[gothic-l] Evidence of East Germanic in Scandinavian Inscriptions

[llama_nom]

Further to the discussion on Gothic runes:


Looijenga (Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the 
Continent AD 150-700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation, 
Groningen 1997) mentions the possibility of East Gmc forms in the 
following runic inscriptions of Scandinavian provenance (references 
here to chapter & number of object in Looijenga, 1997) -

5-17 Udby, Sealand (silver rosette fibula), TALGIDA : LAMO
6-8 Darum, Jutland (bracteate), ALU NIUJIL
6-14 Gurfiles, Gotland (bracteate), LAThAA

- commenting that LAMO could be a West Gmc masculine n-stem, or and 
East Gmc feminine n-stem (but why not feminine and North Gmc?!), but 
that TALGIDA is East Gmc.
Looijenga contrasts NIUJIL with the Skonanger bracteate spelling 
NIUWILA, apparently the West Gmc equivalent.
LAThA is considered East Gmc on account of the -A, instead of the 
usual Proto-Norse LAThU 'invitation' - a very common word on the 
bracteates with possible cultic significance.

However, other names in -o are not considered specifically East Gmc - 
whether ?feminine (HARISO (Himlingøje), LEThRO (Staarup), or ?
masculine (WAGNIJO (Vimose), NIThIJO (Illerup)) - the masculine 
names, if such they are, being West Gmc n-stems according to 
Looijenga.


Koebler (Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989)
lists 
the following possible East Gmc forms:

Moos, Gotland (spearhead, 3rd c. (But 2nd according to Looijenga; 
2nd, according to the site Tore mentioned "but perhaps around 300")), 
GAOIS, _*gaujis_, 'barker?'
Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?

The transcription of that latter comes from Moltke (Moltke, 
E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen 1976, 
p. 94).  The first I guess is included because of the final -S as 
opposed to Proto-Norse -Z.  I think Koebler included Etelhem because 
that final question mark might be an A.  Moltke considers the 
interpretation:

M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA

But, guessing that the M rune might here stand for the similarly 
shaped E, he inclines more towards:

EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA

I'm not sure whether his replacement of the A with a question mark is 
due to uncertainly of what rune is actually written, or 
because "verbet skulle ende paa -o."  He also says that the East Gmc 
features seen in inscriptions from Vimose and elsewhere all rest on 
not very convincing interpretations (p. 106).  Presumably this 
applies to -

Vimose.  Looijenga 5.10 is a bronze buckle which reads: AADAGASU 
LAASAUWIJA.  Krause's interpretation does seem to be in terms of 
Gothic: _A(nsu) a(n)dag a(n)sula a(n)sau wija_, "Ase! Den Andag weihe 
ich, der kleine Ase, dem Asen (Wodan)", that is, "God!  I, Ansula, 
consecrate Andag to the god."
Looijenga herself interprets this as: _Andag Ansulaas, auwija!
_, "Andag the Godless, luck!"  The -uw- of the final word being noted 
as evidence of West Gmc gemination.  The smoothing of the diphthong - 
is there any parallel for this in Norse so early? - is not discussed.
Seebold suggested a connection with Latin ansula/ansa ring, and OI 
aes < ansjo 'hole for a cord' - perhaps the inscription refers to the 
buckle.


So yes, Moltke has a point.  It seems a bit of a leap to assume East 
Gmc influence on the basis of just one unexpected vowel in an 
unstressed ending, in one inscription, especially when other 
unexpected forms need a different explanation (e.g. L5-16 the
Nøvling 
fibula: _talgidai_; Moltke, pps. 97-98).  Moltke accounts for the 
many anomalous forms - which he considers mistakes - with the idea 
that most smiths were illiterate and only copying their runes.  Aside 
from the errors themselves, he points to the verb _talgjan_ 'to cut 
in wood', suggesting that the real runemaster would give the smith a 
piece of wood with runes to use as a guide.  Similarly, he says, 
_faihjan_ > _fahjan_ 'paint' is inappropriate to the context of 
carving in gold, but might refer to the original runes painted by the 
expert on some other material as a guide.
This would explain a lot.  On the other hand, it's not impossible 
that these words acquired a specialist meaning in the context of 
runes.  And of course, spotting mistakes offers just as much leeway 
for shoehorning as does the hunt for archaic or exotic forms.
But is there a way of 'testing' Moltke's idea?  I wonder whether 
runes on less costly materials, or in a more casual context (if such 
can be established), show fewer anomalies.

Finally, I don't know if this is a comprehensive list, so if anyone 
can add to it - perhaps with more convincing examples?! - I'd be very 
interested.  Scandinavian items so far from:

Darum
Etelhem
Gurfiles
Moos
Udby
Vimose (bronze buckle).

Of these, Moos seems the most convincing.  Maybe it's Norse and the -
S is a genitive ending, but on balance I think it's probably 
nominative and Gothic.

Llama Nom

********************************************
Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989
Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-
700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation, Groningen 1997
Moltke, E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen 
1976, p. 94




You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/