[gothic-l] bireikei* & bnauan* (Köbler)

[thiudans]

A couple etymological inquiries:

BI-REIKEI* & BI-REIKEIS*, BI-REKEIS* (GW 93)

"Peril, danger", Lat. periculum; and "imperiled, in danger, 
endangered", Lat. periclitari (with Go. wisan) resp. Of the first 
word we find one instance (dat. Pl. bireikeim 2Kr 11,26 B8), and 
of the second two (Nom. Pl. bireikjai 1Kr 14,30 A; birekjai Luk 
8,23 CA). Naturally the entry forms are lacking, though those 
given here are aside from the question of the vowel in the root 
syllable of the adjective probable and reasonable. Rather it is 
the etymology which is questioned; Köbler has called both 
unsure. By default we will deal here with the bi-reikei, the noun 
form of the related words.

Reference by Köbler is given under bireikei* to Go. rikan "heap 
up, rake up", Germ. rekan- (GW 440). Here, then, we are to take 
bi- as the prefix and -reikei as a root noun whose semantic 
progress toward the meaning "peril, danger" should be: "raking 
upon, heaping upon" or "be-raking, etc.". Admittedly a stretch, 
unless we are to take the danger as to that which is being 
heaped up, but then our word has become superfluous, inane.

At first glance, comparison is immediately made with those 
words formed on the root which we are to believe has come 
down from a Celtic source and pertains to governship and 
possession: reikeis, reiks (aIA/A) powerful, princely; reiki (nIA) 
rule, realm, power; reik-s 2 (mCons.) ruler, prince; cf. also OE 
rice > MnE rich. But here one may argue that the semantics are 
again problematic: the meaning may be stretched to something 
like "an imposition of power upon or around; oppression, 
subjugation." There is not much precedence or corroboration in 
the Gmc. languages here.

A re-analysis of the word as b[i]reik-ei- may suggest a 
connection to the strong verb brikan break through an ablaut 
form, i.e. *brek-ei-. This approach is perhaps only tenuous at 
best.

One may observe how similar the word sounds to the latin 
gloss. In fact, disregarding the vowels (though both are narrow-
voweled in the first and second syllables) the only distinction is 
in the first letter, a mere difference of voicing at that: /'biri:ki:-/ vs. /
pe'riku-/. It may be that, while the Latin word did not dictate the 
creation of bireikei it yet somehow suggested it. We see an 
example of the former perhaps in marikreitus sea-grain for Lat. 
margarita pearl. If the Gothic author had a few words at his 
command which would serve somewhat equally, it could be that 
the similarity in sound took precedence over an exactness of 
meaning.

Another suggestion comes in the form of the root wrik-: wrikan 
(sV) persecute, "wreak"; wrekei persecution; wreks, -ei 
persecuted, etc. Naturally the problem here is the initial w and 
the root vowel e, which occurs in only one of three examples of 
bi-reik-. And perhaps the only cause for the consideration of this 
suggestion is found in the loss of w- in spoken MnE. There is no 
evidence of w-loss or elision before r, nor does one find 
possible cases of wr- in prefixed contexts (such as following bi-). 
The strongest point of this argument is the semantic connection: 
bi- + wrekei "bewrack". As mentioned above, the meanings are 
brought closer by the aural similarity of the Gothic to the Latin.


*BNAUAN (GW 100)

This word has caused a bit of confusion, I think unnecessarily, 
and some have even gone so far, on the basis of its single 
occurrence, to propose a grand lineage of origins, suggesting a 
Go. *bi-nauan, "germ. bnowwan (=binowwan?, abl. Seebold s. *
nauan)".  I think this Nom. Pl. M. Part. Pres. (surely Köbler is right 
here) to be found in Luke 6, 1 CA is nothing other than a 
misreading or miswriting of *hnauandans, i.e. Go. *hnauan "to 
rub". 

The explanation of *hnauan seems preferable to Torp's 
suggestion, p. 298, entry 9, which provides varations on a root 
verb *nu-, nuwan, nowa "schaben, reiben", claiming "(=bi-
nowan), red. vb. "zerreiben"; AN. nua, bnua, gnua (=ga-nowan) 
reiben; AHD niuwan (und hniuwan), nuan part. ginuwan, mhd. 
niuwen, nuwen zerstoßen, zerdrücken, zerstampfen, zerreiben." I 
cannot find any source for ON "bnu'a". Zoega refers ON nu'a = 
ON gnu'a, which in the present scheme may < NGmc. ga-
hnu'a(n).

The MS. not being available in this circumstance to check this 
possibility, we may trust to our familiarity with the Gothic hand 
and orthography and confidently note that the distinction of the 
Gothic characters for H and for B is to be made in almost one 
small stroke, viz. at the top of the long right-hand bar on the B, 
there is another stroke which curves up to the right, which the H 
does not have (the thin connecting bar at the base of the B 
seems nearly invisible and hardly of consequence). This "jot" 
could easily have been mistakenly added, or could be a blot of 
ink, or who knows what. It is enough that the rest of both 
characters is virtually similar. I am unfortunately unable to 
ascertain the various misreadings and their specific nature to 
corroborate the likelihood of such an error as here is proposed. 
Furthermore, we do not doubt that our version of CA is the 
handiwork of a copyist. In any event, were the characters to differ 
by more two or three minor strokes we should not find difficulty in 
maintaining the weight of the argument, which is in its simplicity.

Now to the the etymological evidence supporting the correction. 
First, we find in Torp a few entries pertaining to the idea "rub": 
p.99 *HNO'- * HNU-, HNEWWAN. These seem to be of most 
interest here. Köbler in his Germanisches Wörterbuch, owing 
much to FFT, glosses Gmc. *hnu- "NHD. reiben", *hnu-, *
hnewwan-, *hnaw "NHD. stoßen, reiben". The variance of the 
two forms presents little problem. We encounter in the Gothic 
perhaps a derivation of the first stem form (with shortend vowel 
grade) rather than the second stem form: Gmc. *hna(w)an- > Go. 
*hna'uan, like Go. bauan.

One may alternatively propose a verb *gnauan, if one consider 
the possibility of G being mistaken for "B". This finds support in a 
root of similar meaning "reiben": p. 138 (entry 4): GNU-. 
However, it has been for present purposes imagined that H 
would be more easily transformed to B than would G. It seems 
altogether more likely





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/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/