence (compare mjoll, 
fem. o-stem 'snow', which is 'crushed' in it's appearance). Thus, I 
come out against the **meldunijaz-form, which has been suggested 
based on it being the correct Germanic form based on the etymology 
to 'lightening' in Baltic/Slavic. The idea is naturally appealling 
and appears very solid; however, the phonology  suggests instead 
*mellunijaz, which as it turns out, has an equally plausible 
etymology in 'the crusher' - thus, this form now has two strikes in 
it's favour, while **meldunijaz only has one. Also, my feeling is 
that ignoring phonology in order to produce the desired etymology is 
wrong. In this case, I think, the problem is solved, both in terms 
of phonology and etymology by the form *mellunijaz, Go. milluneis.

> Frankly, I haven't seen this idea before (except mjöllnir 
translated as "Zermalmer" in an old Sprach-Brockhaus), but it seems 
pretty convincing... The Gothic word matching ON mjöll would be 
*milla then, right? 

Yes. ON sniár/snær Go. *snaiws, also ('snow').

> But this gemination, isn't it a problem, given it is the same IE 
root as in Go. malan, Lat. molo, OIr. melim, OCSl. mlěti etc 
meaning "to grind (corn)"? August Fick's proto-Germanic vocabulary 
(Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen: 3. Teil: 
Wortschatz der Germanischen Spracheinheit) mentions Go. ga-
malwjan "zermalmen", ON mölva as well as ON mylja, OHG muljan 
etc as cognate forms from the same stock.

ON molva, mala, mylja - all attested.

> Ibidem is asserted that PG. *mellô "loser Schnee" (> ON 
mjöll) comes from (PIE?) *melnâ, so, if it is how the 
geminated -ll- appeared in mjöllnir, then *mjöllnir < 
PG. *mellunijaz < PIE (or pre-PG) *meln-nijos? Or maybe *mellunijaz 
< *melwunijaz (cf. Go. rinnan < *rin-w-)? Whether it be, it's Gothic 
*milluneis M.-ja.

Yes, I think so. The baltic thunder-god is called perkunas in 
lithuanian, perkons in latvian and *perkuns in prussian. In gothic 
we have faírguni, neut., 'mountiain'. In ON fjorgynn is a also a 
god. fjorgyn, fem., is a goddess. þórr is called fjorgynjar burr, 
the 'son of fjorgyn', who is the earth (also called iorð). In Go. 
one of the various names for Þórr's mother would have been erþa. 
Now, baltic perkuns is the god of rain, thunder, lightening and, of 
course, mountains. This ties into the gothic word faírguni. The idea 
seems to be that the thunder-god was connected to mountains, being 
the offspring of earth and *wôdans, as the gothic version would have 
had it. Perhaps he was born there, where heaven and earth meet, or 
just worshipped there. Perkunas's sacred tree is the oak, and he is 
worshipped especially at oak trees. In the West Gautish laws, which 
are the oldest surviving scandinavian laws, hewing nether oak-trees 
is strongly forbidden. There is no explanation given, but the reason 
should be obvious enough. It was taboo. Perkunas has an axe/hammer 
called milna, I think, but check the lithuanian for the correct 
spelling of the word. In russian lightning is called molnija. So, 
whatever the etymology might be, it seems certain here that we are 
dealing with a very ancient and fundamental IE god, as shown here by 
the amazing parallels from the Baltic. See the wikipedia article on 
perkunas as a reference. So, it is impossible to imagine that the 
goths did not have a major god called *þunrs, who killed the *itunôs 
without mercy in defence of his beloved inhabitants of middle-earth 
(mankind). Go. midjungards is attested, which implies *ansugards as 
the one above the 'middle'. This is where *þunrs lives. Goths would 
likewise have attributed pest, famine, crop-failure, and disease to 
the *itunôs (everything threatening mankind), like the norse did. A 
norse prayer/incantation was (two version are extant): 

þórr vígi þik
þursa dróttin
far þú nú
fundinn est

It's ancient and alliterates. Asking *þunrs to kill the giants that 
cause disease is an ancient medical practice, actually, which simply 
ties into religion as it is usually understood today (compare also 
the ancient hindu medical scripture ayurveda, which is a huge mass 
of prayers/incantations/spells to the Gods to cure disease, etc.). 
 
> > *in maujos kniwa or ana?
> 
> in = í, but ana really seems to fit the case better.
> 
> > *weros looks correct, but I'd have to get back to you on this 
> one ;)
> > 
> > > With "hammer" we seem to have the same problem as 
with "thunder". I still sympathize with the idea that there should 
be a euphonic consonant inserted between nasal and r, like *hambrs 
and *Thundrs. Maybe it was not compulsory as we meet both timrjan 
and timbrjan.

> > Right. So the best move is to write conservatively after 
etymology, whatever pronunciation developments may have been 
happening ;) It does seem that we now have an agreement that the 
form *thunrs is the correct one (see discussion of the name *thunraz 
on theudiskon about this). Llama Nom correctly observed, I think, 
the the final -s would be preserved in the nominative. Thiudans also 
correctly suggests, I think, that the vocative would be *thunr. The 
reason is that the r- is a part of the stem, not an inflectional 
ending. This applies to your translation of the ON tho:rr vi:gi; 
however, the imperative of this conjugation in ON, compare: seg thu: 
me:r 'tell me', not *segi. Thus, it expresses wish, I think, rather 
than command. This would put the whole prase in the 3rd person, 'may 
tho:rr hallow...' (see the ON conjugation). Any object would be in 
the accusative, but it often occurs in ON without an object as a 
kind of stock-phrase (especially in inscription).

> I agree, and I'm ready to sign the convention about *Thunrs :). 
So, the whole phrase would now look as:
Thunrs weihai thana gardan (tho targa)!
Lit. "May Thor hallow this enclosure!"

Yes, something like that ;) If *þunrs weihái is correct, then we can 
no doubt nail the ancient Norse prayer to þórr (above) in Gothic.  

> And the Eddic fragment (for now):
> 
> Þá kvað þat Þrymr, 
> þursa dróttinn: 
> "Berið inn hamar 
> brúði at vígja, 
> leggið Mjöllni 
> í meyjar kné, 
> vígið okkr saman 
> Várar hendi."
> 
> Thanuh qath thata Thrums,
> thaurize drauhtins:
> "Bairith inn hamar (?)
> bruth du <ga>weihan,
> lagjith Milluni
> in maujos kniwa,
> weihith ugkis samana
> Weros handau."

Gothic seems to form the infinitive in more than one way, which 
causes problems for me when it comes to the question of what the 
correct Gothic equivalent of the Norse would be in any given 
passage. He you have 'du (ga)weihan'. So I ask members for insights 
and suggestions here. Also, would not to 'lay something on/in 
something' be accusative plus accustive? It suggests movement, which 
triggers this in ON, anyway. *lagjiþ milluni ana máujôs kniw? 

regards,
kunjareths
 
> ???
> Ualarauans
>







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/