crimean gothic

[Fredrik]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> 
> Yes, these two sound changes are found in Gothic personal names
> recorded by writers of Latin and Greek, and seem to have been a
> feature of spoken Gothic in Italy at the time when the surviving
> manuscripts were produced.  The scribal confusion of `e' with `ei',
> and `o' with `u' affects some parts of the Gothic Bible more than
> others; the surviving texts are apparently based on earlier versions
> in which this confusion didn't exist.
> 
Are these changes only valid for the gothic spoken in italy and not 
spain? if so, should it be considered a specific ostrogothic change 
as it also occures in crimean gothic?

other changes are diphthongs becoming monophthongs.
biblical ai corresponds to crimean e (long probably?), which is 
common with italian ostrogothic (?). But what about biblical au. In 
italian gothic it is o (long here too?), like Oderit from Audareths.
Did crimean have long o here too, like broe from brauth?

> > 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?
> 
> It might be that the loss of distinction between PGmc. /i/ and /e/
> wasn't a feature of all Gothic dialects.  Or it might be that 
Busbeque
> used `e' in some of these words because he assimilated them to West
> Germanic cognates that were familiar to him.  Alternatively, `i' 
could
> have been lowered to `e' later in the history of Crimean Gothic in
> some contexts at least.  I don't think there's enough evidence to 
be sure.

Probably not, but it seems to be as crimean has i where pgmc had it 
and e where pgmc had it. Doesn't it?

> 
> > 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?
> 
> One grammatical difference that Grønvik refers to here is
> morphological: the use of the pronominal ending in feminine dative
> singular adjectives (dorbize).  There is no evidence, as far as I
> know, that the Greek source influenced the morphology (variable word
> forms, inflections) of the Gothic translation, although it did have 
a
> big influence on word order.  But the identification of this word is
> highly speculative, so it's not at all clear whether Grønvik's
> conclusion is correct.  If it was a comparative or something else
> entirely (which it could well be), his argument wouldn't hold.
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> The potential cause of the raising that Grønvik is talking about 
here
> is no longer evident in the Crimean Gothic forms, but still present 
in
> Biblical Gothic: [u] in the case of `sibun', and [w] in the case of
> `fidwor'.  And yes, the `u' in `seuene' could represent [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.
> 
> Maybe.  One thing that suggests that Busbeque might have used `y'
> interchangeably with `i' is that it also appears in `mycha' 
(Biblical
> Gothic `meikeis'), where there was no following [u] or [w] in 
earlier
> stages of the language.
> 
> > OPr maybe it raised from fedwor to fidwor and then u-umlauted to 
> > fyder with weakened o to e.
> 
> I guess you meant OCr (Old Crimean)?  That seems a reasonable
> possibility to me.  Either of these could have happened:

That was actually just a typo, meant 'Or'

> 
> [e] > [i]
> [e] > [i] > [y]
> 
> And even if the latter had happened, it could have been unrounded 
later.
>

Is it only Busbeque's writings that makes the source to crimean 
gothic or is there any other? How much about CG can be stated as fact 
by analyzing these sources? About grammar and phonology.
If I understand correct most people think there's a lot of typos and 
other errors in his writings and therefor not totaly reliable.

/Fredrik



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080529/643b9c43/attachment.htm>