new and in search of help Go.thunrs and thrums

[akoddsson]

Hails Walhahrabn!

Some comments.

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Golja igqis, Wilja jah Thiudan!
> 
> I found a poetic example of Thor hallowing (or being hallowed) in 
> the Edda, which could particularly help here maybe. It's Þrymskviða 
> 30:
> 
> Þá kvað þat Þrymr, 
> þursa dróttinn: 
> "Berið inn hamar 
> brúði at vígja, 
> leggið Mjöllni 
> í meyjar kné, 
> vígið okkr saman 
> Várar hendi."
> 
> which verse could be put into Gothic word-for-word as follows:
> 
> Than qath thata Thrums,
> thaurize drauhtins:
> "Bairith inn ham(b)r
> bruth du <ga>weihan,
> lagjith Milduni
> in maujos kniwa,
> weihith ugkis samana
> Weros handau."

*qath than, as 'than' cannot stand first in Gothic, unlike in ON. 
*hamars, I think, masc. a-stem, so: bairith inn hamar
*milluneis, I think, is the Gothic for ON mjollnir. The double l is 
original, being from Proto-Norse *mellunijaz (w/Sievers). It means 
the 'crusher', despite etymologies to the contrary via Lithuanian, 
Latvian and Russian word for or relating to lightening. The relation 
to lightning is natural enough, but is not confirmed by the word's 
phonological development to it's ON form, hence: *milluneis
*in maujos kniwa or ana?
*weros looks correct, but I'd have to get back to you on this one ;)

> Please note that consonant stem bruths "bride" and pronoun 
ugkis "we two" have the same form both for accusative and dative, 
but it's accusative not dative (as it is in ON above) here, so if we 
prefer to think bruths is an i-stem, then it's bruth (acc.) not 
brudai (dat.).

Expected i-mutation levelled here in ON, so probably *bruths, yes. 
 
> With "hammer" we seem to have the same problem as with "thunder". 
I still sympathize with the idea that there should be a euphonic 
consonant inserted between nasal and r, like *hambrs and *Thundrs. 
Maybe it was not compulsory as we meet both timrjan and timbrjan.

Right. So the best move is to write conservatively after etymology, 
whatever pronunciation developments may have been happening ;) It 
does seem that we now have an agreement that the form *thunrs is the 
correct one (see discussion of the name *thunraz on theudiskon about 
this). Llama Nom correctly observed, I think, the the final -s would 
be preserved in the nominative. Thiudans also correctly suggests, I 
think, that the vocative would be *thunr. The reason is that the -r- 
is a part of the stem, not an inflectional ending. This applies to 
your translation of the ON tho:rr vi:gi; however, the imperative of 
this conjugation in ON, compare: seg thu: me:r 'tell me', not *segi. 
Thus, it expresses wish, I think, rather than command. This would 
put the whole prase in the 3rd person, 'may tho:rr hallow...' (see 
the ON conjugation). Any object would be in the accusative, but it 
often occurs in ON without an object as a kind of stock-phrase 
(especially in inscription). 

> Is Go. *Milduneis correct? Or, maybe, *Milthuneis?

*milluneis, I think. See above. No need to postulate a ld or lth. 
Here are two reasons: 1) ld would have survived in ON as **mjoldnir 
and 2) lth would have become ld instead of ll - it defies the rule 
of lth-to-ll because it comes before -n-. The word is shortend to 
mjolnir in some ON sources, and medieval writers seem not to have 
known exactly how to spell the word (ll or l), but the older form 
with ll is also attested. Furthermore, this ll is also suggested by 
comparison to the Baltic and Slavic, as well as from internal ON 
evidence (compare mjoll, fem. o-stem 'snow', which is 'crushed' in 
it's appearance). Thus, I come out against the **meldunijaz-form, 
which has been suggested based on it being the correct Germanic form 
based on the etymology to 'lightening' in Baltic/Slavic. The idea is 
naturally appealling and appears very solid; however, the phonology 
suggests instead *mellunijaz, which as it turns out, has an equally 
plausible etymology in 'the crusher' - thus, this form now has two 
strikes in it's favour, while **meldunijaz only has one. Also, my 
feeling is that ignoring phonology in order to produce the desired 
etymology is wrong. In this case, I think, the problem is solved, 
both in terms of phonology and etymology by the form *mellunijaz, 
Go. milluneis. 

> And yet, perhaps we shouldn't disregard our absolute ignorance 
about pre-Christian thunder-god of the Goths. To think he was all 
the same as his later Scandinavian counterpart seems somewhat 
simplifying...

I think that is was the same, simply put. Also, I don't think that 
he was simply a later Scandinavian counterpart, but instead one that 
is attested from a later date. The key word here is 'attested'. The 
Proto-Norse speaking contemporaries of the Goths of Wulfila's time 
would have had this same god, doing the same things, etc. as in the 
later ON sources. They would have called him *thunraz at that time. 
Religion is often very conservative and, I think, ethnic religions 
like the Norse one especially so. We should recall that the Norse 
were also until the viking period also the most isolated Germanics 
of any sort. They were the 'backward hillbillies', the 'ignorant 
rural folk' of old Germania, as evidenced by their only much later 
conversion to christianity. We know that many ON folk were ardent 
believers in the old gods, as evidenced by their willingness to die 
for their beliefs, even against their own leaders and aristocracy 
after it had started pressing for christianity (mostly a political 
issue at that time in the north, not really a religious one, as the 
average man was probably very ignorant about christianity, while 
leaders tended to support it mostly for political/organizational 
reasons instead of actual religious ones). It seems rather foolish, 
I think, to assume that these old Germanics were very accepting of 
change in their religion (witness the Gothic example of Athanareiks 
and company also). It was too closely tied to their ethnicity. Thus, 
I imagine that ethnic Goths were the most 'heathen', probably seeing 
it as their own ethnic religion, inherited from their fathers, whom 
they no doubt honoured. Political pressure, as well as the presence 
of large numbers of non-Goths (conquered folk, slaves, enlisted co-
militarists, trading partners, neighbors, etc.), would have pressed 
them toward adopting Arianism as their official creed, as other folk 
would not have been able to participate in the Gothic faith, as it 
was ethnic and inherited, much like Hinduism. Each folk the Goths 
encountered at that time would have had their own ethnic religion. 
An easy political compromise, minimizing conflict between conquered 
and conquerer, is to adopt the universal religion of christianity, 
where no ethnic distinction is made. Still, the Goths' perserverance 
as Arianians, even after it had been banned and the Catholic model 
essentially adopted by all other christians they encountered, shows 
a continued sense of separatism, I think. They probably just did not 
want to share their church with non-Goths, simply put. It sounds 
very unchristian in the truer sense, but was in all liklihood real, 
I think. Also, the Goths would, no doubt, have still cherished their 
heathen ancestral faith privately, reciting the old songs and being 
pround of their heritage and ancestry. Typical enough. It's really 
not unique, as many cultures have adopted faiths in addition to the 
inherited one (see Tibet, Japan, etc.). Somehow, they make it work. 
However, I suspect that the Goths' would have lost their original 
ethnic religion as time moved on, while still having maintained it 
in some form within ethnically Gothic families during the earlier 
Arian period. My guess is that it happened with the lost of their 
language and distinct ethnic identity. Lastly, their is a current in 
some forms of christianity which emphasizes that it is the only true 
religion and bans belief of any other kind, however impratical this 
may be and whatever the social and personal consequences. Naturally, 
this current is not endorsed by most christians, now or then, and 
most Arianians were likely also quite tolerant folk. The Goth's, no 
doubt, would have inherited an ethnic religion that was also shared 
by Gutlanders, who would have preserved it much longer due to lack 
of any need for religious integration/cooperation with neighbors. I 
would also suggest that Gutlanders shared common gods/mythology with 
the Norse, inherited from common Proto-Germanic ancestors. Thus, we 
should not be deceived or accept bizarre theories simply because we 
lack attestations to the contrary. Common sense, I think, suggests 
that the Goths kept up their ethnic religion and were very proud of 
it, not wishing to change it, while at the same time being political 
and showing great personal variation with regards to 'belief' in the 
religion. Many folk are intensely proud of their culture/religion, 
not wishing to change it, while at the same time being only marginal 
participants in it. Should be a familiar story to anyone, I think ;) 
Thus, translating the Norse rescension of this mythology, the only 
surviving one, into Gothic does not bother me in the slightest. I do 
believe that it was their original religion/culture and that these 
were also their stories/gods. However, the wording goes back to the 
Proto-Norse, rather than the Gothic, which can cause some problems 
here and there in translation. Still, whole sections go seemlessly 
into Gothic. Instead of focusing on what I see as a non-issue (that 
Goths, as an ethnic group, shared this religion/culture), I choose 
to focus on the language issues involved in such translations. What 
I want to know is that every word of the Gothic is correct and that 
it reads true and natural to the Gothic hear, which is, of course, 
very difficult to achieve in this day and age. 

Regards,
Kunjareths

> Ualarauans
> 
> P.S. I found your *targa! It's in the list of Gothic loanwords 
into 
> Romanian.
>







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/