crimean gothic

[Fredrik]

Doesn't it seem to be as crimean gothic differences from biblical 
also appears in later visi- and ostrogothic as they were spoken in 
italy and spain. Such as e: to i:, o: to u: etc?

The fact that CG has e as in schwester where biblical has i isn't 
that just a difference that developed as a dialectal form in perhaps 
visigothic?

if CG have similarities with WG in grammar rather than with Biblical 
gothic, isn't that perhaps because Bibilical gothic has a major greek 
influence and the spoken language probably was more germanic than the 
written and thus more similar to WG than the written biblical gothic?

(see more below)

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Here is a slightly edited version of a summary of Ottar 
> Grønvik: "Die dialektgeographische Stelling des Krimgotischen
> und die krimgotische cantilena." which I posted a while ago.
> 
> 
> In brief, he argues that Crimean Gothic is a West Germanic dialect 
> that separated from the WG continuum at some time before c. 200 AD 
> and after that underwent sound changes in common with the language 
> that evolved into Biblical Gothic.  For phonetic spellings I've
> used the SAMPA notation [ 
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm ].
> 
> Otherwise I've followed the spellings in the article.
> 
> 
> Features of Crimean Gothic:
> 
> 1) No i/j mutation (thus agreeing with Gothic against NWG).
> 2) z > s finally, as in Gothic (*schnos v. OE snoru, ON snør)-- good
> evidence for treatment of Gmc. /z/, as Busbecq apparently didn't
> recognise the word as Germanic.
> 3) u & i preserved before nasal + cons., or before high vowel in
> following syllable (gira < *giri), otherwise lowered in same
> circumstances as in NWG (boga, *schnos v. *thuru; schwester v.
> wintch).
> 4) Raising of e > i before u/w irregular (seuene, fyder), but so too
> in other dialects.

Would some exlain this to me.
Should e have risen to i in seuene? Is the u in seuene a way of 
writing v or w?

about fyder: if e has been raised to i, then y is just another way of 
spelling i. But couldn't this be a u-umlaut?
fidwor > fyder.

OPr maybe it raised from fedwor to fidwor and then u-umlauted to 
fyder with weakened o to e.

> 5) ð > d, as in WG, and subsequently devoiced (plut). Initially and
> in voiced medial positions þ > d. But þ > þ, spelt <tz>, finally
> and medially in voiceless environment. Due to frequent occurrence
> as enclitic in such positions, the pronoun tzo `thou' retained the
> sound.
> 6) Unstressed vowels > @ (schwa), represented by random vowel
> letters, except for Old Crimean Gothic o:n > u:, spelt <ou>
> (kadariou = /kad at rju:/ < *ka(n)dario:n < Lat. centurio:n-).
> 7) /n/ lost after long vowel (kadariou), but kept after short (verb
> inf. ending -en).
> 8) i: > i:     u: > u:     e: > i:     o: > u:    eu > i:
> iu > i:, y:?       ai > e:        au > o:
> 9) initial /h/ lost.
> 
> (Thinks: Point (3) assumes that a-umlaut etc. was a NWG innovation.
> Question, can we tell whether Gothic was unaffected by this change,
> or just lost the distinction between these sounds at a later date?
> Grønvik doesn't bring into the discussion the letter names from the
> Vienna-Salzburg codex: chozma, geuua, enguz.)
> 
> Regarding /i:/ from Gmc. e:1, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.1. that /e:/
> > /a:/ very early in NG but not among the West Germanic people of
> the Elbe region till the end of the 2nd century AD. Later still
> among the Franks in the vicinity of the Rhine. Regarding ð > d,
> Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.2 that this a common WG development, ? 2nd c.
> or earlier. Regarding rhoticism of Gmc /z/, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.4
> that WG probably retained /z/ before 200. The final devoicing he
> sees as a Migration Era sound change shared by Crimean and Biblical
> Gothic. Similarly with the monophthongisation of /ai/ and /au/.
> 
> (The full reasoning behind these assumptions is not explained, but I
> gather there are some Latin inscriptions to West Germanic goddesses
> (`Matrons') which preserve a Germanic dative plural ending: Aflims,
> Vatvims, Saitchamimi(s).)
> 
> 10) warthata = /wartt at te/ < warhta + preterite ending repeated by
> analogy.
> 11) /al:/ lapis = ON hallr, OE heall, rather than Got. hallus.
> 12) thurn = *thuru = /dur@/, old dual form cognate with OE, OS duru,
> rather than Got. daur, daurons.
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Sequence of changes acc. Grønvik:
> 
> 1. NWG
> u > u / o
> e > e / i
> 
> 2. WG to 200
> æ: > e:
> d, ð > d
> z > z
> lþ > lþ
> þ > þ, ð
> e – u/w > i
> xj > xxj
> ngw > ng
> 
> 3. Pre-Gothic
> jj > ddj
> Reduction of unstressed vowels
> Devoicing of final fricatives
> Monophthongisation of ai, au > E:, O:
> rB > rb (dorbiza)
> No i-umlaut
> 
> 4. Old Crimean Gothic + Gothic 350 – 550
> iu > y:
> eu > e:
> e:, o: > i:, u:
> E:, O: > e:, o:
> Further reduction of unstressed vowels
> (þ >) [ð], [d]
> xt, xs > tt, ss
> sk > sch
> sw, sl, sn > schw, schl, schn
> b, d, g devoiced initially
> h-, -h- > Ø
> 
> 
> The song! He reconstructs/interprets thus, explaining his reasoning
> in full detail. I've written it out in SAMPA phonetic notation
> after.
> 
> wara wara ing[a]dolou
> scu te gira galtzou
> heemisclep dorbize ea
> 
> war@ war@ in-gad at lu: (in-gad at lu)
> Su: t@ gir@ galtTu: (galTu:)
> he:m at SlEp: dorb at z@ E@
> 
> Guard (watch over / look after / protect) the very beautiful one.
> You gave (paid) desirable [horse] shoes.
> Let the hungry horse out graze at home.
> 
> The 1st & 3rd lines are taken to be commands/requests.
> 
> scu = *schu `set of [horse] shoes' < gaskohi `pair of shoes' (as in
> Biblical Gothic, but not specifically EG).
> 
> *schlep `let loose to graze' he suggests is a loan from ON sleppa
> (while also considering a possible WG etymology). Following Norse
> grammar he takes <dorbize> as a dative f. sg. adjective, pointing
> out that the pronominal-style of the adjective ending agrees with 
WG 
> rather than Biblical Gothic. He also considers (as less likely) the 
> possibility that this is a comparative.
> 
> <te> is interpreted as WG, although acc. G's phonology it could
> equally apply be from a Gothic-like /du/.
> 
> The situation of the song is compared to the opening lines of
> Norwegian heroic ballads. As a less likely possibility he suggests
> a children's rhyme.
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080516/dfeed93e/attachment.htm>