[gothic-l] Re: Translating creeds?

[edmundfairfax@yahoo.ca [gothic-l]]

It should be noted that Proto-Germanic is a theoretical reconstruction based on the later attested Germanic languages. Little can be stated categorically about this earlier unattested linguistic state, above all with regard to word-order, which is its least well understood aspect. 

 In all the early Germanic languages, adjectives could both forego or follow their heads; indeed, this is true of nearly all the attested ancient Indo-European languages. Statistical studies of Old English, Old High German and Old Norse suggest that the pre- rather than than post-nominal position of an attributive adjective was the unmarked or neutral position, and that the post-nominal position was marked, that is, likely emphatic, which is still in part the case in modern English: e.g. 'all things good' versus 'all good things,' with 'good' thrown somewhat into relief in the first example; likewise 'brother mine' versus 'my brother.'
 

 I doubt very much that 'unsar atta' would have sounded "disrespectful or not good," for there is simply no evidence to support such a claim. All the comparative evidence suggests that both 'atta unsar' and 'unsar atta' were entirely acceptable in Gothic, presumably with a difference in focus. 

 Edmund
 

---In Gothic-L at yahoogroups.com, <roellingua at ...> wrote :

 Adjectives could be both prepositioned and postpositioned, and adjectives for family-names were about always postpositioned in Proto-Germanic and therefore most likely Gothic too, therefore: atta unsar, sounded good, while:  unsar atta, would have either sounded disrespectful or not good.




 
 2015-01-02 23:04 GMT+01:00 write2andy at ... mailto:write2andy at ... [gothic-l] <gothic-l at yahoogroups.com mailto:gothic-l at yahoogroups.com>:
   
 Just a comment on the Nicene Creed posted in the link above: that person uses "liuhatha" for the dative singular of "liuhaþ", but it should be "liuhada". I wonder what other mistakes they've made?
 Plus, on their Facebook page, I found they said "Godans Jiulans" when it would be "Jiulins Godans/Godos" or "Jiulins Fahos/Fahans".

 

 











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20150103/348c6f8d/attachment.htm>