nasal abbreviations + thatei / ei before indirect speech

[akoddsson]

Hails Llama!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at o...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson at y...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > If Gothic did not really use ei in indirect speech, as used by 
> > Wulfila, then what did it use?
> 
> 
> Hails Konrad,
> 
> I made at least 3 daft mistakes in that message, which I´d better 
explain.  (1) I typed "indirect" in the subject line when I 
meant "direct", (2) I carelessly mistook a Greek 1st person plural 
ending for the third person plural (thus complelely failing to 
appreciate the point of Richard's original message!), and (3) I 
somehow got the idea that W. Streitberg was talking about choice of 
tense in subordinate clauses, whereas the paragraph I quoted 
concerned choice of person.  Ack.  Obviously not my day.

;) I make so many mistakes english, quotations, and whatnot, and 
fail to mention important points and arguments, when I post online, 
that I just about kick myself when I read what I wrote. My only 
consolation is that we all do this, I think. No problem, though. We 
all enjoy learning more and working on germanic together, like 
brothers together on a ship which we are all learning how to sail. 

> > Sure, I grant that Wulfila simply translated the words of a 
greek text, but at the same it seems unlikely that he would have 
developed a usage entirely foreign to native gothic speakers, who 
were, after all, his audience. What strikes me most here, in the 
explanation above, is that it suggests no alternative usage, 
presumably more native to Gothic. On the other hand, if the use of 
ei was native to gothic in this function, one imagines that 
Wulfila's audience would have no problems understanding him, even if 
his translations were thought oddly worded and foreign to 
some extent in syntax, word-usage, etc. He was, after all, 
translating concepts and culture entirely foreign to Goths and 
Gothic. Thus, while I certainly suspect that Wulfila stretched the 
meanings of words, and was perhaps somewhat novel syntactically, I 
do not imagine that he developed new usage in indirect speach 
without any precedent. Am I alone in this supposition?

> Not at all.  In fact it's in these small words and really basic 
components of the language that you can see most independence from 
Greek usage, e.g. 'iþ' regularly comes first in the clause, while 
Greek DE comes second.  Looked at as a whole, all the main 
constituents of the sentence may well match the Greek, but on 
virtually every line of the Gothic bible Greek articles are left 
untranslated, presumably because sa, so, þata was just too emphatic 
to use so ubiquitously; sometimes prepositions are inserted, 
occasionally pronouns, often reflexives; and of course my favourite, 
the enclitic -uh, often has no equivalent at all.  Conversations are 
another great place to look for subtle differences.  The all purpose 
Greek particle DE is replaced by a range of Gothic conjunctions, not 
at random, but according to their own various functions for which 
the Greek offered no model.  Relatives show curious patterns of case 
attraction which often contrast with Greek usage.  In fact choice of 
case generally, with verbs and prepositions, follows rules quite 
independent of Greek--only in some more abstract or metaphorical or 
rhetorical uses, where native rules offer no guide, is Greek in 
charge.  Likewise with the choice of prepositions themselves.

Well said.

> That said, given the level of immitation that we do find, any 
exact match between Gothic and Greek has to be suspect, unless it´s 
something common to Indo-European languages generally and Germanic 
specifically.  Relatives before indirect speech being a case in 
point!  But I can well imagine that these instances of a relative 
before DIRECT speech could be due to immitation if they are only 
found at places where the Greek has the same phrasing: They said 
that "we never saw the like".  It would be interesting to see these 
Norse equivalents though.  Another possibility is that Gothic had 
such usages in some contexts, but that the normal range of contexts 
in which they would appear has been extended in an attempt to match 
the Greek.  This is what Streitberg suggests may be the case with 
the accusative and infinitive construction, for example, which is 
common in Old Norse, but even more widely used in Koine Greek.

Then we agree on this, I think. 

Regards,
Konrad

> Llama Nom
>






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/