Nauh niwi liuþ (1) + (2)

[llama_nom]

>> Accusative is used for an extent/stretch/period/duration of time:
>>
>> Allana wintru bruts huliþs was.
>> ...brutilo hulida was.

>Good, i didn't know. so that's some kind of implicit 'during' meaning
using accusative?

Yes.  For example:

Romans 10:21
    A  [...] allana dag usbraidida þos handuns meinos [...]
    — [...] all day long I have reached out my hands [...]

Corinthians I 16:6
    B + A  iþ at izwis waitei salja aiþþau jah wintru wisa, [...]
    — and maybe I'll lodge with you, or even stay the winter, [...]

>> > Hva ist þata niujô, þatei taíriþ jah spraggeiþ?
>>
>> Hva ist þata niujo, þatei disskreitiþ jah distairiþ?
>>
>> 'disskreitan' is used in the Gothic Bible for "tear" (clothes), and
>> 'distairan' for (cause to) burst (wine-bags which burst from
>> fermenting wine).
>>

> isn't the simple form tairan attested?

Not as far as I know. Streitberg has no entry for the simplex, only
'dis-tairan' and 'ga-tairan' [
http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1910/HTML/B137.html ].

> what about spraggjan, is that attested somewhere?

No.

> I'd like to make a difference between swedish 'ja'
and 'ja visst'.

For Go. 'ja', Streitberg has German "ja"; for Go. 'jai', "ja,
wahrlich, fürwahr" [
http://www.wulfila.be/lib/streitberg/1910/html/B071.html ]. So I think
'jai' could well be emphatic enough, in comparison to the unemphatic 'ja'.

'jai' can also be an emphatic sign of the vocative: 'jai manna' W ANQRWPE.

'þannu (nu)', like 'nu' on its own, means something like "so" or
"therefore" or "...then". It's used to suggest that what is being said
now follows on logically or naturally from what has already been said.
 In Romans 9:20 'þannu nu' translates Gk. MENOUNGE "no but", "but ...
indeed", or something like that [
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3304 ].

Romans 9:20
þannu nu jai manna, þu hvas is ei andwaurdjai guda
= W ANQRWPE, MENOUNGE SU TIS EI hO ANTAPOKRINOMENOS TWi QEWi
"no but, oh man, who are you to answer back to GOd?"
"but who, then (in that case), are you, oh man [...]?"

In Romans 9:18, the 'jai' doesn't seem to correspond to anything in
the Greek, and has probably been added accidentally by a copyist, some
time in the history of the text, who got this line slightly mixed up
with verse 20 (Friedrichsen 1939: The Gothic Version of the Epistles,
pp. 83, 244).

Romans 9:18
þannu nu jai þanei wili armaiþ = ARA OUN hON QELEI ELEEI
therefore he shows mercy to the one he wishes
so he takes pity on the one he want to (take pity on)

>> > Aglus wisan unwiss, faurhts jah skaidans,
>>
>> Again, I'd use neuter, "it is hard": 'Aglu unwiss wisan, jah faurhts
>> jah skaidans,'
>>

> is it necessary to use jah so many times? in swedish it should be
enough to use it as i did, i.e. not befor faurht but bnefore skaidans.

I don't know for sure the answer to this. We could maybe look at lists
of nouns in the Gothic Bible (although these will probably all imitate
the Greek original) and in Old Norse, Old English, Old Saxon and Old
High German. That pattern A, B and C had a modern feel to me.  A
couple of Old Norse examples:

tamdist hún meir við skot ok skjöld ok sverð en við sauma eða borða
"she practiced more with shot and shield and sword than with sewing or
embroidery" (But in English you could say "shot, shield and sword".)

hann var bæði mikill ok sterkr ok inn mesti garpr
"he was both big and strong and the greatest of heroes"

Old Norse sagas also sometimes list nouns in pairs like this: A and B,
C and D.

Hún var langleit ok harðleit, bjúgnefjuð ok baröxluð, svartleit ok
svipilkinnuð, fúlleit ok framsnoðin.
"She was long-faced and hard-faced, hook-nosed and had hunched up
shoulders, black-faced and wobbly-jowled, filthy-faced and bald at the
front."

More later...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080430/3c870b02/attachment.htm>