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

Tue Oct 26 15:07:01 UTC 2004

*BI-REIK- / *BI-REK-

Possible adjectival declension:

-eis (ja)
-s (i)
-us (u)

Some interesting ideas, there.  The Latin connection – if there was 
one – could lie either in the choice of a native word, as you say, or 
a folk etymology like marikreitus.  I never really understood the 
semantic link with rikan `rake, heap up'.  In favour of a derivation 
from reik- might be the generally negative connotations of 
reiki `state' in the Gothic Bible, as opposed to 
thiudinassus `kingdom (e.g. of heaven)' – but this could just be due 
to the subject matter.

Latin & Greek spellings of Gothic names sometimes introduce a <b> or 
beta respectively, for Gothic initial <w> (Lat. Ubadila, Ubalamirus, 
& Gk. Bandaloi (beside Ouandaloi)), which might indicate that the 
Gothic <w> was sometimes pronounced with a bit of friction, making it 
close to medial <b> (Braune/Helm 40.1).  But the two phonemes seem 
perfectly distinct the Gothic texts themselves.

W-loss would be unprecidented, but as you point out, we're missing 
analogous contexts (gawrisqand, frawrohiþs, gawrikai, gawalidans, 
etc. – would all have the stress on the wr-syllable).  There are 
occasional examples in Old English, e.g. aerendraca / 
aerendwreca `messenger' – probably due to reduced stress in compound 
(Campbell 468).  For a while I was trying to connect the word RANGO 
from the Letcani inscription with wruggo and *wriggan – with the idea 
of 'twisting' (Looijenga suggests that this word means `spindle 
whorl', describing the object it is carved on).  I wondered if it 
might have lost the /w/ through alliterative association with 
*rukka `distaff' – but then I noticed OE renge `spider'.  Yes, 
*biwrekei / *biwrikei seems very logical.  A later association with 
reikeis/reiks could could have arisen, and even altered the stem 
vowel.

*BNAUAN

Strange.  So where is OIc bnu'a attested, I wonder?  (Not in Zoega, 
not in CVig. (I can't find it in the searchable text collection here: 
http://www.lexis.hi.is ), and yet Gordon/Taylor `An Introduction to 
Old Norse' not only mentions it, but tells us that it has been added 
to the reduplicating VIIth conjugation by analogy with snu'a, etc.  
Is this an assumption on the basis of nu'a & gnu'a?)  On the other 
hand, Wright and Braune/Helm imply that Go. bnauan belonged 
originally to Class VII, but may for all we know have become Class 3 
weak, like trauan, and partially bauan.

Are there parallels for a loss of /h/ in OIc nu'a?

To be honest I hope you're wrong, as it's a shame to lose a word 
beginning /bn/!  Not a great linguistic argument, granted...  At 
least my spell checker recognises "fnast", which is some consolation.

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans at y...> wrote:
> 
> 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 --------------------~--> 
$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/