[gothic-l] Gaut/Gapt

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

Did I write primary source?

No, Hoops has its own homepage
in Goettingen.

No, I don't own a copy of Hoops 2nd. ed.
Unfortunately I must have missed your
search on Hoops. You have posted a
great amount of messages.

Wel, I think it would be advisable to read
the whole articles and I have already posted
summaries in English.

My view is that Gaut equals Gapt, that's
all.

Will be glad to leave this subject if you
feel it has been exhausted. For the listmembers
I will contribute a list of my sources on Gaut/Gapt.

Gothically

Bertil

> Surely you don't mean that de Vries is a primary "source"?
> He is secondary literature of the standard reference type.
> He discusses sources, but IS not source.
>
> I did not like it when you suggested that I
> was "dedicated" to de Vries. Everybody who has his
> etymological dictionary uses it, simply because
> it is a very good dictionary. But when you use
> such words as "dedicated", you are making me angry.
> I use all the books I have and quote those that
> are pertinent when the information is objective.

> I am sorry to disappoint you that I did not
> have a chance to take a look at the homepage of
> the de Gruyter Verlag yet. But I did look at it some
> years ago.  I suppose you are very lucky to own a copy
> of the Reallexicon.

> From where you got the idea that the Reallexicon articles are
> so sensitive to "nuances" that they cannot be translated?
> That sounds incredible to me. Scientific/scholarly comments
> are actually among the easiest materials to translate.
> That is because they write in an objective manner.

> As I said, I will have no chance to visit any univesity library
> this summer. Hope you can accept that.

> Well, you are wrong then.
> I did an etensive e-search of ALL Norwegian university
> libraries one or two days ago, and posted the result to
> the list. Didn't you see it? It was in answer to your
> concern. The volume in question was nowhere to be found
> in ANY norwegian library. Sweden yes, Norway no.

> Yes, but all of those 50 pages wouldn't be necessary to
> read in order to answer the simple questions that were asked
> on the list. Anderson's article is irrelevant to the question
> what Jordanes actually wrote in the Getica. Only a perusal
> of the Getica itself can answer that question.
> And as you saw, Francisc already did an exhaustive
> search of the text, and confirmed what the commentators
> were all saying with an unanimous voice.
> It is you who is wrong there Bertil.

> Now can we move on please?



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/