crimean gothic

Sat Jan 7 20:28:44 UTC 2006

Here is a slightly edited version of a summary of Ottar 
Grønvik: "Die dialektgeographische Stelling des Krimgotischen
und die krimgotische cantilena." which I posted a while ago.

In brief, he argues that Crimean Gothic is a West Germanic dialect 
that separated from the WG continuum at some time before c. 200 AD 
and after that underwent sound changes in common with the language 
that evolved into Biblical Gothic.  For phonetic spellings I've
used the SAMPA notation [ 
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm ].

Otherwise I've followed the spellings in the article.

Features of Crimean Gothic:

1) No i/j mutation (thus agreeing with Gothic against NWG).
2) z > s finally, as in Gothic (*schnos v. OE snoru, ON snør)-- good
evidence for treatment of Gmc. /z/, as Busbecq apparently didn't
recognise the word as Germanic.
3) u & i preserved before nasal + cons., or before high vowel in
following syllable (gira < *giri), otherwise lowered in same
circumstances as in NWG (boga, *schnos v. *thuru; schwester v.
wintch).
4) Raising of e > i before u/w irregular (seuene, fyder), but so too
in other dialects.
5) ð > d, as in WG, and subsequently devoiced (plut). Initially and
in voiced medial positions þ > d. But þ > þ, spelt <tz>, finally
and medially in voiceless environment. Due to frequent occurrence
as enclitic in such positions, the pronoun tzo `thou' retained the
sound.
6) Unstressed vowels > @ (schwa), represented by random vowel
letters, except for Old Crimean Gothic o:n > u:, spelt <ou>
(kadariou = /kad at rju:/ < *ka(n)dario:n < Lat. centurio:n-).
7) /n/ lost after long vowel (kadariou), but kept after short (verb
inf. ending -en).
8) i: > i:     u: > u:     e: > i:     o: > u:    eu > i:
iu > i:, y:?       ai > e:        au > o:
9) initial /h/ lost.

(Thinks: Point (3) assumes that a-umlaut etc. was a NWG innovation.
Question, can we tell whether Gothic was unaffected by this change,
or just lost the distinction between these sounds at a later date?
Grønvik doesn't bring into the discussion the letter names from the
Vienna-Salzburg codex: chozma, geuua, enguz.)

Regarding /i:/ from Gmc. e:1, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.1. that /e:/
> /a:/ very early in NG but not among the West Germanic people of
the Elbe region till the end of the 2nd century AD. Later still
among the Franks in the vicinity of the Rhine. Regarding ð > d,
Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.2 that this a common WG development, ? 2nd c.
or earlier. Regarding rhoticism of Gmc /z/, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.4
that WG probably retained /z/ before 200. The final devoicing he
sees as a Migration Era sound change shared by Crimean and Biblical
Gothic. Similarly with the monophthongisation of /ai/ and /au/.

(The full reasoning behind these assumptions is not explained, but I
gather there are some Latin inscriptions to West Germanic goddesses
(`Matrons') which preserve a Germanic dative plural ending: Aflims,
Vatvims, Saitchamimi(s).)

10) warthata = /wartt at te/ < warhta + preterite ending repeated by
analogy.
11) /al:/ lapis = ON hallr, OE heall, rather than Got. hallus.
12) thurn = *thuru = /dur@/, old dual form cognate with OE, OS duru,
rather than Got. daur, daurons.
_______________________________________________________

Sequence of changes acc. Grønvik:

1. NWG
u > u / o
e > e / i

2. WG to 200
æ: > e:
d, ð > d
z > z
lþ > lþ
þ > þ, ð
e – u/w > i
xj > xxj
ngw > ng

3. Pre-Gothic
jj > ddj
Reduction of unstressed vowels
Devoicing of final fricatives
Monophthongisation of ai, au > E:, O:
rB > rb (dorbiza)
No i-umlaut

4. Old Crimean Gothic + Gothic 350 – 550
iu > y:
eu > e:
e:, o: > i:, u:
E:, O: > e:, o:
Further reduction of unstressed vowels
(þ >) [ð], [d]
xt, xs > tt, ss
sk > sch
sw, sl, sn > schw, schl, schn
b, d, g devoiced initially
h-, -h- > Ø

The song! He reconstructs/interprets thus, explaining his reasoning
in full detail. I've written it out in SAMPA phonetic notation
after.

wara wara ing[a]dolou
scu te gira galtzou
heemisclep dorbize ea

war@ war@ in-gad at lu: (in-gad at lu)
Su: t@ gir@ galtTu: (galTu:)
he:m at SlEp: dorb at z@ E@

Guard (watch over / look after / protect) the very beautiful one.
You gave (paid) desirable [horse] shoes.
Let the hungry horse out graze at home.

The 1st & 3rd lines are taken to be commands/requests.

scu = *schu `set of [horse] shoes' < gaskohi `pair of shoes' (as in
Biblical Gothic, but not specifically EG).

*schlep `let loose to graze' he suggests is a loan from ON sleppa
(while also considering a possible WG etymology). Following Norse
grammar he takes <dorbize> as a dative f. sg. adjective, pointing
out that the pronominal-style of the adjective ending agrees with WG 
rather than Biblical Gothic. He also considers (as less likely) the 
possibility that this is a comparative.

<te> is interpreted as WG, although acc. G's phonology it could
equally apply be from a Gothic-like /du/.

The situation of the song is compared to the opening lines of
Norwegian heroic ballads. As a less likely possibility he suggests
a children's rhyme.

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/