Rosomil, Rosmunda, Rosamunda (and Rosomoni)

[OSCAR HERRERA]

rosamunda was a 10 th century queen of the goths in spain if im not mistaken

llama_nom <600cell at oe.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:          --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> And it can well be that the first elements in Rosomoni, Rausimodus
and Rosamunda are each of different origin.

Yes.

> > ON hrósa is probably from *hróðsa (like heilsa). We don't have
cases
> > of þs > ss > s in Gothic, do we? *Hrôza- looks likelier, IMHO.
>
> Aha, I think we're making some progress here! Proto-Germanic "t,
d, þ,
> d > ss", e.g. Go. ga-qiss : Go. qiþan; Go. wissa : Go. witan.
And "ss
> > s after long syllables", e.g. Go. un-weis : Go. witan; Go.
> guþ-blostreis : Go. blotan (Wright § 138). So maybe Hrôsa- is
> likeliest after all?

> In these examples it's rather –TT- > -ss-: ga-qiss < *ga-qiþ- + -Ts
(noun suffix); wissa < *wit- + -Ta (preterite ending); *blostr <
*blôt- + -Tr (cf. gilstr < gild- + -Tr). I don't know about un-weis
(unweis im). Any connection with Lat. uîsus?

Yes, Wright does indeed mention Lat. uîsus.

> While we are close, how do you think the -þs so frequent in auslaut
in nom. sg. was pronounced? In Latvian, for instance, which has the
very same sigmatic ending –s in the 1st declension, it forms
affricate [ts] after a dental: gald-s "table" [galts], jumt-s "roof"
[jumts]. Was it like this in Gothic? Or maybe -þs became rather [s]
or [ss]: wairþ-s [wers], staþ-s [stass], un-ga-tewiþs
['ungate:`wiss]?

Presumably the assimilation of dentals discussed in Wright § 138
wasn't still operative in Gothic at the time the language was
recorded, hence the many examples of dentals intact before 's'. At the
time of the assimilation, the final consonant of the nominative
singular ending would have been seperated from the final consonant of
most roots by a stem vowel. But even in consonant stems, it seems that
the final dental of a root was restored in the nominative singular by
analogy with other parts of the paradigm, as in ON fótr, OE fót, where
the "correct" form ought to have been *fós (*fo:t + s).



                         


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080302/c83c9a33/attachment.htm>