[gothic-l] Re: Wódans, Walkurjó & Walhalla - for Aaron, Gunner, Matthew

[konrad_oddsson]

Háilái galistans allái!

> Aaron Holt wrote:

> > I also mostly agree with Grimm's reconstructed *Walakusjo, 
however I think it may have been more like **Walakiusjo  since the 
Gothic word for "to choose" is Kiusan with an I before the u (note 
that this is an infinitive so the suffix is different)

M. Carver wrote: 
> The word seems to use the third part of the ablaut gradation here 
(iu - au - u), which is why Grimm postulated *walakusjo, similar to 
the way runjo "course" is related to rinnan "to run", or 
numja "taker" to niman "to take", or for that matter (using a s2 
verb for example) drus to driusan. It is clear that the ON valkyrja 
also uses the third part of the gradation (with i-mutation), and not 
the first part, which would have resulted in something like ON
*valky'rja (with lengthened y).

This makes sense. A construction with -iu- seems much less likely 
than one with -u-. Both AS Wælcyrige and ON Valkyrja would seem to 
support Gothic -u- (same part, no i-mutation). Since we are already 
discussing Grimm´s "Walakusjó", we might as well address Gunner´s 
question about "Valhalla" as well. To begin with, the word would 
naturally begin with a W in Gothic, not a V. As far as I know, the 
word "halla" is unattested. Nevertheless, "halla" seems entirely 
reasonable by comparison with other Germanic languages. On the other 
hand, "Wala" is potentially quite troublesome. What reason do we 
have to conclude that AS Wæl- or ON Val- would appear as a dative 
compound in Gothic? It seems that neither the AS or the ON would 
support the dative in either of these compounds. While it is 
certainly possible that the forms "Walakurjó" and "Walahalla" were 
once used, it seems more reasonable to err on the side of caution by 
postulating "Walkurjó" and "Walhalla" instead. Compounds can be 
formed with the accusative, dative, genitive, or stem in Germanic 
languages, the accusative often being the same as the stem. As the 
word is Masc. or Neut. in ON and AS respectively, and as neither of 
these tongues seems to speak with the dative, archaic or otherwise, 
in this position, a simple stem or accusative construction would 
seem a safer and more conservative position. I would naturally be 
interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.

Finally, in response to Gunner´s question about Odin and Frigg in 
Gothic, I will say this: were the Gothic forms of these names known,
then you would most likely have received an answer by now. While 
some people may think that they know, you would likely receive a 
weak answer or none at all were you to ask the question: what were 
the forms of these names in 4th century Gothic and how were they 
declined? Nevertheless, it seems fair to assume that they did exist.
Here are some guesses:

"Odin" was either "Wódans" or "Wódins" in the nom., depending on how 
you read the -an-/-in- shifting-stem controversy, the accus. would 
be "Wód -an/-in", the dat. "Wód -ana/-ina", and the gen. "Wód -anis/-
inis". One interesting website I saw suggested the following broken 
declension: N. Wódans, A. Wódan, D. Wódina, G. Wódinis. Such a 
broken declension would perhaps help explain why the name takes some 
of the forms it does in the various AS and ON cases of it. While I 
find this idea promising, it is unlikely that anyone will ever be 
able to prove or disprove it. Quite simply put, no one knows. As far 
as "Frigg" is concerned, you are unlikely to receive any answer at 
all. Here is one possibility: N. Friddjó, A. Friddjón, D. Friddjón, 
G. Friddjóns. Again, this is only a possibility. Many seem to think 
that "dd" was a Wulfilian way of writing a consonant-pair containing 
a G or hard J sound, much as "gg" often stands for "ng". I have also 
seen other guesses for the nominitive: Frigida, Friggida, Friddida, 
Friddi, Fridda and probably some others. Perhaps some of the other 
list members have something to say about these names?

We have to bear in mind that the Goths were mostly illiterate and 
later converted to Christianity, eventually loosing most of their 
language and culture in the process. Unless we unfairly assume that 
all Goths were disloyal to and disrespectful of their own ancestors, 
then we have to conclude that many Goths remained only legally or 
superficially "Christian" for a long period of time, perhaps for 
centuries. While Goths may often be portrayed as ruthless and 
senseless "barbarians", I see no reason to conclude that they were 
entirely devoid of respect for their own culture and traditions. 
Either the cultural conservatives remained illiterate, or what they 
did write simply does not survive to the best of our knowledge. 

Perhaps you will receive some more input on these names from others,
perhaps not. Either way, best wishes to you Gunner, and best wishes 
to Matthew and Aaron as well.

Regards,
Konrad.









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Share the magic of Harry Potter with Yahoo! Messenger
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4Q_cgB/JmBFAA/46VHAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/