Araaiþei aflaiþ

[ualarauans]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hails Walhahrabn!

Hails Llama Nom!

I'm sorry I haven't read Wright (yet), and my first (probably wrong) 
impression of the examples you cite is that the accusative here is 
but a usual rection of the verbs involved, i.e. standaith nu 
ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans... is literally "stand therefore 
[having] girt your loins (regular accusative of the direct object of 
the verb ufgairdan - ?); gabundans handuns jah fotuns – "[having 
his] hands and feet bound (???). Could it be something like that? 
This active-passive confusion (ufgaurdanai is literally rather "you 
who have been girt" and would then demand some prepositional object 
(?) - *bi hupins izwaros "around your loins") is perhaps to be 
considered together with the usage of passive in active meaning like 
those examples cited in Braune/Helm 1952: 90 ufkunnanda (Joh. 
13,15), ustiuhada (2 Cor. 7,10), waurkjada (2 Cor. 4,17) (the 
authors explain them as Wulfila's personal misinterpretation of the 
Greek text). Maybe it all is rather due to an underdeveloped state 
of language apparatus to express complex grammatical relations? Or 
we face a somewhat clumsy attempt to keep as close as possible to 
the original? It reads perizo:samenoi te:n osphyn hymo:n en 
ale:theia kai endysamenoi ton tho:raka te:s dykaiosyne:s and perhaps 
there was no better option than to render the Greek passive forms 
with Gothic participles inertially preserving the accusative of the 
object?
Another thought (to stay within Gothic) is that this accusative 
might be explainable as a way to somehow discriminate oblique case-
forms as the direct object in the examples is followed by an 
indirect: standaith nu, ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans sunjai jag-
gapaidodai brunjon garaihteins (in the second clause we certainly 
miss something like *gapaidodai leika izwara (Acc.) brunjon) Eph. 
6,14; but Eph. 6,15 jag-gaskohai fotum in manwithai aiwaggeljons 
gawairthjis – why not *fotuns? Cause gaskohai is not a verbal 
participle passive? Or because there's no another preposition-less 
instrumental object that had to be dative? Greek is hypode:samenoi 
tous podas (Acc.!). Joh. 11,44 is still more interesting: gabundans 
handuns jah fotuns faskjam, (seemingly fits the above-said) jah 
wlits is auralja bibundans (it's nominative!). It makes sense in 
Greek (dedemenos tous podas kai tas cheiras keiriais kai he: ophis 
autou soudario: periededeto), but the Gothic here suffers from 
lacking copulas, right? Maybe the mere problem is that Gothic has no 
synthetic preterite passive?

> > ni muna taujan – ni man taujan? Or perhaps optative *ni munjau?

> 'muna' is here 1st pers. sg. indicative of 'munan', of the 3rd weak
> conjugation, expressing an intention for the future: I will do / I
> mean to do (rather than the preterite-present 'munan' "to 
think/believe").

Shame to confess but I simply didn't know there's a weak verb munan, 
so my previous remark is of course invalid.

> What do you think to *weggs, mi, for "wing"?  The Modern English 
word
> comes from Scandinavian; earlier, the ancestor of "feather" was 
used
> for "wing" too.  As an alternative, I wondered about a cognate of
> German Flügel, Go. *þlugils, ma?  Or a weak noun perhaps (-ila, -
ilo)?

What is the etymology of the ON vaengr I wonder? Maybe the "wing" 
semantics are not original? *Thlugils seems to be more transparent 
if we agree about having *thliugan for "to fly" (or *fliugan, but 
psst! not to provoke thl-/fl- fight again :) But if a -ils formation 
from a verb stands for "means to do it", what would be "airplane"? 
Or UFO? Could either of them be smth like *thlaugs M. –a/-i ? 
And "flight" – is it *thlauhts F. –i ? I was recently thinking of a 
word for "key", could it be *lukils M. –a (ON lykill)? (maybe I saw 
it somewhere).

> First, sorry to bring this all up again, but I'd just like to say 
that
> I hope you've accepted Vladimir's appology in the spirit it was
> offered.  I can appreciate that you were frustrated by the debate 
and
> upset by comments which might have seemed to excuse Wernher von
> Braun's work for the Nazis.  But nothing I've read on this message
> board suggests to me that Vladimir intended any offence, still 
less to
> condone the attrocities with which von Braun was involved.  I think
> your comments of May 24 were unfair.

Of course, I am deeply sorry for having afflicted other members with 
all that naz-ty arguing. Such misunderstandings (if this was really 
the case) should be dealt with, if not at all, in a private manner.

Ualarauans

> Please excuse my meddling, if this has already been sorted out...






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/wWMplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

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/