new and in search of help Go.thunrs and thrums

[ualarauans]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Hails Walhahrabn! 

Hails jah-hailists, Kunjareth!

Great to hear such an informative comment! Thanks a lot.

> *qath than, as 'than' cannot stand first in Gothic, unlike in ON.

Then, maybe, thanuh qath thata Thrums..., to keep up with ON and the 
alliteration? BTW, Þrymr is a masculine i-stem, = Go. Thrums, right?

> *hamars, I think, masc. a-stem, so: bairith inn hamar

Good, then what's your suggestion for "summer" I wonder? I myself am 
constantly wavering between *sumars M.-a and smth like *sum(b)rus M.-
u (cf. wintrus). Or, maybe, it was another word, maybe asans? But 
this seems to have been borrowed by the Slavs as jesenÜ "autumn" 
(Old Prussian assanis "idem"; typologically cf. NHG Herbst – NE 
harvest). And what could be the word for "spring"?

> *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

> 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.

Frankly, I haven't seen this idea before (except mjöllnir translated 
as "Zermalmer" in an old Sprach-Brockhaus), but it seems pretty 
convincing... The Gothic word matching ON mjöll would be *milla 
then, right? But this gemination, isn't it a problem, given it is 
the same IE root as in Go. malan, Lat. molo, OIr. melim, OCSl. mlěti 
etc meaning "to grind (corn)"? August Fick's proto-Germanic 
vocabulary (Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen: 3. Teil: 
Wortschatz der Germanischen Spracheinheit) mentions Go. ga-
malwjan "zermalmen", ON mölva as well as ON mylja, OHG muljan etc as 
cognate forms from the same stock. Ibidem is asserted that PG. 
*mellô "loser Schnee" (> ON mjöll) comes from (PIE?) *melnâ, so, if 
it is how the geminated -ll- appeared in mjöllnir, then *mjöllnir < 
PG. *mellunijaz < PIE (or pre-PG) *meln-nijos? Or maybe *mellunijaz 
< *melwunijaz (cf. Go. rinnan < *rin-w-)? Whether it be, it's Gothic 
*milluneis M.-ja.

> *in maujos kniwa or ana?

in = í, but ana really seems to fit the case better.

> *weros looks correct, but I'd have to get back to you on this 
one ;)
> 
> > 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).

I agree, and I'm ready to sign the convention about *Thunrs :). So, 
the whole phrase would now look as:
Thunrs weihai thana gardan (tho targa)!
Lit. "May Thor hallow this enclosure!"

And the Eddic fragment (for now):

Þá kvað þat Þrymr, 
þursa dróttinn: 
"Berið inn hamar 
brúði at vígja, 
leggið Mjöllni 
í meyjar kné, 
vígið okkr saman 
Várar hendi."

Thanuh qath thata Thrums,
thaurize drauhtins:
"Bairith inn hamar (?)
bruth du <ga>weihan,
lagjith Milluni
in maujos kniwa,
weihith ugkis samana
Weros handau."

???
Ualarauans






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/