Toledo

[OSCAR HERRERA]

--- faltin2001 <d.faltin at hispeed.ch> wrote:

> it should stand as unclear dirk....when the goths
invaded spain it contends that they drove out other
enemys there which included the roman legions there
and others, etc....oscar
> Hi Oscar,
> 
> are the many question marks an expression of
> disbelief or a sign that 
> you are unclear about the content of my comment?
> 
> Just to clarify, there is really no doubt today that
> the Visigoths 
> who settled in Spain after 507 didn't speak Gothic,
> but Latin or 
> better a Latin military pidgin that included
> Germanic terms. The fact 
> that all royal documents issued by Visigothic kings
> are in Latin 
> shouldn't surprise. The same is true for Italy. Yet,
> even in private 
> and Arian church documents there is no use and not
> even a reference 
> to an other language, let alone Gothic. In Italy at
> least some 
> private and clerical documents use Gothic, albeit in
> a static, archic 
> and formulaic way that shows that the language was
> more or less dead 
> already in daily use. 
> 
> Also, like in Italy, Visigothic kings never seem to
> have need for 
> interpreters. They can speak freely communicated
> with the natives, 
> which would at least require them to have been
> bilingual. Finally, 
> the Frankish Tabula Gentes of 550 AD suggests
> directly that the 
> Visigoths of Spain were Latin-speakers. 
> 
> I suppose the federate army under Wallia who entered
> Spain in the 
> early 5th century would have been mostly
> Gothic/Germanic speaking. 
> Yet, in the subsequent 3 or 4 generations in Gaul
> Gothic was no doubt 
> abandoned in favour of Latin. When the Gothic
> kingdom was destroyed 
> by the Franks in 507, the remaining refugees who
> fled to Spain would 
> have ben Latin/Romanic speakers. And again, the
> documentary evidence 
> of the subsequent decades allows for no other
> conclusion.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dirk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, OSCAR HERRERA
> <duke.co at ...> wrote:
> >
> > ????????????
> > 
> > faltin2001 <d.faltin at ...> wrote:          --- In
> gothic-
> l at yahoogroups.com, "Abdoer-Ragmaan Lombard" 
> > <manielombard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps I've used an unsuitable font, so here a
> repost:
> > > 
> > > Could Tulaytula, the Arabic form of Toledo, have
> 
> > > been derived from *Tôlêtula", a Gothic
> hypocorism of *Tôlêtô < 
> Latin 
> > > Tôlêtum? Perhaps *Taúlêtô should be regarded as
> the Gothic etymon 
> > > (long unstressed "ô" having merged in Vulgar
> Latin with 
> short /o/, 
> > and 
> > > seeing that Arabic uses a short "u" preceded by
> an emphatic t, in 
> > > order to reproduce an "o"; long "ê" is given as
> "ay" [= "ê" in 
> spoken 
> > > Arabic]), which would give *Taúlêtula.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I don't think so, because the Goths in Spain
> didn't speak Gothic, 
> but 
> > Latin or some vulgar Latin with a few
> Germanic/Gothic remnants. The 
> > Tabula gentes of about 550AD suggests so, and
> there is no hint that 
> > they had any difficulties communicating with the
> local population 
> in 
> > Romanic without interpretors.There is also no
> indication that 
> written 
> > Gothic was used in Gaul or Spain. After all, the
> Goths in Gaul and 
> > Spain were a Roman federate army, which also
> included many Roman 
> > provincials and Latin was no doubt the lingua
> franca of the various 
> > western Gothic groups since the 5th century. 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Dirk
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >          
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070702/13f3a908/attachment.htm>