u-stem, wa-stem, adjectives (thick, murk, etc.)

[thiudans]

Orel has *þekwuz for thick with related words *þekojanan, *þekwiþo, 
and perhaps *þunguz, *þumon, *þusjaz and *þus-. That also should point
to Go. *þiqus which might be added to synonomize digrs and maybe in
related senses *grauts, *stiur(ei)s, *stors, *stuts, *tauhs, *trums,
*trius, *þuggs, *frams. 

He also gives *merk(w)az for murky. The Goths might also have used for
this meaning *blaus (?*bleus), *dagqs, *dimms, *dairks, *dusks,
*airps, *glums, *kêms, *salus, *swarts, *þimstrs, *þims (*þims-),
riqizeins....



--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Also, I'd be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of
> 'thick' and 'murk'.  I'm not at all knowledgeable about PIE, but both
> have cognates outside of Germanic; are theer any clues there that
> could help to decide the declension?  Old English has ja/jo-stems:
> 'þicce' and 'mierce', but their Modern English reflexes show no sign
> of palatisation.  In the case of the latter, at least, this might be
> due to its being influenced by, or reintroduced by, the Norse cognate:
> 'myrkr', masc. ac. sg. 'myrkvan'.  Otherwise, the OED speculates that
> the palatisation in English might have been blocked by an intervening
> -w-.  I suppose an alternative could be that palatisation failed, if
> it was an old u-stem, and non-palatised forms were generalised from
> those parts of the declension with no following 'i', 'j'.  Koebler
> reconstructs Go. *þiqus, on the basis of It. 'attecchire', OFrench
> 'tehir', the Germanic word, *þek(k)uz?, being from < PIE *tegu-.  So
> I'm wondering which seems better: Go. *mairqeis (as OE mierce, OS
> mirki), or Go. mairqus, given that little remains of the u-stems
> outside of Gothic, and that many of the Gothic u-stems exist as
> ja/jo-stems in OE?
> 
> LN
> 
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
> > 
> > Ah, yes.  Thanks for that one.  Any relation to *arwjo (Koebler: ohne
> > sichere Etymologie)?  I'm not sure what the semantics of that would be
> > though: more haste less speed...?  Koebler cites the personal names
> > Arosinda, Aragunti, Armirus.  Medial vowels in Migration Era Germanic
> > personal names recorded by Classical authors are notoriously variable.
> >  Alternatively, could these be from 'ara' "eagle"?  How well are these
> > attested as naming elements attested in the other Germanic languages,
> > I wonder.  Incidentally, does anyone know what the loanword (or
> > loanwords) is that Gamillscheg's *arþ- "Wohnsitz, Aufenthalt;
> > residence, domicile" is based on.  All the other Germanic dialects, as
> > far as I know, would be in keeping with PG *arduz, with -d-, but then
> > we have Go. bloþ, gen. bloþis, so I suppose it's not impossible that
> > Gothic was the odd one out here too.
> > 
> > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
> > 
> > It follows a mixed (w)a/i declension in Gothic, doesn't it?  dat. pl.
> > 'aiwam', acc. pl. 'aiwins'.
> > 
> > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
> > 
> > Maybe...  That's another possibility I hadn't thought of.  Although
> > such a variation isn't actually attested in the sparse remains of
> > Gothic as written, and we have got masc. nom. sg. 'manwus', and no
> > examples of such a variation after a consonant.  But there seem to be
> > some conflicting views out there about, for example, 'manwus'.  Is it
> > from *manwaz [
> > http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/boer043sync01/boer043sync01_001.htm ], or
> > *manuz [ http://us.share.geocities.com/iliria1/etymology1.html ]?  The
> > alternation 'glaggwaba' : 'glaggwuba' suggests a sound change:
> > unstressed 'a' > 'u' after 'w'.
> > 
> > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine
nominative?
> > 
> > At least we can tell that it hasn't been assimilated to the u-
> > (u-/ja-) declension, since there's no -j- intervening before the
> > ending.  But maybe it's use as exclusively a weak adjective would have
> > forestalled the assimilation to the u-stems that others of its
> > declension may have undergone.  Is a Gothic origin posited for Italian
> > 'salavo'?
> > 
> > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
> > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
> > 
> > I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.  If you mean: when in
> > doubt, reconstruct etymologically 'correct' or regular forms, rather
> > than analogically altered forms, I'd tend to agree except where a
> > regular pattern of analogical alteration is attested in the language
> > (e.g. the treatment of neuter ez-stems as neuter a-stems: agis, sigis,
> > hatis).
> > 
> > LN
> > 
> > 
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
> > > 
> > > Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has *skaduz,
> > > *skadwaz. He has for skaus *skawaz, for few *fauhaz or *fahwaz; but
> > > *manwuz is a (w)u-stem. There is gothic farwa- (ns. farus?)
> > > appearance, appearing in Orel as *farhwo'. Of course, Gothic *badus
> > > has only common Gmc. precursor *badwo'. Also there is
> > > 
> > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
> > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine
nominative?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
> > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
> > > > > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'?
> >  Pure
> > > > > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)?  Wa-stems: *salws?  Or
> > > > > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the
> > stem:
> > > > > *salwus (cp. manwus)?  And is it significant that the surviving
> > > > > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV
> > (lasiws) --
> > > > > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus,
*qius,
> > > > > *unskaus)?
> > > > > 
> > > > > LN
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070331/1b18f4c4/attachment.htm>