[gothic-l] Gaut=Gapt

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

No, Much is not mentioned but Birkhan,
Bruckner, Knudsen, Lind, Muellenhoff,
Reichert himself, _Sveriges medeltida
personnamn_, Wagner and Wolfram.
No Much. "Everybody" is not, it seems,
quoting Much.

Well, the view you offer on De Vries
is certainly subjective, but as I am not
very familiar with De Vries, I withhold any
comment on him and his work. He is, after
all, only one researcher of many and he is
not alone in bringing up other scholars' views.

Well, here is what you wrote:

<Note that he uses the verb "aufgefasst" < 
>"aufassen" = to interpret,
<or in Swedish "uppfatta".

Or do you have another interpretation of
what you wrote? So your lengthy
explanation underneath of the meaning
of "auffassen" in German is interesting
but you actually translate Swedish "uppfatta"
as interpret. My view is that tolka is a better
usage in Swedish than "uppfatta", but we
might difffer on that count. Anyway, a further
discussion of this detail does not bring
us much closer to Gaut as Gothic progenitor.

Further down you repeat you statement on
Much, but as I wrote above, Much is not among
Professor Reichert's sources.

How do you know there are no such Greek
documents?

Then there is the repetition for the third time of
your Much guess, but the answer now
as above is: no, Reichert does not refer
to Much.

On Hoeffler I can only say that I agree
with his interpretation that Gaut equals Gapt.
I am quite happy with letting you differ
in this respect and I happen to believe
that there is a high probability
that Gaut/Gapt was believed by the Goths
to be the progenitor of the Gothic people.

Personally I think we have reached as far as we
can here. If Gaut/Gapt was not the progenitor
of the Gothic people, what would your, undoubtedly
extensive research, suggest instead?

Gothically

Bertil



These explanations have already been posted
to the list. I do not think Reichert has a different
explanation. If he does, please say so. The explanation
is unlikely to be more than a few lines any way.
The explanation goes back to R. Much in "Zeitschrift für
deutsches Altertum", 41, 1896, pp. 95-96.
which I quoted as one of the footnotes of Jan de Vries
That ought to be the basic reference that everybody quotes.
I'll bet that is the one Reichert bases himself upon as well.

I am not devoted to de Vries's views. It just happens that
he wrote some of the basic reference works on the topic.
His advantage is that he manages to stay objective.
That is his achievement. He lost his job after the war.
But that's another story. In spite of that, the scientific
community has continued to hold his view in high regard.
That can only be seen as an attest to its quality, and objectivity.

He is not just one voice. His book discusses the different views
up to his time in an objective and useful manner, where he
gives exact references and balances the different views.

Did I say that English "to interpret" means Swedish "uppfatta"?
I think not. I said that German "aufassen" means "to interpret" in English.
(De Vries used the German word "aufassen", and I tried to
give a rough translation of this word for the benefit of our English
readers)
Here is Cassel's German-English dictionary:
AUFASSEN: apprehend, comprehend, understand, grasp,
take in (ideas etc.); regard, consider, see, view, conceive of,
interpret (phenomena);

In particular, note the last entry in connection with "phenomena".
This is the scientific usage of the word. Because that is what science
deals with: phenomena and how to interpret them.

Then I ALSO said that German "aufassen" is the same as Swedish "uppfatta".
(which seems reasonable)  Aufassen, eine Aufassung = an opinion.
(See Muret-sanders Deutsch-Englisch p. 112: 2 Auffassung (Meinung,
Ansicht): "nach meiner Auffassung" = in my view or opinion, to my
mind, as I see it. Muret-Sanders is one of the better German English
"Großwörterbücher")

I'd think they both refer to R. Much's 1897 article, don't they?
But you don't need "access" to de Vries, since I already copied
what he said, and sent it to the list. I even included the
foot-notes. I think I even saw you answerering that post
using the same header. And so you cannot say that you missed it.
Is the "Hoop's" article so terribly long that you cannot
quote it in its entirety?


See my quote from de Vries that I posted yesterday.
It is in R.Much 1897. The only problem is that
we do not know of any such Greek manuscripts.
The existence of such manuscripts is only a hypothesis.

And if it was as easy as that, then "Rhaus and Raptus"
ought to be changed too, don't you think?
But nobody does change manuscripts. They let them stay
as they are. That is because in science one separates
very strictly between fact and interpretation of fact.


Doesn't Hoops merely repeat the 1897 explanation by R.Much
that was already posted several times to the list?
(see my full quote from De Vries that I posted)

>I am sure Stavanger university library contains the
>Hoops 2nd edition.

How can you be so sure ?
I searched all Norwegian libraries on the internet, and
found only Hoops 1911. Wait: I found volume 11:
Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde / von Johannes Hoops.
Gemeinde - Geto-dakische Kultur und Kunst.
Bd. 11
1998.
pages:  16, 577 s.
ISBN:  3-11-015832-9
Eiere: HVO NBO UBB UBIT UBTØ UHS
The problem is that Gaus or Gapt wouldn't be in volume 11, would it?
(and I couldn't find volume 10 in all of Norway.)
Your recommendation hence seems utterly vain.
And reaching any of the Norwegian university libraries
would be quite a trip for me right now.

Besides it is just a couple of lines isn't it?
Please tell me how many sentences Reichert devotes to it.
I think it would be terrible if I went to a lot of trouble digging
up these references that you keep repeating, and I were then to
discover that they say essentially what de Vries is saying
and not devoting much more space to it either.
And besides, all they do is discuss various theories and assumptions
isn't it? But discussion cannot alter facts. And it is the facts
of the case that I am keen about now.

But here is merely a repeating of the same opinion that everybody
else is repeating, isn't he? Besides, we discussed Otto Höfler
on the German list a couple of years ago, and it seems his idea was to
prove certain ideas he had about "Männerbünde". I have never
had a chance to take a look at what he wrote. You do not find him
a bit seculative?






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/