[gothic-l] Re: Gothic Language (Romans 1-3 Reconstruction)

[llama_nom]

Hails,

Right, before this gets too confusing, do you know anywhere I can get 
a good table of the proper standard Romanisation system for (old) 
Greek?  I've been meaning to change my adhoc methods for a while now, 
but not quite sure where to look.  Meanwhile, here's replies to a few 
points – I should get round to the rest soon, guth wiljands.


> I haven't had to
create many new words using this method.

Yes, I noticed that.  A good sign, I think!  I've found the more 
familiar I get with the Gothic corpus, the less words I need to make 
up.  The Oulipo writers created modernist works using arbitrary 
constrains like a novel in French (of all languages) without using 
the letter <e> (lots of amour, apparently).  Writing Gothic is 
probably a similar skill – always thinking of some other way to say 
things.


> That might work. I got my construction exactly from 1 Corinthians
10: 20:   all oti a quousin [ta eqnh] daimonioiV kai ou qew
quousin ou qelw de umaV koinwnouV twn daimoniwn ginesqai
  [ni ©!=atei ©!=o galiugaguda waihts sijaina,] ak ©!=atei saljand
©!=iudos, skohslam saljand, jan-ni guda. Ni wiljau auk izwis
skohslam gadailans wair©!=an.

> Do you think the usage is different to call for the altered
structure? Perhaps because Rom. 1:13 occurs initially instead
of medially in the sentence?


I reckon so.  KJ (King James / Authorised) and GNB (Good News Bible) 
both have "and" in 1Cor 1,20.  The context is: verse 19 "do I say 
that idols are important?" – verse 20 "no, of course not – no 
[for/because], I don't want you to be partners with devils".  So I 
think 1Cor 1,20 is more a case of continuing the argument, adding the 
logical expected confirmation/continuation (auk), rather than 
introducing a new topic (-uh than).

Wulfila has a huge variety of translations for Gk. de, and they do 
seem to follow a pattern.  An interesting place to look is 
conversations, e.g. L 18, 18-29 – the rich man asks "what must I do?"

frah ina
qaþ þan imma - de
iþ is qaþuh – de (and/but he said I did all that)
gahausjands þan þata Iesus qaþ du imma - de
iþ is gahausjands þata gaurs warþ (but) - de
gasaihvands þan ina...Iesus qaþ - de
qeþun þan þai - de
iþ is qaþ (but he said) - de
qaþ than Paitrus - de
iþ is qaþuh du im – and he said to them – de

Notice that Greek has "de" all the way!  This more fluid approach to 
translating at the `micro' scale of modal particles makes me wonder 
if maybe Wulfila's translation in some respects wasn't quite as 
stilted as is often suggested.  The combination ith + -uh is 
frequently found where somebody is having the last word, or saying 
something of greater importance.  Or it's like taking a breath, or 
slight pause, for emphasis, or just lingering a bit: "he 
said...but/and HE said
"  (A bit subjective perhaps, but that's the 
impression I get.)

Ith, on its own, is common when Gk. de means simply "but".  But in 
conversations, where the implied contrast may be not so much what is 
being said, but just the fact that it's the other person's turn to 
speak, it often corresponds with English "and".

-uh than / -uth-than translates de in such contexts as:

1) new topic: "now..."
2) parenthetical note: "now...; incidentally..."
3) second part of contrasting pair (anthar...antharuh than `one...but 
the other' (Skeireins 2,9).

All of these can have a simple –uh, but –uh is rare in (1), and I 
think –uh than is more common in 2.  But there are plenty of 
instances of sumai(h)...sumaih `some...but others', and of course sa
(ei)...sah.


> Haven't examined this too closely. Usually I try to do contextual
searches, looking among the translations for more similar
meaning, or use multiple words as phrase to translate the
whole. for instance, with oun. I suppose a simple search on
unbound could be revealing. For instance, now I see that there
are 220 instances of (space)auk(space) and 216 instances of
(space)unte(space) in Gothic Ambr. A. In the same manuscript,
without spaces on the search criteria, we get 301 (i.e. +85)
instances of unte as the separate particle, not occuring as part
of another word; the same search with auk gains finds 230 (i.e.
+14) this is because of unte's use as a sentence initial. It would
be nice if someone had a program that could analyze for the
basic common difference between unte and auk for translating
gar. In many cases, auk actually seems to draw more attention,
whereas unte is most often a simple logical continuant. looking
in Koebler GW I see that except in two cases, auk always is
postposited ("ausser Joh 9,30 und Sk 6,27"). Koebler has for its
greek equivalents "ga'r, ga'r (= uh auk), de', de`, kai' (=auk jah),
kai', kai` ga'r (=jah auk), me'n." On the other hand, he of course
draws our attention to the fact that unte is a conj. both temp. &
caus. "until", "while", "since", "on account of". Its Greek
equivalents are akhris ou, gar, kai gar, dioti, ews, epei, epeidh,
epeidhper (=unte raihtis), ews otou, ews ou, ef oson, kathoti,
mekhri, oti. Latin for both is usually "enim". Also, raihtis
translates sometimes gar, sometimes 'men', as does allis
(which also has meaning of Gk. olws, Lat. omnino).

Cunning...  I see oun often = nu (in the sense of "[and] so,..."), 
but sometimes oun = than, thanuh, and even –uh than (e.g. J 7,25; J 
8,28).  Regarding initial auk, J 9,30 differs from the Greek word 
order, which places gar second, as usual.  Maybe you could paraphrase 
it as a sarcastic: "Well, that in itself is strange." (the fact that 
you don't know this man, and yet he was able to give me my sight – 
what does that tell us about the limits of your Pharisee 
knowledge...).  But with only one example, it's hard to draw 
conclusions.  (Something to look out for the day they discover a new 
Gothic manuscript though...)  The example in the Skeireins I don't 
think is initial at all: "Audagai" auk than qath, "thai 
hrainjahairtans. unte thai guth gasaihvand".  Which looks more as if 
the auk is placed second, as normal: "?for `blessed' he called `the 
pure of heart, for/because they see God'".

I'll look at auk in a bit more detail some time, especially that 
combination auk jah.

...attaitok skauta wastjos is; qathuh auk (Mt 9,21).  I think the –uh 
here is serving to bind together the two verbs "she touched... and 
said" or "touching the hem of his garment, she said" – rather than a 
particular idiom "-uh auk".  The auk/gar (KJ "For she said"; GNB "She 
said...") seems to have a sense like "because" or "coz" in colloquial 
modern English, when they are used in a looser way to the more formal 
language.  In formal English, you expect "because" to precede the 
literal reason, whereas colloquially it can just introduce the whole 
sentence in which the reason is infered, or a sort of vaguely causal 
afterthought.  So, the reason she touches him isn't "because she 
said", but rather she touched him "coz she said: REASON".  At Mk 16,4 
the women notice that the stone is gone, "was auk mikils abraba / een 
gar megas sphodra" (it was very big) – here the causation is 
implied.  The "because" answers to the unstated assumption that they 
are also amazed that the stone is gone.  That's my rationalisation, 
anyway.  I could be wrong...


> Dis- was borrowed it seems from Latin. No cognates in Gmc.
languages. It usually translates Gk. dia-, and Koebler puts it with
MHG zer-, auseinander-, ver-. You think the sense here is more
'aihan' or 'haban'?

Maybe (ga)haban rather than aihan, as this has more the senses 
of `hold/keep', `seize/take' (both violently capture, and 
benevolently "keep safe, tend").  Dis- does seem semantically to 
match remarkably well with German zer- (OE to-) in destructive sense 
(I think the destructive German ver- = Got. fra, doesn't it?), rather 
than the more general negativity of Lat. dis- (even if this was the 
etymological source of it).  I wonder how certain that Latin 
connection is?  Compare the strange case of Got. du `to' (could Got. 
<du> be from Slavonic, as in Russian <do>?).  Dishaban = violently 
possess (the subject being always things like: demons, strong 
emotions) – great idiom: "they were had to bits by amazement!".  
Dissitan seems synonymous with dishaban, but I've not checked the 
Greek correspondences yet.  Diswilwan is plunder (beside wilwan, and: 
frawulwana thana swaleikana und thridjan himin "carried off").  And 
yet, "disniman" is used as if the opposite of "ni waiht aihan".  But 
as far as I know the other niman derivatives all have the idea 
of `coming to possess' (literal or metaphoric) rather 
than `possessing/holding'.  Without knowing the context, you would 
imagine disniman to mean something like `seize' (i.e. 
violently/forcefully/utterly take, or come suddenly and dramatically 
to possess).

> For katechw I find:

> 1) to hold back, detain, retain
1a) from going away
1b) to restrain, hinder (the course or progress of)
1b1) that which hinders, Antichrist from making his appearance
1b2) to check a ship's headway i.e. to hold or head the ship
1c) to hold fast, keep secure, keep firm possession of
2) to get possession of, take
2b) to possess

So senses 1a & 1b are the appropriate ones here, while 2 is relevant 
to the attested example.  There are a few words (I can't think of one 
off hand (actually I can half think of one, it begins with us-...)) 
that look as though they could be calques on the Greek, and share 
more than one meaning with the Greek word – but if you were going to 
calque katechoo, you would probably come up with dalath gahaban, so I 
suspect disniman already existed in Gothic, in which case sense 2 is 
understandable, but sense 1 as well might be a strange coincidence.  
For "hinder", I've got:

(impede, delay) latjan, ga-latjan, ana-latjan, wv. 1.; (block, dam 
up) faur-dammjan, wv. 1.; (limit, restrict, trouble) ga-aggwjan, wv. 
1.; (hamper, offend, trip) marzjan, wv. 1.; (block, forbid, restrain) 
warjan, wv. 1.


> 26. Dufle atgaf ins Gufl in winnons unswereins; jah auk qineins
ize gainmaididedun *wisteigana bruk in *unwisteigana.

Actually the thing that caught my eye here was gainmadidedun.  The 
verb appears in two forms, inmaidjan & maidjan.  The latter is 
rarer.  At 2 Cor 2,17 it seems imperfective 
maidjandans `trading/marketing', whereas the examples I've just 
looked at for inmaidjan are all perfective `change, transform [into 
something else], exchange'  Maybe the unattested ga- isn't necessary 
here?  (Which solves the tricky problem of whether to place it before 
or after the other prefix.)  As for the preposition: inmaidjaith...du 
= metamorphousthe...eis (Rom 12,2).  No prep. in Greek at Php 3,21 = 
Got. du.  With other verbs  too, du indicates the end result of a 
transformation (e.g. gataujan du `make into').  On the other hand, if 
the meaning here is that they have swapped the natural usage for the 
unnatural, it probably would be in + acc. (cf. Mk 14,5 frabigjan in 
managizo thau thrija hunda skatte).

*wisteigs seems perfectly good to me.  I guess an alternative might 
be to say: thata (ni) bi wistai biuhti – or: thana (ni) bi wistai 
sidu. (cf. þamma niujin mann þamma bi guda gaskapanin Eph 4,24; so bi 
guþ hrainei Sk 3,6)  Is bruk actually attested anywhere as a noun?  I 
can't seem to find one.


> 1:28 taujan, du taujan or ei taujaina?

Good question...  I reckon: ei taujaina (cf. Mk 4,12 which has a 
similar sentiment: to them all will be in parables, "so that looking 
they will see but not perceive" – ei saihvandans saihvaina jah ni 
gaumjaina.


> And if you have a good idea for
3:2 Gk. logia MnE "oracles"

At Rom 3,2 you've reconstructed literally: bi allana haidu = kata 
panta tropon.  Which is probably right.  Though the phrase isn't 
attested, I think it's soundness is confirmed by the various 
synonyms: BI ALL (=kata panta Col 3,20); IN ALLAMMA (=en pasin, 1Tim 
3,11; en panti 1Thess 5,18; sijaidu in allamma ufhausjandans = ei eis 
panta hupeekooi este 2Cor 2,9 – with Gothic verb fronted due to 
(indirect) question, cf. hailidediu sabbato daga, Mk 3,2; en panti 
2Cor 4,8; 2Cor 6,8 2Cor 7,5).  At Php 1,18, ALLAIM HAIDU = panti 
tropoo) – haidus appears several times, including in the Skeireins, 
in dat. with no prep. "in [some/that/every] way".

Some distictly inappropriate suggestions for "oracles" (in the 
context): *haljarunos(!), *hlautatainos – which has the advantage of 
being a compound of attested words (cf. ON hlautteinn, and OE 
(wuldor) tanas, in the Nine Herbs Charm), *blotaspenos (cf. ON 
blótspánn, chip of wood used for divination in Hervarar saga).  But 
then no stranger a juxtaposition than the Norse poet who spoke of 
the "berserks of God"!!

To be continued...

LN








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wWMplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

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/