Attila's speech

Mon Sep 3 06:21:20 UTC 2007

ualarauans wrote:
>
> Hi, all fans of the Gothic language (if some are still alive out
> here ;-).
>
> Having revised the text over and over again I've arrived at the
> following version. All major emendations are listed below. The words
> in <...> have no matches in the Latin original but seem to be rather
> indispensable in Gothic. Your recommendations are, as before,
> welcome.
>
> (Getica 202-206 Gothice uersa)
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> [Attila qaþ:]
>
> Afar sigiza swalaudaizo þiudo, afar midjungard, jabai gastandaiþ,
> gatamidana, until domidedjau <izwis> swaswe unweisans waihtais
> waurdam inwagjan. Sokjai þata andizuh niujis drauhtins aiþþau
> unfraisans harjis. Nih mis binauht ist hva gamainjata rodjan, nih
> izwis skuld ist hausjan. Hva raihtis anþar jus nibai militon biuhtai
> <sijuþ>? Aiþþau hva gumin swinþamma woþizo þau fraweit handau
> sokjan? Mikila giba <ist> at wistai ahmans fragildis sadans briggan.
> Anaqimaima nu andastaþi mundrai: balþizans sind sinteino þaiei
> farand du harjon. Gaqumanaim frakunneiþ missaleikaim þiudom: bandwo
> faurhteins ist gamainduþai driugan. Sai faura ufarruna unsaramma
> agisa ju dishabanda, hlaina sokjand, haugans nimand jah <in> seiþjai
> idreigai in haiþjom tulgiþos usbidand. Kunþ izwis ist hvan sijaina
> leihta Rumone sarwa: frumein jan-ni qiþa wundufnjai, ak silbin
> stubjau kaurjanda, miþþanei in tewai gagaggand jah hansos <in>
> skildubaurg gawidand. Jus haifstjaiþ gastoþaim ahmam swe biuhtai,
> fra-h-kunnandans harja ize Allanans dissitiþ, in Wisugutans
> atdriusiþ. Þaruh uns adrata sigis sokjan <skuld ist>, þarei sik
> habaiþ waihjo. Afmaitanai þan <af> sinwom suns liþjus afsliupand,
> nih mag standan leik þammei baina usnimis. Urreisaina ahmans, moþs
> swikunþs ufarwahsjai. Nu mitonins, Huneis, nu wepna uslukiþ: jabai
> gawundoþs hvas – andastaþjis dauþu gatilo, aiþþau hails – fijande
> slauhtais gasoþjaidau. Þans sigizwairþjans ni ainohun arhvazno
> undrinniþ, þans dauþubljans jah in rimisa waiwaurds gadrauseiþ. Bi
> spedistin duhve Wodans Hunins ana swa managaim þiudom hroþeigans
> ustaiknida, nibai du þizos haifstais swegniþai gamanwidedi? Þaþroþ-
> þan hvas Aujo wig þaim airizam unsaraim gabairhtida þana swa laggos
> aldins galukanan fulginana? Hvas nauh þaim wepnalausam gakunnan
> gatawida þans gawepnodans? Andawleizn Hune ni mahtedun bairan
> galisanai alamans. Ik ni afairzjada bi þata habando gadaban: her
> akrs ist þanei unsis swa managos ansteis gahaihaitun. Fruma in
> andastaþi spiuta gawairpa. Jabai hvas magi <at> Attilin weihandin
> gahveilain <sis> haban, gafulhans ist.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> tantarum = swalaudaizo "so great" instead of swa managaizo "so
> many". The Latin word can mean both, but since only Lat. tot is used
> for "so many" throughout the fragment we may probably argue that
> here Jordanes (Attila) emphasized the "greatness" (numerical value
> of each), not just plain number, of the nations that had been
> conquered by the Huns up to the day of the Catalaunic battle.
>
> autem "indeed" = raihtis (was: sweþauh). Not that I can sufficiently
> support this choice with arguments. I just feel this sounds better.
>
> ante impetum "before [our] attack" = faura ufarruna. Actually when
> (re-)constructing *ufarruns M.-i (cf. Mod. Engl. "to overrun",
> Germ. "überrennen", albeit with a slightly different meaning) I
> didn't recall Greek EPIDROMH which fits perfectly in for translating
> Lat. impetus. It's not easy to think that the Goths were lacking
> such a word in their otherwise presumably very rich military lexicon
> so that they had to calque Greek. Still, as far as nothing better is
> in sight, this would do. Compare additionally Go. ufarmeleins
> (ufarmeli) for Gr. EPIGRAFH, ufarhiminakunds for EPOURANIOS and
> other examples where Go. ufar- = Gr. EP(I)-. Go. runs stands in the
> Bible for Gr. DROMOS "running" as well as RUSIS "flow".
>
> nota uobis sunt "you know", lit. [these things (neuter plural)] are
> familiar to you" = kunþ izwis ist (singular) replacing kunþa izwis
> sind (plural). I asked the question whether this plural was good
> Latin or an error on a mailing list dedicated to Latin studies
> (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Latinitas/ 
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Latinitas/>) and I was told that
> it is certainly wrong here and that most likely Jordanes was
> thinking about the word Lat. arma "arms" (equally neuter plural)
> following in the subordinate clause. Well, for Lat. arma my Gothic
> has sarwa, neuer plural as well, and one could be inclined to keep
> this (erroneous) peculiarity (plural kunþa izwis sind) as a trait of
> Jordanes' authorship. Still, good Gothic would demand singular, like
> Latin. (see e.g. Eph. 3:5).
>
> et acies testudineque conectunt = jah hansos <in> skildubaurg
> gawidand. Undoubtedly the most obscure place in the whole fragment.
> Mierow has it as "and forming in one line with locked shields".
> Apart from asking whether Go. hansa (actually "band of
> warriors", "cohort") is good enough to render Lat. acies the form
> testudineque seems to be quite out of sense here. My Gothic is
> literally "and [they] join their cohorts together in a "fortress of
> shields". Using -baurgs also helps me avoid addressing the question
> what case – dative or accusative – must be put in here ;-)
>
> se continet "finds itself" = sik habaiþ (instead of sik gahabaiþ).
> The latter seems to have a different attested meaning ("to obstain").
>
> abscisa autem neruis mox membra relabuntur (Mierow's) "when the
> sinews are cut the limbs soon relax" = afmaitanai þan <af> sinwom
> suns liþjus afsliupand. In the draft version I translated this
> thinking that abscisa autem neruis must be absolute dative that
> needs correction => abscisis autem neruis. Jordanes often makes
> mistakes in his Latin, after all. But then I was told by experts
> that abscisa in fact refers to membra, so it's the "limbs" which
> are "cut off the sinews", literally. Hence the new Gothic reading.
>
> postremo "finally" = bi spedistin (was: bi aftumin). The first is
> factually attested in Mc. 16:14.
>
> cur fortuna Hunnos tot gentium uictores adseret, nisi ad certaminis
> huius gaudia praeparasset? (Mierow's) "why should Fortune have made
> the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to prepare
> them for the joy of this conflict?" = duhve Wodans Hunins ana swa
> managaim þiudom hroþeigans ustaiknida, nibai du þizos haifstais
> swegniþai gamanwidedi? As you see I chose a descriptional way of
> saying this, namely "why should Wodan have caused the Huns to
> triumph over so many nations..." (see the same turn of speech in 2
> Cor. 2:14), instead of trying to literally imitate Latin. Some may
> wonder why it's Wodan who helps the Huns and even (in the next
> sentence) opens them the way into Oium, but this as I said
> is "interpretatio Gothica", much like Roman authors (Julius Caesar,
> Tacitus) who described the ancient Germani worshipping Mercurius,
> Iuppiter, Mars etc implying they were honored under their Germanic
> names, i.e. *Wodanaz, *Þunraz, *Teiwaz respectively ("interpretatio
> Romana"). Whenever a Goth was in need of referring to a Hunnish god
> of battle and war fortune, Wodan was the most likely candidate to be
> mentioned, if the person wanted to avoid long explanations and
> awkwardly sounding foreign names. There was such a thing as "pagan
> religious isomorphism", after all (hope I got the right word). And,
> of course, I am not going to raise again the debate whether the
> historical Goths knew the name of Wodan or not. If someone knows a
> better (and more verifiable) option, let it be said here.
>
> ad certaminis huius gaudia "for the joys of this battle" = du þizos
> haifstais swegniþai (was: fahedai). Swegniþa (Gr. AGALLIASIS) as
> well as the corresponding verb swegnjan (AGALLIASQAI, BRABEUEIN)
> seem to pertain more to "triumph" than faheþs, faginon which refer
> to "joy" in general.
>
> Well, that's all for now. If there are no objections on the part of
> other listmembers, could we have this text put into the files
> section of Gothic-L?
>
> Ualarauans
>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM
>   
Dear Ualarauans,

After this short message I shall unsubscribe from the Gothic newsletter. 
First you are obviously deceived into thinking that the entire writtings 
of Jordanes are accurate instead of the cut and paste propaganda of a 
third rate political and religious hack who tried to deceive readers 
into accepting it as the condensed work of a lost Roman historian. 
Jordanes may be a source but he ranks somewhat below Goering and has the 
same glorious interpretation of Germanic history as the Nazis had. If I 
were to discover that you had facist inclinations it would not surprise 
me in the least. In your favor of course is your language skills, they 
appear admirable! Please enjoy your past time by yourself...

Goodbye,

Frederick Louis Scoggins

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:gothic-l-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:gothic-l-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/