Attila's speech

Mon Sep 3 16:01:51 UTC 2007

Dear Frederick,

it's your right to unsubscribe whenever you wish, but please don't 
judge Ualarauans that way. Some members of this Gothi-L (including 
me) tried, several years ago, to translate in Gothic the beginning 
section of "Getica". We didn't regard this as history, but rather as 
a sort of literary work-up of Gothic mythology. "Getica" doesn't 
represent for us (or for me at least) a reliable source for Gothic 
history, but rather a piece of Gothic literature written in Latin. 
Therefore, it looks more appropriate to test our skills to translate 
into Gothic on a fragment of "Getica" than, let's say, on 
the "Aeneid".

Francisc

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Frederick Louis Scoggins 
<scoggins3375 at ...> wrote:
>
> ualarauans wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all fans of the Gothic language (if some are still alive out
> > here ;-).
> >
> > Having revised the text over and over again I've arrived at the
> > following version. All major emendations are listed below. The 
words
> > in <...> have no matches in the Latin original but seem to be 
rather
> > indispensable in Gothic. Your recommendations are, as before,
> > welcome.
> >
> > (Getica 202-206 Gothice uersa)
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > [Attila qaþ:]
> >
> > Afar sigiza swalaudaizo þiudo, afar midjungard, jabai gastandaiþ,
> > gatamidana, until domidedjau <izwis> swaswe unweisans waihtais
> > waurdam inwagjan. Sokjai þata andizuh niujis drauhtins aiþþau
> > unfraisans harjis. Nih mis binauht ist hva gamainjata rodjan, nih
> > izwis skuld ist hausjan. Hva raihtis anþar jus nibai militon 
biuhtai
> > <sijuþ>? Aiþþau hva gumin swinþamma woþizo þau fraweit handau
> > sokjan? Mikila giba <ist> at wistai ahmans fragildis sadans 
briggan.
> > Anaqimaima nu andastaþi mundrai: balþizans sind sinteino þaiei
> > farand du harjon. Gaqumanaim frakunneiþ missaleikaim þiudom: 
bandwo
> > faurhteins ist gamainduþai driugan. Sai faura ufarruna unsaramma
> > agisa ju dishabanda, hlaina sokjand, haugans nimand jah <in> 
seiþjai
> > idreigai in haiþjom tulgiþos usbidand. Kunþ izwis ist hvan sijaina
> > leihta Rumone sarwa: frumein jan-ni qiþa wundufnjai, ak silbin
> > stubjau kaurjanda, miþþanei in tewai gagaggand jah hansos <in>
> > skildubaurg gawidand. Jus haifstjaiþ gastoþaim ahmam swe biuhtai,
> > fra-h-kunnandans harja ize Allanans dissitiþ, in Wisugutans
> > atdriusiþ. Þaruh uns adrata sigis sokjan <skuld ist>, þarei sik
> > habaiþ waihjo. Afmaitanai þan <af> sinwom suns liþjus afsliupand,
> > nih mag standan leik þammei baina usnimis. Urreisaina ahmans, moþs
> > swikunþs ufarwahsjai. Nu mitonins, Huneis, nu wepna uslukiþ: jabai
> > gawundoþs hvas – andastaþjis dauþu gatilo, aiþþau hails – fijande
> > slauhtais gasoþjaidau. Þans sigizwairþjans ni ainohun arhvazno
> > undrinniþ, þans dauþubljans jah in rimisa waiwaurds gadrauseiþ. Bi
> > spedistin duhve Wodans Hunins ana swa managaim þiudom hroþeigans
> > ustaiknida, nibai du þizos haifstais swegniþai gamanwidedi? 
Þaþroþ-
> > þan hvas Aujo wig þaim airizam unsaraim gabairhtida þana swa 
laggos
> > aldins galukanan fulginana? Hvas nauh þaim wepnalausam gakunnan
> > gatawida þans gawepnodans? Andawleizn Hune ni mahtedun bairan
> > galisanai alamans. Ik ni afairzjada bi þata habando gadaban: her
> > akrs ist þanei unsis swa managos ansteis gahaihaitun. Fruma in
> > andastaþi spiuta gawairpa. Jabai hvas magi <at> Attilin weihandin
> > gahveilain <sis> haban, gafulhans ist.
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > tantarum = swalaudaizo "so great" instead of swa managaizo "so
> > many". The Latin word can mean both, but since only Lat. tot is 
used
> > for "so many" throughout the fragment we may probably argue that
> > here Jordanes (Attila) emphasized the "greatness" (numerical value
> > of each), not just plain number, of the nations that had been
> > conquered by the Huns up to the day of the Catalaunic battle.
> >
> > autem "indeed" = raihtis (was: sweþauh). Not that I can 
sufficiently
> > support this choice with arguments. I just feel this sounds 
better.
> >
> > ante impetum "before [our] attack" = faura ufarruna. Actually when
> > (re-)constructing *ufarruns M.-i (cf. Mod. Engl. "to overrun",
> > Germ. "überrennen", albeit with a slightly different meaning) I
> > didn't recall Greek EPIDROMH which fits perfectly in for 
translating
> > Lat. impetus. It's not easy to think that the Goths were lacking
> > such a word in their otherwise presumably very rich military 
lexicon
> > so that they had to calque Greek. Still, as far as nothing better 
is
> > in sight, this would do. Compare additionally Go. ufarmeleins
> > (ufarmeli) for Gr. EPIGRAFH, ufarhiminakunds for EPOURANIOS and
> > other examples where Go. ufar- = Gr. EP(I)-. Go. runs stands in 
the
> > Bible for Gr. DROMOS "running" as well as RUSIS "flow".
> >
> > nota uobis sunt "you know", lit. [these things (neuter plural)] 
are
> > familiar to you" = kunþ izwis ist (singular) replacing kunþa izwis
> > sind (plural). I asked the question whether this plural was good
> > Latin or an error on a mailing list dedicated to Latin studies
> > (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Latinitas/ 
> > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Latinitas/>) and I was told 
that
> > it is certainly wrong here and that most likely Jordanes was
> > thinking about the word Lat. arma "arms" (equally neuter plural)
> > following in the subordinate clause. Well, for Lat. arma my Gothic
> > has sarwa, neuer plural as well, and one could be inclined to keep
> > this (erroneous) peculiarity (plural kunþa izwis sind) as a trait 
of
> > Jordanes' authorship. Still, good Gothic would demand singular, 
like
> > Latin. (see e.g. Eph. 3:5).
> >
> > et acies testudineque conectunt = jah hansos <in> skildubaurg
> > gawidand. Undoubtedly the most obscure place in the whole 
fragment.
> > Mierow has it as "and forming in one line with locked shields".
> > Apart from asking whether Go. hansa (actually "band of
> > warriors", "cohort") is good enough to render Lat. acies the form
> > testudineque seems to be quite out of sense here. My Gothic is
> > literally "and [they] join their cohorts together in a "fortress 
of
> > shields". Using -baurgs also helps me avoid addressing the 
question
> > what case – dative or accusative – must be put in here ;-)
> >
> > se continet "finds itself" = sik habaiþ (instead of sik gahabaiþ).
> > The latter seems to have a different attested meaning ("to 
obstain").
> >
> > abscisa autem neruis mox membra relabuntur (Mierow's) "when the
> > sinews are cut the limbs soon relax" = afmaitanai þan <af> sinwom
> > suns liþjus afsliupand. In the draft version I translated this
> > thinking that abscisa autem neruis must be absolute dative that
> > needs correction => abscisis autem neruis. Jordanes often makes
> > mistakes in his Latin, after all. But then I was told by experts
> > that abscisa in fact refers to membra, so it's the "limbs" which
> > are "cut off the sinews", literally. Hence the new Gothic reading.
> >
> > postremo "finally" = bi spedistin (was: bi aftumin). The first is
> > factually attested in Mc. 16:14.
> >
> > cur fortuna Hunnos tot gentium uictores adseret, nisi ad 
certaminis
> > huius gaudia praeparasset? (Mierow's) "why should Fortune have 
made
> > the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to 
prepare
> > them for the joy of this conflict?" = duhve Wodans Hunins ana swa
> > managaim þiudom hroþeigans ustaiknida, nibai du þizos haifstais
> > swegniþai gamanwidedi? As you see I chose a descriptional way of
> > saying this, namely "why should Wodan have caused the Huns to
> > triumph over so many nations..." (see the same turn of speech in 2
> > Cor. 2:14), instead of trying to literally imitate Latin. Some may
> > wonder why it's Wodan who helps the Huns and even (in the next
> > sentence) opens them the way into Oium, but this as I said
> > is "interpretatio Gothica", much like Roman authors (Julius 
Caesar,
> > Tacitus) who described the ancient Germani worshipping Mercurius,
> > Iuppiter, Mars etc implying they were honored under their Germanic
> > names, i.e. *Wodanaz, *Þunraz, *Teiwaz respectively 
("interpretatio
> > Romana"). Whenever a Goth was in need of referring to a Hunnish 
god
> > of battle and war fortune, Wodan was the most likely candidate to 
be
> > mentioned, if the person wanted to avoid long explanations and
> > awkwardly sounding foreign names. There was such a thing as "pagan
> > religious isomorphism", after all (hope I got the right word). 
And,
> > of course, I am not going to raise again the debate whether the
> > historical Goths knew the name of Wodan or not. If someone knows a
> > better (and more verifiable) option, let it be said here.
> >
> > ad certaminis huius gaudia "for the joys of this battle" = du 
þizos
> > haifstais swegniþai (was: fahedai). Swegniþa (Gr. AGALLIASIS) as
> > well as the corresponding verb swegnjan (AGALLIASQAI, BRABEUEIN)
> > seem to pertain more to "triumph" than faheþs, faginon which refer
> > to "joy" in general.
> >
> > Well, that's all for now. If there are no objections on the part 
of
> > other listmembers, could we have this text put into the files
> > section of Gothic-L?
> >
> > Ualarauans
> >
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 
9/2/2007 4:32 PM
> >   
> Dear Ualarauans,
> 
> After this short message I shall unsubscribe from the Gothic 
newsletter. 
> First you are obviously deceived into thinking that the entire 
writtings 
> of Jordanes are accurate instead of the cut and paste propaganda of 
a 
> third rate political and religious hack who tried to deceive 
readers 
> into accepting it as the condensed work of a lost Roman historian. 
> Jordanes may be a source but he ranks somewhat below Goering and 
has the 
> same glorious interpretation of Germanic history as the Nazis had. 
If I 
> were to discover that you had facist inclinations it would not 
surprise 
> me in the least. In your favor of course is your language skills, 
they 
> appear admirable! Please enjoy your past time by yourself...
> 
> Goodbye,
> 
> Frederick Louis Scoggins
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070903/1c247494/attachment.htm>