[gothic-l] Re: Gaut, Gapt

[malmqvist52 at YAHOO.SE]

Hi all,
--- In gothic-l at y..., andreas.schwarcz at u... wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2001, at 22:33, keth at o... 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.
> 
I really can't follow the logic here. Why would you write Raptus when 
it should be pronounced Rautus? Are these aknowleged latin spelling 
rules? I know that the sound changes v>f (i think i recall the term 
assimilation from the linguistics course as in ru. avtomat- here 
becaus the v is next to a t), p>f , b>v and v>w, Theese changes of 
course ocurrs as time passes. Thus I have never seen a case in wich p 
instantly is turned into an u. 

Regards
Anders


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/