## Numbers and counting

Expand Messages
• How would you count numbers if you were just counting? Ains, twai, threis, fidwor, etc... ? Or would you just use the neuter: ain, twa, thrija, fidwor...?
Message 1 of 8 , Jun 2, 2008
How would you count numbers if you were just counting?

Ains, twai, threis, fidwor, etc... ? Or would you just use the neuter:
ain, twa, thrija, fidwor...?

Likewise, what if you were counting objects, like in english "object
one, object two, object three..."? Would it agree with the noun? I
feel like the numbers should be in some kind of singular form rather
than as plural adjectives in this context.

appreciated. Thanks.
• ains,twa,threis,fidor,fimf,saihts,sebun,autau,niun,taihun,ainliff,twailiff,threliff,fidorliff,fimfliff,saihtsliff,sebunliff,autliff,niunliff,etc.........twatig
Message 2 of 8 , Jun 2, 2008
ains,twa,threis,fidor,fimf,saihts,sebun,autau,niun,taihun,ainliff,twailiff,threliff,fidorliff,fimfliff,saihtsliff,sebunliff,autliff,niunliff,etc.........twatigzin....

se3k4life101 <se3k4life101@...> wrote: How would you count numbers if you were just counting?

Ains, twai, threis, fidwor, etc... ? Or would you just use the neuter:
ain, twa, thrija, fidwor...?

Likewise, what if you were counting objects, like in english "object
one, object two, object three..."? Would it agree with the noun? I
feel like the numbers should be in some kind of singular form rather
than as plural adjectives in this context.

appreciated. Thanks.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... I would use the neuter forms. I don t know if that is more correct than using masculine or feminine but since it seems as crimean gothic used neuter I
Message 3 of 8 , Jun 3, 2008
--- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "se3k4life101" <se3k4life101@...>
wrote:
>
> How would you count numbers if you were just counting?
>
> Ains, twai, threis, fidwor, etc... ? Or would you just use the neuter:
> ain, twa, thrija, fidwor...?
>

I would use the neuter forms. I don't know if that is more correct than
using masculine or feminine but since it seems as crimean gothic used
neuter I think that's the better choice.

> Likewise, what if you were counting objects, like in english "object
> one, object two, object three..."? Would it agree with the noun? I
> feel like the numbers should be in some kind of singular form rather
> than as plural adjectives in this context.
>
I don't know this either and I guess it's not very common to count like
this. My guess would be that numbers agree with noun.
E.g. waurd ain, waurd twa, waurd thrija ktl.

> appreciated. Thanks.
>
• ... Agreed. Without any direct evidence from the fragments of Biblical Gothic, the Crimean example seems like a good one to follow. ... I think here, Gothic
Message 4 of 8 , Jun 3, 2008
--- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "se3k4life101" <se3k4life101@>
> wrote:
> >
> > How would you count numbers if you were just counting?
> >
> > Ains, twai, threis, fidwor, etc... ? Or would you just use the neuter:
> > ain, twa, thrija, fidwor...?
> >
>
> I would use the neuter forms. I don't know if that is more correct than
> using masculine or feminine but since it seems as crimean gothic used
> neuter I think that's the better choice.

Agreed. Without any direct evidence from the fragments of Biblical
Gothic, the Crimean example seems like a good one to follow.

> > Likewise, what if you were counting objects, like in english "object
> > one, object two, object three..."? Would it agree with the noun? I
> > feel like the numbers should be in some kind of singular form rather
> > than as plural adjectives in this context.
> >
> I don't know this either and I guess it's not very common to count like
> this. My guess would be that numbers agree with noun.
> E.g. waurd ain, waurd twa, waurd thrija ktl.

I think here, Gothic would probably use ordinal numbers (fruma, anþar,
þridja, ?*fidworþa - first, second, third, fourth). This is the
practice used for the names of Paul's epistles:

Du Teimauþaiau ·a· dustodeiþ.
Du Teimauþaiau frumei dustodeiþ.
"The First [Letter] to Timothy begins." (I Timothy begins.)

Du Kaurinþaium anþara dustodeiþ.
"The Second Letter to the Corinthians begins." (II Corinthians begins.)

Du Kaurinþium ·a· ustauh. Du Kaurinþium frume[i] melida ist us
Filippai, swe qeþun sumai; iþ mais þugkeiþ bi silbins apaustaulaus
insahtai melida wisan us Asiai.
"The 1st [Letter] to the Corinthians ends. The First [Letter] to the
Corinthians is written from Philipae, according to some; but it seems
rather according to the apostle's own statement to have been written
from Asia."
• ... anþar, ... begins.) ... seems ... So how it is said is in reallity: first object, second object, third object etc. and not object one, object two, object
Message 5 of 8 , Jun 5, 2008
> I think here, Gothic would probably use ordinal numbers (fruma,
anþar,
> þridja, ?*fidworþa - first, second, third, fourth). This is the
> practice used for the names of Paul's epistles:
>
> Du Teimauþaiau ·a· dustodeiþ.
> Du Teimauþaiau frumei dustodeiþ.
> "The First [Letter] to Timothy begins." (I Timothy begins.)
>
> Du Kaurinþaium anþara dustodeiþ.
> "The Second Letter to the Corinthians begins." (II Corinthians
begins.)
>
> Du Kaurinþium ·a· ustauh. Du Kaurinþium frume[i] melida ist us
> Filippai, swe qeþun sumai; iþ mais þugkeiþ bi silbins apaustaulaus
> insahtai melida wisan us Asiai.
> "The 1st [Letter] to the Corinthians ends. The First [Letter] to the
> Corinthians is written from Philipae, according to some; but it
seems
> rather according to the apostle's own statement to have been written
> from Asia."
>
So how it is said is in reallity: first object, second object, third
object etc. and not object one, object two, object three etc, right?
This seems to me to be a more natural way of coounting object as well.
And since it obviously is attested that seems to be the correct way.
• In crimean they count with ite as one. What is that? Is it from ita = it? According to zompist the word for one is ene, what s the evidence of that?
Message 6 of 8 , Jun 5, 2008
In crimean they count with ite as one.
What is that? Is it from ita = it?

According to zompist the word for one is ene, what's the evidence of
that? http://zompist.com/euro.htm#ie

Why do the numbers in crimean gothic end with -e?
e.g. sevene, nyne and thiine?

The e in athe is obvious coz it's a weakened 'au' I presume.

Should th in crimean be read as t?

And what about ii in thiine. Is that a long i or two syllables?
if so I guess it should have been a short e in the first syllable and
a schwa in the second.
• ... Busbecq actually cites it as ita . Yes, I think probably is from the personal pronoun spelt the same in Biblical Gothic, unless perhaps it s a contraction
Message 7 of 8 , Jun 5, 2008
--- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@...> wrote:
>
> In crimean they count with ite as one.
> What is that? Is it from ita = it?

Busbecq actually cites it as 'ita'. Yes, I think probably is from the
personal pronoun spelt the same in Biblical Gothic, unless perhaps
it's a contraction from the numeral 'ainata'. This could well have
happened if it was used in unstressed positions, e.g. if it came to be
used as an indefinite article as in many other Germanic languages.

>
> According to zompist the word for one is ene, what's the evidence of
> that? http://zompist.com/euro.htm#ie

Must be a mistake, or somebody tried to reconstruct the masculine form
of 1 without realising that 2 and 3 are also neuter.

>
> Why do the numbers in crimean gothic end with -e?
> e.g. sevene, nyne and thiine?

I don't know. Maybe the final -e in these numbers arose by analogy
with athe.

>
> The e in athe is obvious coz it's a weakened 'au' I presume.

I think so. Compare sune (BG sunno), mine (BG mena), etc.

>
> Should th in crimean be read as t?
>
> And what about ii in thiine. Is that a long i or two syllables?
> if so I guess it should have been a short e in the first syllable and
> a schwa in the second.
>

I don't know about the 'ii'. Maybe [i:]? Grønvik thought that
initial /t/ and /d/ of Germanic had fallen together in Crimean Gothic
as a voiceless stop [t], which Busbeque spells variously 't' and 'th'
(similarly /b/ and /p/ > [p], as in 'plut'). But the forms 'goltz'
and 'statz' made him think that [þ] probably did still exist in
Crimean Gothic. Busbecq may not have represented it very accurately
because there was no such sound in his own language.
• ... the ... be ... Yes that seems to a reasonable explanation. When unstressed would it be enata then? ... of ... form ... OK, but when used with masculine
Message 8 of 8 , Jun 9, 2008
--- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@> wrote:
> >
> > In crimean they count with ite as one.
> > What is that? Is it from ita = it?
>
> Busbecq actually cites it as 'ita'. Yes, I think probably is from
the
> personal pronoun spelt the same in Biblical Gothic, unless perhaps
> it's a contraction from the numeral 'ainata'. This could well have
> happened if it was used in unstressed positions, e.g. if it came to
be
> used as an indefinite article as in many other Germanic languages.
>
Yes that seems to a reasonable explanation. When unstressed would it
be enata then?

> >
> > According to zompist the word for one is ene, what's the evidence
of
> > that? http://zompist.com/euro.htm#ie
>
> Must be a mistake, or somebody tried to reconstruct the masculine
form
> of 1 without realising that 2 and 3 are also neuter.
>
OK, but when used with masculine nouns it should be used. Shouldn't a
masculine be just en or ens if -s suffix is kept?

> >
> > Why do the numbers in crimean gothic end with -e?
> > e.g. sevene, nyne and thiine?
>
> I don't know. Maybe the final -e in these numbers arose by analogy
> with athe.
>
> >
> > The e in athe is obvious coz it's a weakened 'au' I presume.
>
>
> I think so. Compare sune (BG sunno), mine (BG mena), etc.
>
> >
> > Should th in crimean be read as t?
> >
> > And what about ii in thiine. Is that a long i or two syllables?
> > if so I guess it should have been a short e in the first syllable
and
> > a schwa in the second.
> >
>
> I don't know about the 'ii'. Maybe [i:]? Grønvik thought that

It was a greek guy who told Busbecq all these words and he could have
some greek influence on pronunciation (as one website suggests), for
instance hails should have been hel (or el) [(h)e:l] but he said it
as iel coz he didn't use long vowels in his greek dialect. And his
short e was broken into ie. If that's correct words such as thiine,
breen etc. shouldn't have any long vowel.

> initial /t/ and /d/ of Germanic had fallen together in Crimean
Gothic
> as a voiceless stop [t], which Busbeque spells variously 't'
and 'th'
> (similarly /b/ and /p/ > [p], as in 'plut'). But the forms 'goltz'
> and 'statz' made him think that [þ] probably did still exist in
> Crimean Gothic. Busbecq may not have represented it very accurately
> because there was no such sound in his own language.
>
B seems to become voiceless before l (plut) but kept before some
other (bruder, bars etc.) Is it the same with g (e.g. goltz), the
word for cry was written as eriten but shouldn't this be griten, with
g remaining?

I think it's confusing how Busbecq uses the spelling th and tz. If th
is [t] and tz [T] then I wonder why the definite article the and tho
as initla [t] and the pronoun [T]. Further could it be presumed that
[T] was kept initlally before vowel and final (e.g. goltz, statz).

I realize that this is now off topic and should probably be discussed
under crimean gothic instead, sorry for that ;)
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.