A short gothic poem

Mon Jul 8 03:00:06 UTC 2013

does someone  haf a definitive words for nose and hair......i think hair is tagla , but back in those days all the goths had long hair and i assume they were talkin about putting their hair as a pony tail......not sure

--- On Sun, 7/7/13, Edmund <edmundfairfax at yahoo.ca> wrote:

From: Edmund <edmundfairfax at yahoo.ca>
Subject: [gothic-l] Re: A short gothic poem
To: gothic-l at yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2013, 4:30 PM

Dear Gerry,

I have done some checking, as promised, and can relay the following.

1) Earlier attempts to equate the wisan- and wairthan-passive forms with the etymological equivalents in modern German have been shown to be misguided and ultimately misrepresentative of the linguistic facts. A study done by Anneliese Bammesberger entitled "Die Deutung partiell konkurriender Formen: Ueberlegungen zum Gotischen Was-, Warth-Passiv" (in >Befund und Deutung. Zum Verhaeltnis von Empirie und Interpretation in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft< 1979) has shown that the

'was-' und 'warth-'Passiv werden in gleicher Weise zum Ausdruck passivischer Bedeutung verwendet. Zwischen diesen beiden Morphemgruppen sind Unterschiede in der syntaktisch-semanatischen Funktion nicht ueberzeugend nachzuweisen. (p. 108)

In other words, there is, on the whole, no demonstrable difference in meaning between the pseudo-auxiliaries 'wisan' and 'wairthan' in the formation of the paraphrastic passive, and that "'warth-' wie 'was-'Passiv kann griechischen Aorist oder Perfekt entsprechen" ('the 'warth-' like the 'was-'passive can correspond to the Greek aorist or perfect'). To cite only a couple of her examples:

'gabaurans warth' (J9,20) = aorist, versus 'galothoths warth' (C7,18) = perfect
'gabaurans was' (G4,23) = perfect, versus 'galothoths wast' (C7,21) = aorist

This means ultimately that Gothic lacks an unambiguous way of showing a stative versus an active sense in the paraphrastic passive.

2) The example I cited in an earlier e-mail, with 'haitada' ('is called'), seems to have caused some confusion because of my gloss. 'Haitan' means simply 'to have as one's name, to be named, to be called'. The gloss 'to be called' need not imply reiteration -- "keep on calling him" as you worded it. Thus the line I cited could also be translated 'Barabbas or Jesus, whose name is Christ'. This is clearly stative. And I have found some further examples wherein a stative sense is quite clear:

us thammei all fadreinis in himina jah ana airtha namnjada (E3,15) 'whence every family in heaven and on earth is named'

swethauh ei ufarassau izwis frijonds mins frijoda (2C12,15) 'but such that loving you more, will I be loved less'

fram thammei gafahanai habanda (2T2,26) 'by whom they are held captive'

As these examples show, a stative sense is in fact possible with inflected passives.

The foregoing then means that the phrase "is buried" can be translated indifferently as 'filhada' or 'ist fulhans'.

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Edmund" <edmundfairfax at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> My objection was in fact NOT to the use of the past participle in the poem but rather to the form "fulhada", which is a confusion of a past participle and an inflected rather than paraphrastic present passive form; if an inflected present passive form is to be used, then it must be 'filhada' or a prefixed form of the same.
> 
> As you rightly observe, the paraphrastic passive construction could also be used to form present passives, with a present or future reference. Given that the verb 'wisan' is inherently stative, the form 'ist fulhans' is naturally to be interpreted as a stative passive. That the inflected pres. passive cannot have a stative meaning, however, I have my doubts, but at this point, I will do more research and report my findings in due course.
> 
> Certainly, the use of 'ist fulhans' (with the past part. properly agreeing with whatever word it is to modify), or by ellipsis simply the past part. alone, would seem to be a very acceptable choice in the context of the poem. The following example is very close in sense:
> 
> ni waiht auk ist gahulith thatei ni andhuljaidau (Mat10,26) 'for nothing is hidden that may not be revealed'
> 
> To my thinking, the verb 'affilhan' ('to bury away' so as to hide) seemed apt given the context of the poem: the stress seems to be on the absolute loss God knows where -- 'buried in an abyss of oblivion', I believe it was. The prefix 'af-' seemed to heighten the effect but, of course, need not be used.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Grsartor@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to harp. Here is why I think that "fulhan" rather than "filhada" was 
> > right:
> > 
> > The formula "it is written" occurs repeatedly in the New Testament, and is 
> > expressed by Wulfila as "gameliþ ist" or "gamelid ist". Example:
> > 
> > Matt 11:10 sa ist auk bi þanei gameliþ ist: sai, ik insandja aggilu 
> > meinana faura þus, saei gamanweiþ wig þeinana faura þus. 
> > 
> > This is he of whom it is written,
> > 
> > "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
> > who shall prepare thy way before thee."
> > 
> > There are many other examples, such as Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Luke 2:23, 3:4, 
> > 4:4, 4:8.
> > 
> > It is clear, then, that to the question "where is the word of the prophet" 
> > a possible answer would be
> > 
> > gameliþ [ist] in malmin - [it is] written in the sand,
> > 
> > Gothic, like English, using a past participle.
> > 
> > And so, if the question is "where is our heritage", as in the poem we have 
> > been concerned with, an answer like "buried in ..." would surely contain 
> > "buried" as a past participle, wherefore my belief that the original 
> > "fulhan" was right.
> > 
> > Now let us consider Edmund's counterexample:
> > 
> > "hwana wileith ei fraletau izwis? Barabban thau Jesu, saei haitada 
> > Xristus?" (Mat. 27,17)
> > 'Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas or Jesus, who is called 
> > Christ?'
> > 
> > Here, the present passive (haitada) may have been chosen because the sense 
> > was that Christos is what people keep calling him. On the other hand, "it 
> > is written" refers to something written once and for all. I think the 
> > latter example is more relevant to the answer for what has happened to our 
> > heritage: it has been buried once and for all, rather than that people keep 
> > burying it.
> > 
> > A look at the original Greek perhaps supports my conjecture. For 
> > corresponding to Edmund's quoted "saei haitada Xristus" it has "ton legomenon 
> > Christon", meaning "the one called Christ" - using for "called" a present passive 
> > participle, legomenon. On the other hand, "gamelid ist" translates a Greek 
> > perfect, "gegraptai" - it has been written. I am told that the Greek 
> > perfect expresses an abiding consequence of an action, and Wulfila chose to 
> > represent this by the same construction as English uses. If our heritage has 
> > been buried, or lies buried, it is in another abiding state, and so I guess 
> > that Greek would use a perfect, and Wulfila would have represented this by 
> > "fulhan ist".
> > 
> > As for compounds of "filhan", Matt 8:22 uses "gafilhan" for burying (leave 
> > the dead to bury their dead). On the other hand, the suggested "affilhan" 
> > is used in Luke 10:21 to mean to hide something away.
> > 
> > Mark 14:8 uses "usfilh" to mean burial.
> > 
> > Luke 9:59 and 9:60 uses "usfilhan" for bury
> > 
> > John 12:7 "gafilh" is burial.
> > 
> > Gerry T.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In a message dated 06/07/2013 00:10:03 GMT Daylight Time, 
> > edmundfairfax@ writes:
> > 
> > 
> > 1) "sijain" should be 'sijai'
> > 
> > 2) There seems to be much confusion about the formation of the Gothic 
> > passive. A careful look in a good grammar, such as Braune's (5.1, 2004), will 
> > reveal that there is an inflected passive only in the present indicative and 
> > present subjunctive; in the preterite, a paraphrastic construction is used 
> > consisting of a suitable preterite form of the auxiliary 'wisan/wairthan' 
> > and the past participle of the main verb. I quote from the Braune:
> > 
> > "Das Passiv ist nur noch in einigen Formen des Indikativ und Optativ 
> > Praes. vorhanden...die fehlenden Passivformen werden umschrieben durch das Part. 
> > Praet. mit dem entsprechenden Formen von 'wairthan' oder 'wisan', z.B. 
> > 'daupjada' "werde getauft' (Mk. 10,38), aber 'daupiths was' 'wurde getauft' 
> > (Mk. 1,19)."
> > 
> > The present passive is formed by using the stem of the infinitive, not the 
> > preterite. Thus, 'fulhada' is altogether incorrect.
> > 
> > It should also be noted that there is no perfect in Gothic. A passive can 
> > have both an active or stative sense. As an example of the stative sense, 
> > consider the following line from the Gothic Bible:
> > 
> > "hwana wileith ei fraletau izwis? Barabban thau Jesu, saei haitada 
> > Xristus?" (Mat. 27,17)
> > 'Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas or Jesus, who is called 
> > Christ?'
> > 
> > Here 'haitada', the third-person singular present indicative passive of 
> > the verb 'haitan', clearly has a stative rather than active sense; the 
> > subordinate clause could also be rendered as 'whose name is Christ'. Thus, it 
> > does not follow that ''filhada' 'is buried' must have only an active sense, 
> > and not a stative sense.
> > 
> > 3) The Goths employed the convention of scriptio continua ('continuous 
> > writing'), that is, writing without spaces between words (e.g. 
> > "tobeornottobethatisthequestion"). But in modern editions, words are normally separated 
> > by spaces, and prefixes and suffixes are written together with the word they 
> > belong to without the use of hyphens. Thus "af-grundithai" ought to be 
> > written 'afgrundithai'.
> > 
> > 4) The form "afilhada" lacks the 'f' of the prefix and should be 
> > 'affilhada'.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Grsartor@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry to quibble at this stage, but:
> > > 
> > > (i) I think "sijain" should be "sijai".
> > > 
> > > (ii) I think the original choice of "fulhan" for "(lying) buried" was 
> > > right. The form "filhada" means that a thing is buried in the sense that 
> > someone 
> > > is in the act or habit of burying it. Since the burial is complete you 
> > > want the past participle, which is passive in sense. In the modern 
> > Germanic 
> > > languages it is apparently active when used with "have" as an 
> > auxiliary, but 
> > > this construction I think was adopted from the Latin tongues, and does 
> > not 
> > > appear in Gothic. In any case the true passive sense is brought out in 
> > > modern German, or occasionally in English, e.g.
> > > 
> > > The police have got the building surrounded (= the police have 
> > surrounded 
> > > the building).
> > > 
> > > Gerry T.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In a message dated 05/07/2013 21:19:17 GMT Daylight Time, nodead4@ 
> > > writes:
> > > 
> > > Understood!
> > > 
> > > Therefore, the poem finally is of this form:
> > > 
> > > Hvar ist othal unsar? / Hvar ist arbi unsar?
> > > Afilhada ufarmaudeins af-grundithai 
> > > Hindana thizos ahwos, aiwis andÃ©is 
> > > Wulthag sijain fraweit. 
> > > 
> > > I was using "heritage" as broadly meant, so I finally choose "arby" 
> > > instead of "othal" then. I guess you should be credited in the 
> > recording booklet!!
> > > 
> > > Many thanx to all. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "nodead4" <nodead4@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello all, I have composed a short poem Gothic language. I'm not a 
> > > linguist nor an expert, so there will be several mistakes. Some help is 
> > > requested to make it right. (This is part of a song in english, but I 
> > wanted to 
> > > include this speech in a middle section).
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hvar ist othal unsar? (where is our heritage?)
> > > > Fulhans ana ufar maudeis af-grunditha (buried into the abyss of 
> > oblivion)
> > > > Thairh thata ahwa, aiws andï¿½is (across the river, the end of an 
> > era)
> > > > Wolthags fraweit wisan. (Glorious revenge be)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanx in advance.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[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/20130707/43a6e29f/attachment.htm>