Goths, Naming and Ablaut

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/1/2001 5:55:23 AM, hwhatting at hotmail.com writes:
<< Just a suggestion:  We could have an o-Stem *gauta- (with o-grade of the
root, a type widely  attested for PIE and Gmc.), denoting the tribe, and an
individualising derived n-stem *guton-, denoting the members of the tribe. >>

This raises a question about naming conventions.  If the Gothic name were
taken from flood, river or the abstract pouring forth of genes, what would be
the expected form that name would take?

In OE, I believe the strong verb <ge:otan> (pour) takes an -o- as a past
participle.

Wouldn't naming from a verb form (the "flooded ones", the "poured" or
"spouting" ones or however else this is translated) result in the use of the
past participle?  And in that case, wouldn't we expect something like OE pp
<goten>?  And if I am doing this right, in  Gothic, the past participle of
the strong verb <giotan> (pour) would be <gitans>?

If on the other hand <*gauta-> simply refers to a place of origin (e.g., the
region of the Gaut River) I suppose we would expect the genitive plural - but
then how would the ablaut be involved?  In OE, adjectives referring to
peoples often get an <-isc> ending.  I'm not sure that anything like this
occurs in Gothic.

Another thing perhaps worth mentioning is I think neither the words <gauta->
nor <guton-> appear in any full Gothic text record.  In later inscriptions
the Goths appear to be calling themselves <Gothi> -- apparently using the
Latin name.

What Gothic DOES have attested is flat-out <go:th>, good; <go:dei>, goodness;
<guth, guda> God, gods.

We have no record from the Romans or Greeks about the Goths calling
themselves or claiming to be gods.  In fact, we have only Lat or Gr
references to one people claiming to be "each one" gods -- the Getae (ie, in
Strabo).

Regards,
Steve Long