SV: [gothic-l] Gothic

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

Thank you for your view on the text provided
in the encyclopedia on Germanic Languages
of the publishers Routledge.

The extensive linguistic expertise which is standing
behind the encyclopedia (I noted that no Swede was
included, and as matter of fact, I was´nt  surprised).

"Gradually" does not necessarily imply a long 
period. How fast is fast?

Yes, this would be in agreement with Hoops 2nd ed.
which acknowledge that the earliest "pure" (echt
germ.) writing can be found around 200 AD in Denmark.
The origin of inscriptions in the old futhark are mainly
found on Scandinavian runestones with of the Germanic
language culture being mainly oral.

Gothically

Bertil



> >"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!



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/