Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15870Re: [tied] Re: Pliny's "Guthalvs"

Expand Messages
  • Piotr Gasiorowski
    Oct 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Gothic <-ws> is found only after vowels (<gw> is a special case -- a labiovelar consonant). <-lws> is impossible also in Gothic. <walwjan> and <wilwan> only show that postconsonantal /w/ could occur before vowels and glides (as in my examples -- *-alwaz, etc.). Where it occurred, <-ws> (in Wulfila's late Gothic dialect) resulted from vowel reduction in the original ending, e.g. saiws < *saiwaz. When representic Gothic words and proper names, the Romans substituted their own equivalent morphology, replacing final -s (< -*az) with their own -us.
       
      Piotr
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:58 AM
      Subject: [tied] Re: Pliny's "Guthalvs"

      I wrote:
      <<If the Germanic word had originally been something like "Guthalws," Pliny
      would have seen <Guthalvs> in his sources, and would have written what he saw
      -- not knowing if the <v> stood for a /w/ or a /u/--->>

      Piotr replied:
      <<However, "-alws" is not a permissible Germanic sound combination. It would
      have had to be -alwaz, *-alwiz, or *-alw-o:n- to be phonetically and
      morphologically plausible,...>>

      Let me stop you there.  My Gothic dictionary gives some examples of -ws and
      -alw-:
      áiws, sm. time, lifetime, age, world
      ni áiw, never
      alêws, adj. of olives;
      saggws, sm. song, music
      triggws, adj. true, faithful
      af-walw-jan, wv. I, to roll away
      wilw-an, sv. III, to rob, plunder, take by force

      So why again is -alws or -alw- against all Germanic sound laws?

    • Show all 11 messages in this topic