[gothic-l] Gapt

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Thank you Ingemar, for your explanation of Gapt!

You wrote:
>As a matter of fact the word Gapt is considered to be a mistake by a
>copist. The Gothic 'u', similar to a Runic 'u' looks very much like a
>Greek 'pi'. The copist took if for a Greek letter. That is all with that
>mystery!

Well, that certainly sounds like "Columbi Egg" !
Once you see it, it is obvious. I had simply
forgotten that Jordanes uses the Greek "pi" for
the sound "p". But once you mentioned it, I
looked in Braune, page 14, and then it was easy
to verify that the two signs Jordanes uses for
"p" and "u" are indeed quite similar.

I should nevertheless like to still hold an open eye
towards the possibility that it actually is "Gapt"
and not "Gaut". As Bertil mentioned, there are
about 12 different manuscripts, and ALL have "Gapt"
and none have "Gaut". One has "Capit".

Thus the probability is much greater that it actually is "Gapt"
from a strictly graphic point of view. It is only when we
think we know that it "ought" to be Gaut - because they
say so in Iceland - that we lend greater weight to the
possibility of a scribal error (a scribal error that would
then have affected 100% of the manuscripts;  since they all
have p, and none have u)

The reason, that I'd like to be cautious, is because I
think "Gapt" as the name of a progenitor makes as much sense as
"Gaut". That is because it is so similar to the name "Gepide".
And if the Goths have their Gaut, then it is only logical
that the Gepids should have their Gapt!


>Concerning Rolf Hachmann "Die Goten und Skandinavien" it is a very good
>book, I have read it very intensively from beginning to end. However his
>argument against a migration from Scandinavia does not hold altogether
>because he admits diverse local emigrations. Also his way of estimating
>the extense of arrable land in connection to his estimated population
>has its faults. In my book I have treated him thoroughly and argued his
>weak points. You must also remember that he all the time seem to work to
>prove that the Goths originated elsewhere.Finally he ends upp with
>admitting he can not prove the Goths were continental nor that they were
>Scandinavian. Still he regards also the Gauts as Goths. The conclusion
>is that he has made a very honest book which is quite recommendable and
>that shows Hachmann is a very serious researcher.

It is sometimes good methodology to work to establish the opposite
hypothesis. But after all there are quite a few Germanic tribes
where it is difficult to look beyond the horizon of, say, Tacitus.
I still don't understand how Scandinavia came to be Germanic
(languagewise)

Thank you very much for your elucidation!
W. best regards,
Keth



You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/