New file uploaded to gothic-l (of eggs and cats and Danes, k.t.l.)

[llama_nom]

Maybe we should have a second, more definitive file which will start
off small and grow gradually, and only contain words that have been
posted here (just a few at a time, so that all interested parties have
chance to reply, and to do any research necessary) for discussion and
agreed on.

> > "egg ái, n. (addj-)". - Why not addi in nom.?

Braune/Helm 1956, 115a "Die germanischen s-stämme sind im Gotischen
alle in die a-Flexion übergetreten; Aufzählung bei Krause 121 (agis,
gadigis, hatis, sigis, skaþis; ahs, þeihs, weihs)."  Cf. OE
nom.acc.pl. æ´gru.  The one possible partial exception is 'hatis',
attested once as genitive singular 'hatis' Eph 2:3 B, beside hatize
Eph 2:3 A = ORGHS.  The nominative is attested several times as
'hatis', never *hat or *hats (Braune/Helm 94.4).  On the other hand,
Crim.Go. 'ada' is traced back to Go. *addi (Braune/Helm 73.1), which
obviously contradicts this rule.  The Oxford English Dictionary
reconstructs Go. *addjis.  Another possibility is *addeis. 
Unfortunately we only have the participle 'daddjandeim' of the verb
'daddjan' "to suckle" for comparison.  There is a tendency for long
neuter ja-stems to analogously replace 'ei' with 'ji', while masculine
ja-stems tend to preserve the distinction resulting from Sievers' Law:
'ei' after long stems, 'ji' after short (Wright 183), although there
is some fluctuation in either case: andbahteis : andbahtjis;
gawairþeis : gawairþjis.  So, a lot of uncertainties, but perhaps
*addjis is the most likely, given this general trend.  For want of any
more definite evidence, this is the one I've been using (for what
that's worth).  The lack of final 's' in Crimean Gothic isn't really
significant to the question of whether it would have been there in
Wulfilan Gothic; compare: mycha, stul, tag, handa...

> "accusative þula-drusts, a."
> "genitive aigina-drusts, a."
> "dative giba-drusts, a."
> "nominative nama-drusts, a."
> "instrumental hve-drusts, a." – I guess these are all names of 
> grammatical cases and hence nouns?

Yes, although I suggest we go with your suggestion of: hvana-drus,
hvis-drus, hvamma-drus, hvas-drus, hve-drus.

> "stairno-witja", "stairno-leisei". - Weak nouns have –a- as a 
> bindvowel [Braune/Helm, 1952:53], cf. auga-dauro, qina-kunds, wilja-
> halþei etc. So, maybe stairna-witja, stairna-leisei?

Yes.

> "briuwan, 1". - Sure, it's not briggwan?

Agreed, it ought to be *briggwan.

> "kattus, fu" and "katus, mu." – one form excludes another.

How about: 'kattus', mu. "cat" (=ON köttr, mu., Lat. cattus); 'katto'
"female cat", fon (=OE catte, etc.); *kataza "male cat, tomcat" (OHG
chataro).  Romance forms come from Popular Latin *cattus, *catta.  On
Lat. 'catus', the OED comments: "Palladius, ? c 350, has catus,
elsewhere scanned ca:tus (Lewis and Short), and prob. in both cases
properly cattus."

> "Dane Dana mn." - ON Danir pl. M.-i. Maybe Dans, pl. Daneis; 
> Danimarka?

Agreed.  There is some more detailed discussion of this in the
Theudiskon archives, if anyone has time to track it down.  If I
remember rightly, Konrad argued in favour of a regular i-stem in
Proto-Norse (cf. OE Dene, pl., and the name ON Hálfdanr, OE
Healfdene), which was only later replaced with weak forms in the
singular.  I believe we also discussed "English" -- but I don't
remember any firm conclusion being reached as to whether to
reconstruct with a vowel intervening betw. /ng/ and /l/.

> > "badus, mwa", "badwa, fo". - Shouldn't we mark them as "poetic"? I'd 
> doubt that they still existed in the spoken language in the time of 
> the Bible translation.

Good idea to mark words as poetic.  ON böð and OE beado are both fwo.
 Koebler has: "*badwo, germ., F.: nhd. Kampf, Streit, P[ersonal]
N[name] ([recorded c.] 100)."  Is there any justification for this
masculine form?  Can we suppose that it was confined to personal names?

> > "fanigs". - faneigs? 

Maybe, but for a possible justification for the reduced vowel, see [
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/9558 ].  Or to
save complications: *fanahs, like 'stainahs'.

> > "Greek (Lat. Graecus) Krekus, ma." - Either Kreks, ma. (attested) or 
> Krekus, mu.

Go with the attested form, Kreks, surely?!

> > "Greens (pol. party) gronjans, ja.pl." - mn. pl.?

I suppose this is just a matter of deciding how we define
substantivised adjectives.  man.pl. seems like a good idea, given that
it has a meaning that can't be predicted from knowing that the
adjective *groneis, ja/jo indicates a certain colour.

I agree too with the points Uararauans has made about *latists and the
need for medial -d- in derivatives of liuhaþ, liuahada-.

LN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070424/6cb0db3f/attachment.htm>