[gothic-l] Gothic

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Hi Bertil,

>Of course the global use of English,
>makes the Germanic group one of the most important
>language groups.

Then only to get the oil companies (often run by Anglo's!)
to channel research money into the prehistory of the
language(s) they depend on. Perhaps "Gothoil" = new brand name? ;)


>"The modest beginnings of this evolution seem to be found
>in the southern Baltic region (northern Germany, the Danish
>Isles, southern Scandinavia) which according to accepted
>opinion had been settled by speakers of Indo-European
>around 1000 BC.

This part is rather doubtful.
I have seen claims made that in S Norway, Indo-European
was spoken before 2000 BC. I did see objections made.
But they seemed rather based upon caution than anything
else; i.e. on the maxim that one should never assume more
than strictly necessary in order to explain the facts
as they present themselves to us.

But apart from these objections based on caution, there
were no counterarguments that were based on positive
evidence at all. In fact, the positive evidence, scant
as it was, pointed to IE in S.Norway before 2000 BC.


>They encountered speakers of non-Indo-
>European origin, gradually changed their Proto-Indo-European
>into Proto-Germanic,

Again: Doubtful.
The evidence and reasoning that I saw (1997) rather
said the opposite: (proto) Germanic is a new language that
must have arisen FAST.  In other words, the process that
led from Indo-European to (proto) Germanic must have happened
within a few generations. I'd like to add (these are strictly
my own thoughts - I think - am not quite sure any more) that
such quick change must have occurred within a relatively small
and isolated area.


>and dispersed beyond the original homeland
>to occupy the region from the North Sea stretching to the
>River Vistula in Poland by 500 BC. The languages spoken during this
>period is only attested indirectly, in the foreign words, usually
>proper names, used by Greek and Latin authors, and in early
>loans in neighbouring and co-territorial languages, especially
>Finno-Ugric and Baltic. The earliest direct records are
>Scandinavian runic inscriptions from the beginning of the
>third century."

In fact, the Illerup-Årdal runes found in Denmark, were
determined to have come from S.Norway with an invading
army. Date: ca. 200 AD. They attest the Nordic language.
(PN's Vagnio and Svarta IIRC)


>What is your opinion on the Lehmann etymological work?

I asked the same question on this list when I first
obtained it last fall. But the answers I received did
not go either way. (neither positive nor negative)
My own opinion: The meagre language material we have of
Gothic (mainly Wulfila) precludes the possibility of
creating a dictionary comparable to Jan de Vries' "Alt-
nordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch." But, having a
copy of Lehmann is definitely better than not having one.
The tables at the back of the book, that list words
from other languages that are etymologically linked to
(known) Gothic words, is nice.

The only thing I can say, is that I have a feeling
it would be possible to expand Lehmann's work somewhat.
At first I thought that he has not sufficiently included
the proper names found in Latin and Greek source. But when
I just tried to check, I did find Ermanaric and Ostrogotha.
But Theoderic I did not find; though that may be because
I wasn't looking under the right letter. Sunilda I couldn't
find either (just randomly picking some Gothic PN's that
I know are in the Getica). I therefore think an additional
section about Gothic PN's as well as place names (geographic
termini) would have been a most wellcome addition to Lehmann's
book. Esapecially also an index where the names could be
looked up in their Latin (or Greek) forms, as they have come
down to us in the manuscripts, and then etymological
pointers to what Gothic words they are linked to.

The bibliography section is, however, very extensive. (119 pages)
There you can see, for example, that Sigmund Feist began in
1888 with "Grundriß der Gotischen Etymologie".
And Leo Meyer 1869: "Die gotische Sprache."
The great majority of references are later than this. But I
cannot say off-hand if Meyer is the earliest linguist who
wrote specifically about the Gothic language (and not just
generally on the Germanic languages). For that I'd have to
go through all of the 119 pages!

Best regards
Keth


>
>Concerning the study of the Goths I think a reasonable
>starting point is the Middle Ages. In Spain for instance
>there is an extensive corpus of studies of the Goths,
>which I intend to return to.
>
>Thank you for your interesting discussion concerning
>the question if Paulus Diaconus knew of Jordanes
>and _Getica_.
>

>Let us begin with the earliest (I know of), which is Paulus
>Diaconus.  So the question has been raised: "Did Paulus know
>about the Getica"? I consulted the index of the "Historia"
>but found only a reference to Cassiodorus, also known "Senator".
>The two books do however overlap to some extent, wherefore Paulus
>mentions Theudericus rex Gotorum,  Rodolfos rex Herolorum *)
>as well as Odoacar rex Turcillingorum. So we see then, that
>Paulus Diaconus, even if seeming to be unacquainted
>with Jordanes, he does mention the Gothi (sic) and can,
>thus, be put on the "read" list for things Gothic.



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/