[gothic-l] Gaut, Gapt

[andreas.schwarcz at UNIVIE.AC.AT]

On 17 Jul 2001, at 22:33, keth at online.no wrote:


> 
> >monophthongisiert worden;
> Here Reichert (=R.) mentions a phenomenon called "monophtongization".
> I suppose this means that a diphtong (au, ei, oi etc..) becomes
> changed into a monophtong (= a single vowel). The relevant example in
> the case under discussion would be, if I have understood this
> correctly, the change au -> o, that took place in the development of
> Gothic. In our case this would then be further exemplified by "Gautoi"
> becoming "Gotones". I am writing it up explicitly, so that I may be
> corrected, if I have misunderstood. And corrections by those who know,
> are appreciated!
> 
Dear Keth,

to be exact, Gauthoi, would become Gothi, not Gotones, because 
-ones is a weak ending.
> 
>
> 
> Here is an important point, that is also exemplified in Old Norse, as
> I pointed out earlier. Viz. in ON manuscripts you frequently see a
> vacillation between two different ways of writing "after", namely as
> both "eptir" and "eftir". This is then taken as indication that in Old
> Norse, the "f" was not labio-dental as it is in Scandinavian languages
> today, but rather bi-labial. (please try to say an "f" without using
> the teeth) A bi-dental "f" will then mean that spellings will tend to
> vacillate. For example Gapt/Gaft.
> 
> >(Aptacharius für Authari bei Gregor von tours, vgl.8, XXVI und 107).
> (In Gregor of Tour's writings we find the PN Authari written as
> Aptacharius.)
> This is an important example of the practice.
> It surprises me that such an important example
> was not mentioned earlier. This is probably the
> Langobard king Authari who ruled from 584-590.
> Gregor of Tours (538-594) was his contemporary.
> Paulus Diaconus (725-795) writes the name as
> "Authari".

This is Authari.
> 
> 
>
> Two important elements in the proposed explanation model.
> 

> 
> >(z.b. Bauto : Oduin);
> Another example of how Latin sources spelled Gothic names that
> contained au [in Gothic].
>
Not quite, it is rather an example how names which in Frankish or 
Longobardic containes an au changed to o in Gothic.
  
> >für eine eindeutige Klärung der ursachen ist das Material zu gering
> (for a unique clarification of the causes, the available material is
> too little.)
> 
> >Daß, falls sowohl Gapt als auch Gauthigoth auf Cassiodor zurückgehen,
> (that, in case both Gapt and Gauthigoth go back to Cassiodor,
> the latter followed differing spelling traditions, may be for
> different reasons, that do not necessarily have anything to do with
> the pronounciation.)
> 
> Here is also an important point, and it is indeed very instructive to
> put the two names Gapt and Gautigoth (both from the Getica) next to
> each other for the purpose of comparison. For, if - as hypothesis
> seeks to establish - Gapt is indeed only a specific chancellary style
> of spelling Gaut, then uniformity in the use of spelling rules, seems
> to require that the Getica (or Cassiodor's lost Historia upon which
> the Getica is based) contain no Gothic names or words that contain the
> cluster -aut-. But since the name Gautigoth obviously does not conform
> to such a hypthesis of uniformity in the applied spelling rules, one
> is left rather baffeled. R. comments that such variable spelling rules
> may have different causes, and that such causes are not necessarily
> related to pronounciation.
> 

> 
> I am not familiar with the "Variae". But it sounds like it might be
> interesting to take a look at them. In the above Latin quote that you
> were kind enough to point to, is also exemplified why I think access
> to the Latin source is so important. In fact, when I read Nordin's no
> doubt correct transalation, he uses the word sägner (legends), whereas
> the Latin text has "fabulis".
> 
> Kind regards
> Keth
> 
I quite agree with the necessity to read them in Latin.
 
> PS My comment: What I missed was, if possible, a pointer towards
> the rarity of the cluster -apt- in Germanic PN's. For if this
> is a cluster that _only_ occurs in Gapt, the it is very
> reasonable to see it as something accidental. If it only occurs
> in Latin renderings of Germanic PN's, but is extremely rare
> in Germanic phonology, then it appears reasonable to eliminate
> all such clusters from Germanic PN's in Latin manuscripts where it is
> relevant. During our discussion I did however point to such words as
> ON "raft" (with bi-dental f), and wondered if the Vandal name "Raptus"
> may not be etymologized in terms of such wooden structures as
> indicated in ON "raft". (the example was supplied by Dirk)
> 
> 
To complicate things further, we must also take into account that 
late antique and early medieval scibes did not distinguish between 
u and v and used both letters either as vowels or as consonants. 
Thus Rausus could have been spoken Rafsus and Raptus been 
spoken Raftus or Rautus. And Gaut and Gapt could both have 
been spoken Gaut and Gaft.

Kind regards
                      Andreas Schwarcz
Ao.Univ.Prof.Dr.Andreas Schwarcz
Institut für österreichische Geschichtsforschung
Universität Wien
Dr.Karl Lueger-Ring 1
A-1010 Wien
Österreich
Tel.0043/1/42-77/272-16
Fax 0043/142-77/92-72

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/