[gothic-l] Re: Yiddish is based on Ostrogothic

[czobor at CANTACUZINO.RO]

Dear Mr. Labkovsky,

I also cited a very recent edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica
(Encyclopaedia Britannica 2001 Deluxe Edition on CD-ROM), that speaks
about dialects, not different languages.
I am definitely not more informed than the Encyclopaedia, but such an
Encyclopaedia gives inevitably essential and condensed information.
For Gothic, the Bible traslation is far the most importatnt
attestation, but there are also other attestations (the Skeireins or
Biblic commentary, the Gothic signatures on deeds written in Latin in
6th centuyry Italy, the Gothic calendar, the Gothic alphabets of the
9/10th century, some glosses in Latin texts, and Busbecq's list of
Crimean Gothic words and phrases). Inndeed, in most Encyclopaedias
(not only in Britannica), only the Bible is mentioned.
But - ATTENTION! In Encyclopaedia Britannica (2001 Deluxe Edition on
CD-ROM) is written:
"Most of the modern knowledge of Gothic is derived from the remains of
the translation of the Bible into Gothic that was made by Ulfilas in
the 4th century AD for the Visigothic tribes living along the lower
Danube."
Thus, MOST, not ALL of our knowledge of Gothic is derived from the
Gothic Bible. The condensed character of an article in an
Encyclopaedia does not allow to enumerate exhaustively all the
sources. It gives only the most important.
And - ATTENTION again! The next statement in Encyclopedia Britannica
reads:
"The surviving manuscripts [of the Gothic Bible] are copies probably
made in northern Italy during the period of Ostrogothic rule
(493-554)."
Thus what we have of the (Visi-)Gothic Bible are Ostrogothic copies!
And that is written in Encyclopaedia Britannica, your most prefered
reference!
What do you think, why should copy the Ostrogoths a bible written in a
"weird language" (your statement), totally uninteligible for them?
The existence of the signatures of Naples and Arezzo (as well as the
other minor sources for the knowledge of the Gothic language) is
mentioned in most books dedicated to the Gothic language or to
comparative Germanic linguistics. They can be found quoted also on the
Internet, at least on two websites, one of them being the "Project
Wulfila" (http://users.skynet.be/wulfila). There you can find and
download (if you are interested) all that survived of the Gothic Bible
and also the Skeireins, the Gothic signatures of Naples and Arezzo,
and the Gothic Calendar.
So, no need to publish my "own Gothic Encyclopaedia", since all this
information is already available for the (interested) public. You have
only to look for more detailed sources than a general encyclopaedia.
You are talking about misinformation on this newsgroup. But, at least
in my case, all that I asserted is verifiable from authorized sources.
It seems rather that all argument that does not fit in your theory you
qualify as misinformation... (excuse me if I'm wrong)
And what political reasons do you see for such an misinformation?

Francisc

--- In gothic-l at y..., l_labkovsky at h... wrote:
> > ...
> > Francisc
> > My arguments are based on the 15th edition of E.Britannica,
> Micropedia, Gothic language. It doesn't mention these Naples
> signatures, it only mentions the Bible translation. So you must be
> more informed than the Encyclopedia, may be you should publish your
> own Gothic Encyclopedia. I think there is lots of misinformation
> going on in this newsgroup for political reasons.
...


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/