[gothic-l] Gaut not mentioned in Jordanes.

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Bertil, I still distinguish between facts and assumptions, don't you?

I think we can safely say that "Gaut" is not mentioned in Jordanes.

Here is how Jan de Vries explains it:
"...von Grimm als eine Verschreibung für GAUT aufgefaßt,.."
Note that he uses the verb "aufgefasst" < "aufassen" = to interpret,
or in Swedish "uppfatta".

One of the differences between "fakta" and "uppfattningar"
(=mening/åsikt) is that "fakta" is someting that everybody
must, through natural necessity, agree upon, whereas "uppfattningar"
(=Aufassungen) are interpretations of facts, and they (the inter-
pretations/Aufassungen) differ from person to person.

Thus, when de Vries writes: "Wenn man von der Auffassung ausgeht, daß..."
then he does not mean that he will base his reasonings upon  facts,
but rather on an assumption (=Auffassung). (ausgehen von = to proceed
from).

Here is another excerpt from Jan de Vries, which again clearly
shows that these are assumptions. He writes:

"Das läßt sich doch weit besser erklären, wenn man annimt..."
(this can be explained far better, when one supposes that...)
Again you see that he says "wenn man annimt.." (if [or when]
one supposes that ...) The verb used is "annehmen" (=to suppose).

The vocabulary used by de Vries, clearly shows that he is
discussing the interpretation of facts.

Here is the sentence that de Vries finishes his paragraph with:
"Ob er deshalb damals schon mit Wodan durchaus gleichgestzt war,
 muß unentschieden bleiben."
(Whether he therefore already then was generally equated with
Wodan, must remain undecided."
So you see that de Vries' last word on the mattter is the word
"unentschieden" (=undecided), a word that, if I am not mistaken,
should be quite familiar across all language barriers. It would
be what they use in football (=Fußball, soccer) when a football
match has no winner, because both sides scored an equal number of
goals.

If this is so hard to understand or agree upon (difference
between facts and assumptions), then dialogue becomes very
difficult, nay imposible.


Bertil wrote:
>Yes, that is correct, Gaut is mewntioned with
>the variation Gapt and in Hoops there is the
>explanation why this form was used (Gaut § 1, p.
>485 in the second ed.). Gapt/Gaut are identical.
>The difference is due to a technicality.

I am also flabbergasted at how you use the verb "to be"
in the above quote. You say "are" identical".
Clearly it is not mathematical identity, since the letters
differ. The identity is only an assumption that was made by
Jacob Grimm way back in the 19th century, and that researchers
since then "trotz Müllenhoffs Widerspruch die späteren Forscher fast
ohne Ausnahme gefolgt" (in spite of Mülenhoff's disagreement, the
later researchers followed [this assumption] almost without
exception/ de Vries, op.cit.)

If a well known and influential scholar like Müllenhoff saw
fit to disagree, then it clearly cannot be facts that we are
dealing with, but rather different "uppfattningar" of the facts.
(Auffassungen/interpretations of the facts).



And even your countryman Andreas Nordin (1997 translator and commentator
of Jordanes Getica) is honest enough to translate the Latin text
"as is", that is, "not to change so much as a iota", which was the
ancient Jewish maxim of how to go about it when copying the ancient
and sacred texts.

That is why the name "Gaut" does not occur _even_once_ in Nordin's
translation of the Getica. Even when he translates the Latin text
he leaves the spelling of the proper names unchanged.
(see Nordin's Getica edition, Atlantis, Stockholm 1997, pages 70-71)
It is only in the commentary section (see page 216, op.cit.)
that he mentions Gaut as alternative for Gapt. And incidentally,
this is exactly one of the things that reviewers of the book
ought to take notice of, that Nordin's commentary in my opinion
fails here. Clearly he ought to have followed the responsible
attitude as exemplified by well-established and accepted
authorities such as Jan de Vries and others: to state more
clearly that this identity is only an assumption, and also
at least briefly mention what kind of facts the assumption
is based upon.


>Gothically

I hope "gothically" does not mean the opposite of "sceptically".

With sceptical greetings
Keth

>
>Bertil
>
>> Bertil, "Gaut" is NOT mentioned in Jordanes.
>
>> I'm very surprised to see you write it.
>> (Look in Nordin's index to the Getica. There is no Gaut)



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/