Re: crimean gothic
- --- In email@example.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@...> wrote:
>gothic spoken in italy and not spain? if so, should it be considered a
> Are these changes [ [e:] > [i:] and [o] > [u:] ] only valid for the
specific ostrogothic change as it also occures in crimean gothic?
I don't know. That's an interesting question. There might be some
clues in personal names recorded by Greek and Roman writers, and in
loanwords in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese and Provencal.
> 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?
It certainly looks that way. As well as Broe, we have Hoef (haubiþ)
and Oeghene (augono). The initial letter in Iel (háils) may betray
Greek influence [
], in which case this could be an example of [e:] for PGmc. [ai].
> [...] but it seems to be as crimean has i where pgmc had itand e where pgmc had it. Doesn't it?
Yes, as far as I can tell. Especially interesting regarding short [o],
is the word Schuos (probably a printing mistake for Schnos), since
Busbeque didn't recognise this as a Germanic word, and yet it seems to
show lowering of PGmc. [u] to [o] before a central vowel, as tended to
happen in North and West Germanic, but not Biblical Gothic: snusô >
Crim. Got. *schnos, BGot. *snuza, OE snoru, ON snør.
> Is it only Busbeque's writings that makes the source to crimeangothic or is there any other?
Yes, sadly that's all we have. Unless anything else comes to light in
> How much about CG can be stated as factby 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.
That's right. In fact, it's worse than that, because Busbeque's
informants may not have been completely reliable either.
Alter erat procerior, toto ore ingenuam quandam simplicitatem
praeferens, ut Flander videretur aut Batavus: alter erat brevior,
compactiore corpore, colore fusco, ortu et sermone Graecus, sed qui
frequenti commercio non contemnendum eius linguae usum haberet, nam
superior vicinitate, et frequenti Graecorum consuetudine sic eorum
sermonem imbiberat, ut popularis sui esset oblitus, interrogatus de
natura et moribus illorum populorum, congruentia respondebat.
One of them was taller, displaying in his overall appearance a certain
native simplicity, so that he looked like a Fleming or Dutchman: the
other was shorted, with a stouter body, a swarthy color, Greek in
origin and speech, but who with frequent interaction had a not
disrespectable command of that language; for the first one on account
of proximity and frequent dealings with Greeks had so taken in their
speech as to have forgotten that of his own people; though when asked
about the nature and customs of those peoples, he responded sensibly.
- I think it's a little fuzzy about pronunciation of former b, d and g
initially in crimean gothic.
Some times they seem to remain but other times they seem to become
Since it seems to be as aspiration vanished from crimean gothic as in
ano instead of hano, I guess b,d,g also were unaspirated.
And because of that they could have been pronounced very similar to
the unvoiced p,t,k in some positions and therefor mistaken for such
consonants by Busbecq.
If this is so there's no need for any explanation why inital b
remains befor consonant in bruder but not in plut. The reason could
just be that it sounds more as p than b befor l to some one who is
not used to unaspirated b,d,g.
And hence would I suppose it would be better to keep b,d,g in writing
even when Busbecq has written otherwise.
plut should then be blut and kriten (busbecq's eriten or criten)
which probably had a long i should be greiten (using biblical ei for