[gothic-l] Re: Scandinavian Inscriptions North Germanic

[akoddsson]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <penterakt at f...> wrote:
> 
> > > The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the 
> > Naples deed (6th century).
> > 
> > Sure, but it doesn't occur in the inscription. I could be 
mistaken, but it seems that this thread is all about transfering 
Scandinavian runic inscription to far-off peoples and realms. One 
fellow cited claims they are in a Semitic tongue, another Gothic. 
Evidently, not everyone has an easy time reading Early 
Scandinavian/North Germanic. 

> I've just come across this, in the "Gothic Names" appendix to 
> Koebler's Gotisches Woerterbuch:
> 
> Merila, got., PN (551): Vw.: s. mereis; Q.: UrkN (551); B.: Merila 
> UrkN 3,1 UrkN; ?
> hierher auch M(e)r(i)la (= Merila), Fibel von Etelhem (5. Jh.) 
> (ostgerm.), Krause,
> Runeninschriften 40 Nr. 14; Son.: s. a. Mirica, Lehmann M52
> 
> So that connection has been made before.  But you're right, this 
still doesn't really explain why the inscription has been regarded 
as East Gmc.

The E-W-N classification system for the inscriptions (aka Antonsen) 
is not really realistic, in my view. 

> Also in Koebler's "Gothic Names" appendix (refs. to 
> Krause, 'Runeninschriften') -
> 
> Andag - Schnalle, Vimose
> Krause 60,24
> c. 200
> 
> Awings - Scheidenbeschlag, Vimose
> Krause 59,23
> c. 400
> 
> The buckle I already mentioned.
> 
> >>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."<<

> If Krause's reading is right, the dative -AU and the first person 
singular verb ending -A are (I assume) the distinguishing features.  
But Looijenga and others have interpreted this inscription quite 
differently, in ways that don't suggest Gothic at all.  So I think 
it stays on the 'extremely tenuous' pile for now.

I agree. Most inscriptions are easily legible, but not all. We need 
to bare in mind that our 'writers' were often barely literate, if at 
all. Also, people scribled and made mistake then, just as we do even 
today. Just hand a child pen and paper and see what happens ;)

> But what about AWINGS?  If people consider a final -S evidence of 
East Gmc, this would have as much right to inclusion as GAOIS on the 
Moos spear head.  But again, I wonder if it could be a Norse 
genitive - or even just a varient spelling of z/R? 

It's no doubt a name from auja, neut.sg., like *awingaz
*Awingas, gen.sg., might have been intended. We often see 
svarabhakti a's and missing a's, as you know. *awingas (stainaz)?

  But would I be 
> right in thinking that when an inscription consists of a single 
name it is usually in the nominative?

No, there are examples of genitive only, like keþan in Norway and 
several others of this type. If a name occurs by itself on a stone 
and in the genitive, then it means that the stone/memorial belongs 
to this person. 

> But how certain is AWINGS?  The Kiel Runenprojekt ascribes this 
> interpretation to Krause and also Antonsen, but I haven't seen the 
> inscription, so I don't know how clear it is.

Working within the general framework of the inscriptions, most of 
which are clearly intelligible, a smart path is to simply examine 
the inscription from a grammatical perspective. Nothing ends in the 
formation -ings in Early Runic or its nordic descendants, therefore 
shapes like -ingaz and -ingas come to mind - typical masculine forms 
with the -ingaz suffiz, just like any other. 

> Meanwhile...
> 
> Looijenga (Chap. 5, Nr. 16) and Moltke (pps. 97-98) both mention 
the Nøvling silver rosette fibula, which has the preterite: 
talgidai.  (Not considered correct in anything.)  Moltke sees this 
as a spelling mistake caused by illiteracy! 

While it is no doubt true that many were completely untrained in 
spelling, there were certainly enough runes to represent the sounds 
on the whole. However, there was no æ rune (always long). Writers 
used both -ai and -e (ê) to represent this sound, in verbs from the 
original *-æ- and in dat.sgs. from monothongization of ai to æ'(also 
written ê, but not identical to regular long ê). If Antonsen is 
right in thinking that the sixth vowel rune, which was discontinued 
before the old inscriptions, represented æ' (as in *jæ'ran), then it 
disappeared because of stressed æ'-to-â change in NG, leaving the æ' 
in unstressed positions to be represented by -ai or -e, which never 
represents this sound in stressed positions. Thus, talgidai is just 
as normal as talgide, as far as spelling goes. 

  Looijenga suggests two possibilities: 
> 1) it is due to the falling together of ai & e in Norse; 2) it 
reads _talgida i_ carved in'.  No reference here to East Gmc, even 
though the form _talgida_ is called East Grm in the entry for Udby 
(Looijenga 5,17).

The unstressed æ'(ê) in the 3rd sg.pres. of weak verbs is NWG, not 
just proto-norse. It predates the earliest inscriptions. 

> Unstressed vowels in a little-attested language hundreds of years 
ago are never going to be great evidence for anything...

They are, however, consistently rendered and dicernable. I, for one, 
have no problems understanding the phonology here, only vague areas 
of the morphology. 

  "And even if runic spelling was very consistent,

For the most part, it is. Perhaps surprisingly, considering the 
general level of literacy. 

  there still wouldn't have to be 
> many anomalies to completely throw modern researchers.  In these 
> cases, as you've said, a default assumption of Norse seems best.

True, any anomality, even a scrible, can throw modern researchers. A 
grade school teacher teaching the alphabet and spelling might be in 
a good position to access the frequency of mistakes/mispellings ;)

> Another thing to bear in mind - in considering if an object is of 
distant origin - would be the type of object.  Ordinary, everyday 
items might be less likely to be imports from exotic locations!  
(Looijenga makes this point in relation to the Letcani spindle 
whorl, whose humble function and Romanian provenance add to the case 
for it being Gothic.)  Unless they were small personal possessions 
of sentimental value that came with a person.

Llama, join Theudiskon at yahoogroups if you haven't already. There 
is no topic there except the language and runic inscription are not 
off topic. You clearly have an interest in the early language(s) ;)

Regards,
Konrad

> Llama Nom
> 
> ********************************************
> Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989
> http://www.koeblergerhard.de
> 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/