Drus Griutinge (main text)

[llama_nom]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Lang mel galiþan (passim) "Long time ago" – why not usliþan? And 
> maybe dative would be better here, cf. Icel. liðnum þrim 
> vetrum "three years ago".


For time having passed, we've got 'nahts framis galaiþ'.  That's why I
chose this one.  Maybe 'usleiþan' would work too?  I shall ponder
cases.  You could be right about dative; it is referring more to a
point in the past than a period.  But, if I remember rightly, '(at)
liðnum þrim vetrum' means "after three years had passed", "when three
years were up" -- rather like the Gothic dative absolute: jah at Iesu
ufdaupidamma jah bidjandin usluknoda himins (L 3:21); at sunnin þan
urrinnandin ufbrann (Mk 4:6).  Old Norse has the expression: (þat var)
fyrir löngu "(that was) long ago"...


> 
> alafusai gumans "men most eager" – alafunsai?


Yes, you're absolutely right.  All that OE and ON poetry made me forget!


 
> ufsniþanai stainam "slain with stones" – ufsneiþan seems to mean 
> literally "to slaughter an animal", "to kill with a knife or sword". 
> How could you do it with stones?


Good point.  I'll think about that one.  Possible excuses: an
acceptable synonym in poetry?  And ON 'drepa' doesn't only mean to
kill by striking.  Or alternatively:

maurþridai stainam
magjus juþan bai.

Okay, not exactly murdered; I'm sure Ermanaric could argue
self-defense, but again possible an acceptable poetic license?


> ni witum ... ak gataujam "We know not ... but that is what we shall 
> do". It would seem as if there's an opposition "ni – ak" in the 
> sense of Germ. "nicht - sondern". That would be a strange phrase, 
> where knowing and doing are something that substitute for each 
> other. German would have aber or trotzdem and Gothic probably iþ or 
> sweþauh. Correct me if I misunderstand here something.


I see what you mean.  I have a vague memory of seeing a similar
example, or examples, somewhere in the Epistles.  I'll try and track
it down.  It's always possible I hallucinated it...  Thanks for
pointing it out.  If I can't find anything, I'll change it as you suggest.


> 
> Þata was auk þiudans / þiuþeigosts gibom; / þata was auk hilmje / 
> hindarweisosts "For that was the king most kind in gifts; for that 
> was the sliest of sovereigns". Why not þiudane, to parallel with 
> hilmje?


Both usages are attested: gudjane auhumistans : auhumists weiha.  I
chose 'þiudans' just for the sake of the meter: ú (x) x x / x
(Sievers' type A, which wouldn't work with two undressed syllables
after the final lift/beat).


> 
> þuls "minister" – is ON þulr an –i-stem or an-u-stem (in which case 
> it's Go. þulus)?


OE þyle, an i-stem.  I think the ON word is an i-stem too, isn't it? 
Dative 'þul': "At hárum þul hlæ þú aldregi."


> 
> Inn qam "In came" – I remember we discussed that inna qam would be 
> more correct.


Excellent point!


> jah minþiladrupam "and the foam of the bit" – munþila-drupam?



OHG mindil; OE mídl, míþl (rather than *mýdl, *mýðl) -- points to *
minþila-.  Could still be related to 'munþs' by ablaut, perhaps?  The
OED mentions Lat. manducare.



> Imrikins banins "Imrika's slayer" – do you think the nom. is bana
> M -an? Why not banja M.-an (synon. with banja F.-o "wound")?


Fairly sure about this one: OE 'bana' "killer"; ON bani; OHG bano. 
But OE 'benne' "wound"; ON "ben".



> so þiudaahva "the mighty river" – wouldn't the a's have been 
> contracted into þiudahva? Are there any examples?


Lots of examples of 'aa' [ http://www.wulfila.be/Corpus/Search.html ],
most involve prefixes, but cf. galiugaapaustauleis; afraanastodeinai.


> 
> badwos fusa "keen for conflict" – funsa? And, isn't it < PG *baðwaz 
> M.-a? Maybe, badwis funsa or as a compound badwafunsa?



Yes, 'funsa'.  The object of desire in genitive in OE and ON.  And see
OE beado, fwo; ON böð, gen. böðvar, fwo.



> langa "long" (adv.) – maybe laggo?


We've got: swa lagga swe ik im þiudo apaustaulus (R 11:13); swa lagga
hveila swe (Mk 2:19, etc.); saei habaida unhulþons mela lagga (L
8:27); jah ni wilda laggai hveilai (L 18:4).

And: nauh leitil mel liuhaþ in izwis ist (J 12:35); leitil nauh jah ni
saihviþ mik; jah aftra leitil jah gasaihviþ mik (J 16:16-17).

So both dative and accusative used adverbially for duration of time. 
According to Wright, accusative is the usual case for duration in time
or space.  I wonder if the use of dative arose through
reinterpretation of 'lagga (mela)' as 'lagga (hveila)'?  Icelandic has
'löngu' "for a long time" (dat.sg.).



> 
> leitil waiht "a little thing" – why not leitila waihts F.-i?



I see that Streitberg says 'waiht' neuter is used only with negatives,
so you're right again: waihts, fi./fc.  Attested both as an i-stem and
a consonant stem.  This will mess up the meter of the next line, but
I'll think of something...


> 
> haglakaurnam / kaldaim draibiþs "by hailstones driven" – is this 
> inspired by Icelandic runic poem: hagall er kaldakorn / ok 
> krapadrífa?


Yes, that and the Old English poem the Seafarer, which calls hail
"corna caldast", and the Old English rune poem has "H byþ hwitust corna".


> 
> sa staþs, þarei wulfs / ni wili wraton ufta "that place where the 
> wolf is loath to linger" – maybe þadei ("where to") ... wraton?


I guess 'þarei' suggests that the wolf might pass through if he had
to, but he wouldn't actually want to stroll about there.  'þadei'
would suggest that the wolf wouldn't go there at all.  So either make
sense, although 'þadei' might be more dire?  'ufta' by the way was my
attempt at imitating the traditional understatement in old Germanic
poems: the wolf doesn't often like to wander in that place = the wolf
doesn't like to be there at all.


> waurhtida ijos du wargam "made outlaws of them" – (ga-)waurhta? And 
> maybe you'd need a fem. of wargs. Dat. pl. wargom (both F.-o and
> F.-on)?





> Ni andnam þos brudeis at reik / bleiþein in waihtai "Those ladies 
> got no mercy from the ruler" – Ni andnemun ... fram ... bleiþeins ni 
> waiht(ai)?


Yes, plural: 'andnemun'.  But 'at' is okay: þo anabusn nam at attin
meinamma (John 10:18); unte ik andnam at fraujin (1Cor 11:23).  There
is also a similar use of 'at' with 'nema' in Old Norse.  I see bleiþei
is attested in both singular and plural.  Any reason to favour the
plural?  'in waihtai' is a very common intensifier for the negative [
http://www.wulfila.be/Corpus/Search.html ].



> Gardins begetun "homes they found" – isn't gards an –a-stem, acc. 
> pl. gardans?


No, it's an i-stem: andnimaina mik in gardins seinans (L 16:4); þaiei
gardins allans uswaltjand (Tit 1:11).  And see Streitberg: [
http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1910/HTML/B047.html ].


> 
> Fraus nasos is smalos "Froze his little nose" – if nasos is pl., 
> then why not frusun? Or is it an impersonal verb friusan acc.?


That's what I was thinking.  It's used impersonally in Old Norse.



> was abraba lasiws "He was sorely exhausted" – lit. "was strongly 
> weak"?


"Extremely weak" ("exhausted" being an interpretive translation from
the context...)  The adverb is attested used of fear and size.


> 
> bi spedistin (twice) "at last" – an Anglicism?


I was thinking of: bi spedistin þan anakumbjandam þaim ainlibim
ataugida (Mk 16:14).


> 
> jah waton bigat "and found water" – wato acc. sg. neutr.?



You're right.


> 
> Ga-u-hva-saihvis þu, wins "Doest thou see ought, friend" –
> win voc. sg.?



Yes, it should be.  Well spotted!  Metrical note: rightly or wrongly I
decided to count 'hv' and 'q' as single consonants, rather than clusters.



> 
> waihts unkunþos "strange beings" – waihtins acc. pl.?
> 
> hva and wig skewjan, / waihts unkunþos "what it is that walking upon 
> the way, strange beings" – hva and wig skeweiþ, waihtins... or 
> waihteis?



The word is attested both as i-stem and consonant stem: see above.  So
either would work: waihts or waihtins.


> 
> austro "from the east" – maybe austana?


austro, from aust(r) + the ablative suffix -þro dodges the question of
whether 'r' should be included in the root; and it seemed to me like a
reasonable possibility given the various other adverbs built along
this model: jainþro, etc.  This is meant to be Sievers A 3 delayed
alliteration, by the way (cf. Vóluspá: ok um þat gættusk = x x x / x).
 Only one unstressed syllable is allowed to follow the single lift in
this type.  So I'd have to rethink this a bit if I chose *aust(r?)ana
instead.  I'm sure the question of directions must have come up here
in the past...


> þruthaurne "trumpets" – þuthaurne?



That's right.  Thanks.



> 
> Niu gadaursam "Do we not dare" – gadaursum (praet.-praes.)?




True.



> 
> þatei usdreiban magt "that thou canst drive out" – mageis (optative)?


Yes, as in the suitable combattative: nih ahjaiþ þatei qemjau lagjan
gawairþi ana airþa; ni qam lagjan gawairþi, ak hairu (Mt 10:34).


> 
> wulfeins "wolvish" – wouldn't wulfisks or wulfakunds be better?


I picked this suffix in particular because of the Old English poem
Deor: Wé geáscodan Eormanríces wylfenne geþóht "We have heard of
Ermanaric's wolvish mind."


> 
> aiþþau afmarzeins / ana markai sijai "or treachery be upon the 
> border" – so you stress af-marzeins on the stem? Or aiþþau, af- and 
> ana do alliterate here?



I was alliterating on /m/.

aiþþau afmarzeins    x x / \ x         Sievers type C
ana markai sijai     x x / x ú (x)     Sievers type B + resolution

For the first of these, cf. gyf him edwendan (Beowulf 280 x x / \ x),
admittedly with alliteration on the vowel /e/.  I think it's most
common, in Beowulf at least, to alliterate on the first lift where
there is only one prop/stuðill/alliterator, but there are also plenty
of lines where alliteration is on the second lift only.  But are there
any where the alliteration is carried by the second part of a
compound?  I'll investigate...  If not, it might be worth changing.


> 
> ana bel galagt "thou didst set ... on a pyre" – you mean some poetic 
> form of galagides?


You're right, of course: it should be 'galagides'.  No poetry here! 
I'll need to sort out the meter to accomadate that.



> 
> sarwo laus "defenceless" – sarwe laus (sarwa N.-a pl.)?


Yes.


> 
> wainaha kuni "wretched people" – wainah or wainahata?


Yes.  I think this must have crept in the course of revisions.  I
probably had 'þiuda' at one time...


> 
> fus haljos "eager for thy grave" – funs?


Yes.


> 
> ana hangista "on horseback" – maybe ha:hists for "hengest" (Old 
> Runic hanhistaR)?


Funny you should mention that...  I was just thinking about this,
after looking up "horse" names.  I think I will change it to 'hahista'
(considering Go. hahan, fahan, as against their NWG cognates with /ng/).


> 
> iþ anþarai arans / ana airþai distaurun "others eagles upon the 
> earth did rend" – anþarans acc. pl.?



Yes.  Another one of those lines that went through so many revisions I
got blind to the discrepancies!


> 
> biþe saiwala brigus / us brustim fralet "when the monarch let go the 
> life from his breast" – fralailot?


Yes: you're right again!  I blame Old Norse 'lét'.


> 
> Ni was ainhun strawo / jainamma reik "No wake at all for that 
> noble" – ainohun (since strawa is fem.)?


Yes.  I had a feeling there was some tendency to disregard agreement
with 'ainhun'.  In the back of my mind, I had that example of Wright's
'ni wairþiþ garaihts ainhun leike' -- but obviously this isn't quite
the same thing.


> 
> Ik gasahv þar falka laus "A falcon I saw there" – falkan lausana 
> (acc.)?


Correct.


> 
> Also I spotted a number of compounds with a missing bindvowel:
> 
> þis armlausins "of the armless" – armalausins? (there was even such 
> a tribe in Germania – Lat. Armalausi)
> 
> hunslfrodos "knowledgeable about sacrifice" – hunsla-frodos?
> 
> tibrmaujos "oblation-maidens" – tibramaujos?
> 
> neiþhardus "hate-hard" – neiþahardus? Though here it may be right, 
> since (if) h was weak.
> 
> iuphimins "High Heaven" – iupahimins? Same is here.
> 
> I'm sure that most of the above said (sg. for pl. etc) are 
> poeticisms and somehow connected with the rhyme. Would Llama sa 
> Liuþareis comment on that?


Certainly!  As you've guessed, for the sake of the meter, I took
advantage of the fact that connecting vowels are sometimes used,
sometimes not, in Biblical Gothic.  Of course, it may be that Gothic
poets followed quite different rules; in fact they probably did at a
very early stage in the language; but at the stage we have it, it's
not so very different from Old English at the time when the earliest
examples of Old English poetry are thought to have been composed. 
Near enough for it to be fairly easy to wrangle sentences into
passable lines of verse according to the same rules.  So I tried as
far as I could to follow the metrical patterns of early Old English
poetry as analysed by Eduard Sievers and others in that tradition.

Nahts neiþhardus.  / / \ x   -- this is the archetypal Sievers' type D.

gatawida tibrmaujos   (x) ú (x) x / \ x  -- type D*, this time with
the prefix counting as anacrusis, resolution of the short first lift
(i.e. the short stressed syllable is counted together with the
following unstressed syllable as metrically equivalent to a single
stressed syllable) + one intervening unstressed syllable (that's what
the asterisk denotes in Sievers' classification), and the rest as in
"nahts neiþhardus".

trudan hreimawigans,  ú (x) / x ù (x).  -- Reversed D, with resolution
on the first lift and the half-stress at the end.  Here we can get
away with the connecting vowel because the half-stress is on a short
syllable, so it can be resolved.  This is a variant of type D in which
the half-stress is shifted to the end of the line and is preceded by a
unstressed syllable.  "trudan hreimwigans" would also be metrically
acceptable because resolution is blocked in this position when a short
half-stress immediately follows a long stressed syllable (and
half-stress must be followed by a long unstressed syllable, which it
is: -ans).

> þis armlausins "of the armless" – armalausins? (there was even such 
> a tribe in Germania – Lat. Armalausi)
> 
> hunslfrodos "knowledgeable about sacrifice" – hunsla-frodos?

The armless one is Ermanaric, a reference to his injuries received
from Sunjahildi's vengeful brothers.  "þis armlausins" would scan: x /
\ x.  This is a variant of Sievers' type C in which a haflf-stress
(secondary stress) counts is used in the second lift just like a full
stress.  Weirdly, from the point of view of Germanic cognates, Go.
'arms' "arm" is a masculine i-stem, so the expanded form would be:
armilaus.  Cf. jah is andnam ina ana armins seinans (L 2:28).

 
> Ualarauans


Þus awilido, Walhahrabn.  You've been very helpful!  Hmm, here's a
puzzle: preterite 2nd. sg. of hilpan?  halpt?  halft?

LN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070418/3a796759/attachment.htm>