1. Cor. 6:9-10

[ualarauans]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Michael Erwin <merwin at ...> wrote:
>
> [...]
> I've read that arsenokoites is a reference to Leviticus 18 and one
> other chapter.

Right, it's Leviticus 18:22.

Hebrew: we'et-zakhar lo tishkav mishkvei isha: to'eva hu.

Septuagint: KAI META ARSENOS OU KOIMHQHSHi KOITHN GUNAIKOS: BDELUGMA 
GAR ESTIN.

KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is 
abomination.

The term ARSENOKOITHS seems to have been intentionally formed from 
words of this passage.

> Since we don't have Leviticus, we don't have Wulfila's
> translation of those passages either.

I'd suggest the following reconstruction:

jah miþ gumakundamma ni ligais ligr qinons: andaset auk ist.

The etymological figure ligan ligr (or galigri) may have sounded 
foreign. Better ideas?

> However, it's possible that the omission comes from the translation
> instead of the Greek source. I suppose that Gothic culture may have
> worked with different categories regarding sex,

This is very likely. I remember Procopius made report of 
homosexuality practised among the Heruls. Or was it just a slander?

> [...]
> Kalkjo (f) suggests *kalkeis (m) (or phrases such
> as wair-*kalkeis and, to the shame of mankind, magus-*kalkeis) but
> inventions pose several problems.

If kalkjo is indeed kalkjo F.-on then the male equivalent could be 
*kalkja M.-an as well or even likelier. The attested dat. pl. 
kalkjom (Luc. 15:30) may also suggest *kalki F.-jo, and in this case 
masculine *kalkeis M.-ja is quite regular. I wonder could 
kalkinassus have referred rather to women's adultery while the Greek 
word to translate (MOICOI) is masculine?

Ualarauans

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20071204/639953b6/attachment.htm>