Some new words

[ualarauans]

Hi,

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts at ...> wrote:
>
> biology: libainileisei (fem. i-st.)

Wouldn't it be wise to (re-)construct at once whole word families 
rather than single words in cases like "biology" etc – what is 
then "biologist" or "biological"? Afaik our only attestation of
–leis is lubjaleisai (pl.) which is an adjective glossing liutai in 
2. Tim. 3:13 PONHROI DE ANQRWPOI KAI GOHTES iþ ubilai mannans jah 
liutai. I wonder if it could correspond to Greek noun FARMAKOLOGOI. 
But how are you to form a word for, say, "biologist"? 
Substantivizing the adjective (i.e. lit. "a biological one")? And, 
since –leis is not attested as an analogue of Greek –LOGOS resp.
–LOGIKOS, could it also be Go. –kunþi as a second element in names 
of sciences, after German and Dutch –kunde? In which case "biology" 
could be qiu-kunþi (not to form a compound with a –eins noun since 
they are not known, and Go. qius etymologically = Greek 
BIOS), "biologist" – qiu-kunþja M.–an, "biological" – qiu-kunþeigs 
or qiu-kunþisks.

Another nice question is why we are so afraid of the so called 
international terminology? Why not biaulaugia (after aiwlaugia 
EULOGIA) and hence biaulaugista M.-an or biaulaugus M.-u (the latter 
is more preferable I'd think) and biaulaugikeins (after pistikeins < 
PISTIKOS) or biaulaugisks (after the modern pattern)?

> butterfly: feifaldro (fem. n-st.)

Yes, of course!

> dictator: ainaragineis (masc. ja-st.)
> dictatorship: ainaragini (neut. ja-st.)

Isn't it more to "monarchy" or "autocracy"? – cf. fidurragini for 
TETRARCOUNTOS, actually for *TETRARCIA. What difference is there 
between "dictator" and "autocrator" resp. "monarch" (sorry for a 
stupid question)? Is the language expected to distinguish them in 
some way?

> euphonious: drunjufagrs (adj.)

aiwfonus? A calque like waila-hliuþs (adj.)?

> fart: fairtan (sv. VI)

Seems one of the eldest IE verbs.

> geography: stadileisei (fem. n-st.)

gaiografia (gaiografus „geographer", gaiografikeins/-
grafisks „geographical")? Calqued airþa-meleins (airþa-meljands 
cons. st., and what's the adjective?)?

> geology: airþaleisei (fem. n-st.)

gaiolaugia (gaiolaugus/-laugista, gaiolaugikeins/-laugisks). 
Puristic airþa-kunþi (airþa-kunþja, airþa-kunþeigs) keeping the 
convention of GAIA = airþa which is how it is attested.

> geometry: airþamela (masc. n-st.)

gaiomaitria or airþa-mitains (airþa-mitands cons. st., the adjective 
is still a problem). METREW = mita.

> library: bokaheiþ (neut. a-st.)

What is -heiþ?

> linguistics: razdaleisei (fem. n-st.)

glossaulaugia (just for Greek fans :-). Maybe also razda-kunþi or 
smth like tugga-fraþi?

> music: drunjulists (fem. i-st.)

Isn't lists attested for something bad?

> participate: dailaniman (sv. IV)
> participator: dailanimands (masc. nd-st.)

There's a verb fair-aihan METECEIN. Doesn't it fit the meaning? And, 
why not to keep the elements apart: daila niman, in the verb? Like 
arbi niman "to inherit", hunsla saljan "to worship" (lit. "to offer 
sacrifices"). Since Gothic didn't separate words in writing it's 
difficult (isn't it?) to say whether these semi-compounds (a wrong 
term I guess) should be written apart or together in modern style 
Latinized orthography. BTW nomen agentis could also be daila-numja 
(after arbi-numja).

> philosopher: fairhvufroda (masc. n-st.)
> philosophy: fairhvufrodei (fem. n-st.)

filausaufia, liuba-frodei (liuba-froda M.-an, but the adjective is 
definitely not liuba-froþs)

> policy: raginei (fem. n-st.)
> politician: ragineis (masc. ja-st.)
> politics (governing): ragini (neut. ja-st.)

If I remember right we discussed these matters a time ago, but I 
don't remember our conclusions...

> psychology: saiwalaleisei (fem. n-st.)

pswxaulaugia (looks terrible I know). Or saiwala-kunþi.

About the names for grammatical cases. I recently read about 
evolution of Latin grammar terms. Varro and others use casus dandi 
for dative, casus nominandi for nominative, casus vocandi for 
vocative etc alongside with –ivus formations. If we have problems 
with forming first elements of namo etc, why don't we use a schema 
like this:
namnjanda drus (or namnjanda-drus) for nominative;
fadreina-drus or fraihnanda-drus for genetive (cf. Latin casus 
patrius or casus interrogandi);
gibanda-drus for dative;
wrohjanda-drus for accusative (an obvious calque);
haitanda-drus for vocative;
afbairanda-drus for ablative (would someone wish to discuss Latin 
grammar in Gothic)...

To keep it quite simple, how about hvas-drus, hvis-drus, hvamma-drus 
and hvana-drus? The vocative could then probably be o!-drus :-) And 
no un-Gothic cases which is a pity.

Ualarauans

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070416/462bfde5/attachment.htm>