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

[gothic-l] A Gothic egg (illumination at breakfast)

Expand Messages
  • Giuseppe Pagliarulo
    Hails! The Niwwaurdahuzd has *addi for egg. Yes, an *addja- stem is suggested by Crimean Gothic ada and by comparative evidence; however, I have some doubts
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hails!
      The Niwwaurdahuzd has *addi for egg. Yes, an *addja- stem is suggested
      by Crimean Gothic ada and by comparative evidence; however, I have some
      doubts about the proposed nominative/accusative singular.
      I think the entire declension would be:

      Singular Plural
      Nom. ai addja
      Gen. addjis addje
      Dat. addja addjam
      Acc. ai addja

      My arguments:
      Old English has æ'g. Comparison with Old Norse eggja (gen. plur.)
      suggests a
      PGmc *ajja-. In cases like this (OE /j/ matched with ON -ggj-) we
      usually
      have -ddj-. Thenominative/accusative singular should be *ai because
      PGmc *jj needs to bebetween vowels in order to develop into Gothic
      -ddj- (the term is, I think,a neuter a-stem, with very early loss of
      the *-am ending). We may easilyassume Crimean Gothic ada to be derived
      from this term with generalizationof -ddj- from oblique cases.

      Her ainshun nist dwals
      (::(
      Iosef
    • M. Carver
      Hails, Iosef! This makes sense. I cannot find attested the combination addi or even ddi (
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hails, Iosef!

        This makes sense. I cannot find attested the combination "addi" or even
        "ddi" (< *jji-). Theoretically one should find "naddei" in the
        imperative of naddjan, but I haven't seen this form, and it shows a long
        vowel in any event. Without further argument, the updated version now
        tentatively reads:

        Ai (obl. 'addj-'), n. Egg.

        where "obl." means oblique. Of course, in neuters, the accusative is
        identical to the nominative, so there should arise no confusion.

        þuk golja,
        Maþþaius


        Giuseppe Pagliarulo wrote:
        >
        > Hails! The Niwwaurdahuzd has *addi for egg. Yes, an *addja- stem is
        > suggested by Crimean Gothic ada and by comparative evidence; however,
        > I have some doubts about the proposed nominative/accusative singular.
        > I think the entire declension would be: Singular Plural Nom. ai addja
        > Gen. addjis addje Dat. addja addjam Acc. ai addja My arguments: Old
        > English has æ'g. Comparison with Old Norse eggja (gen. plur.) suggests
        > a PGmc *ajja-. In cases like this (OE /j/ matched with ON -ggj-) we
        > usually have -ddj-. Thenominative/accusative singular should be *ai
        > because PGmc *jj needs to bebetween vowels in order to develop into
        > Gothic -ddj- (the term is, I think,a neuter a-stem, with very early
        > loss of the *-am ending). We may easilyassume Crimean Gothic ada to be
        > derived from this term with generalizationof -ddj- from oblique cases.
        > Her ainshun nist dwals (::( Iosef
      • David Salo
        ... While you could be right, the -jj- would have been between vowels down to the point when the neuter ending *-am was dropped. The question is whether -jj-
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          >Hails!
          >The Niwwaurdahuzd has *addi for egg. Yes, an *addja- stem is suggested
          >by Crimean Gothic ada and by comparative evidence; however, I have some
          >doubts about the proposed nominative/accusative singular.

          >My arguments:
          >Old English has æ'g. Comparison with Old Norse eggja (gen. plur.)
          >suggests a
          >PGmc *ajja-. In cases like this (OE /j/ matched with ON -ggj-) we
          >usually
          >have -ddj-. Thenominative/accusative singular should be *ai because
          >PGmc *jj needs to bebetween vowels in order to develop into Gothic
          >-ddj- (the term is, I think,a neuter a-stem, with very early loss of
          >the *-am ending). We may easilyassume Crimean Gothic ada to be derived
          >>from this term with generalizationof -ddj- from oblique cases.

          While you could be right, the -jj- would have been between vowels down
          to the point when the neuter ending *-am was dropped. The question is
          whether -jj- becomes -ddj- before or after that change, i.e. was it:

          1) *ajjam > *addjam > *addj > !addi or
          2) *ajjam > *ajj > *aji > !ai.

          If the suggestion that the Norse -jj- > -ggj- and the Gothic -jj- >
          -ddj- are somehow related has any merit (of which I am not sure), then the
          change must be very early, certainly before the loss of final *-am. But I
          would note that I would imagine the similar changes -jj- > -ggj- and -ww- >
          -ggw- to have occurred about the same time; and *triwwam becomes triggw,
          presumably via

          *triwwam > *triggwam > triggw and not
          *triwwam > *triww > ~triu(w)!

          Therefore I think that *ajjam > *addjam > *addj > !addi is more likely.

          /\ WISTR LAG WIGS RAIHTS
          \/ WRAIQS NU IST <> David Salo
          <dsalo@...> <>
        • Giuseppe Pagliarulo
          ... down ... then the ... But I ... -ww- ... triggw, ... likely. Thank you for your remarks, Daweid! Thoughts: Loss of *-am is a common Germanic phenomenon,
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 4, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            > While you could be right, the -jj- would have been between vowels
            down
            > to the point when the neuter ending *-am was dropped. The question is
            > whether -jj- becomes -ddj- before or after that change, i.e. was it:
            >
            > 1) *ajjam > *addjam > *addj > !addi or
            > 2) *ajjam > *ajj > *aji > !ai.
            >
            > If the suggestion that the Norse -jj- > -ggj- and the Gothic -jj- >
            > -ddj- are somehow related has any merit (of which I am not sure),
            then the
            > change must be very early, certainly before the loss of final *-am.
            But I
            > would note that I would imagine the similar changes -jj- > -ggj- and
            -ww- >
            > -ggw- to have occurred about the same time; and *triwwam becomes
            triggw,
            > presumably via
            >
            > *triwwam > *triggwam > triggw and not
            > *triwwam > *triww > ~triu(w)!
            >
            > Therefore I think that *ajjam > *addjam > *addj > !addi is more
            likely.
            Thank you for your remarks, Daweid!
            Thoughts:
            Loss of *-am is a common Germanic phenomenon, while strenghtening of
            *-jj-
            isn't; that made me think the latter took place after the former.
            The passage *-ww- > -ggw-, as far as I can tell, is found in absolute
            finality in neuter adjectives and in the preterite of strong verbs only:
            triggws, triggwa, triggw
            bliggwan, blaggw etc.
            this makes me think of the possibility of analogy.
            However, I've checked the *ajj- root better and discovered that it is
            not
            sure to take a neuter a-stem in PGmc. Campbell's _Old English Grammar_

            635) seems to imply a more complex derivation (PGmc stem *ajjiz-,
            *ajjaz-,
            from a PIE *-es-, *-os- formative element: the OE stem is æ'gr- < WGmc
            *aijir-, as showed by the plural).
            What would we have in Gothic, in this case?

            Her ainshun nist dwals
            (::(
            Iosef
          • David Salo
            ... I think most of this type of noun were levelled out into other declensions in Gothic, e.g. Gk. genos = kuni, Skt. manas = muns. / WISTR LAG WIGS
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 4, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >However, I've checked the *ajj- root better and discovered that it is
              >not
              >sure to take a neuter a-stem in PGmc. Campbell's _Old English Grammar_
              >(§
              >635) seems to imply a more complex derivation (PGmc stem *ajjiz-,
              >*ajjaz-,
              >>from a PIE *-es-, *-os- formative element: the OE stem is æ'gr- < WGmc
              >*aijir-, as showed by the plural).
              >What would we have in Gothic, in this case?

              I think most of this type of noun were levelled out into other
              declensions in Gothic, e.g. Gk. genos = kuni, Skt. manas = muns.

              /\ WISTR LAG WIGS RAIHTS
              \/ WRAIQS NU IST <> David Salo
              <dsalo@...> <>
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.