Re: [gothic-l] Goeter, goter, gutar
- Thank you for your explanations!
Gerry T. wrote:
>Hailai allaiI looked in Braune's and Ebbinghaus' grammar, and was a bit surprised
>In his letter with the same title as appears above, Mr. Keth discusses the
>possible relation between the Gothic word giutan, to pour, and the name the
>Goths called themselves by.
>He gives the ablaut forms of giutan as follows: present giuta, past singular
>gaut, past plural gutum, present participle gutans.
>(The last of these is actually the past participle, with passive sense:
>(that has been) poured. The present participle is giutands.)
that only one participle was listed.
"Those who have been poured" makes sense as the name of a tribe.
(maybe "those who have been cast", as in the case of bronze?)
(wasn't bronze a metal that was cast, in contrast to iron age
iron and steel that was merely hammered)
Thus the "gutans" form is reasonable.
>I miss the ablaut in your examples.
>I think Mr. Keth is right to say we should be careful in making assumptions
>about how the name of the Goths would have been derived from these forms.
>Suppose, for example, that they had called themselves the Outpouring (in a
>sense like exodus). Verbs of the same class as giutan seem to have formed
>their derived nouns in at least two ways, as the following examples show:
Or at least the second series.
But you are right that we should also have to look at how the associated nouns
relate to an ablaut series of verbs.
>driusan (to fall) has relations driuso (a cliff) and drus (a fall).Yes, þraut is a good example!
>kiusan (to test) has kustus (a test).
>fraliusan (to lose) has fralusts (a loss).
>siukan (to be sick) has siukei (sickness).
>kriusan (to gnash) has krusts (gnashing).
>liugan (to tell lies) has liugn (a lie), liugnja (a liar).
>driugan (to wage, carry on) has drauhtinassus (a campaign).
>usþriutan (to harass) might well have had *þraut, to judge from OE þreat, and
The ON verb "þrióta" seems to belong to the same ablaut series as "gióta".
(gothic usþriutan & giutan resp.)
þrióta, þraut, þrutom, þrotenn. (2nd ablaut series)
the ON verb means "to stop". (English "throttle"? "throat"?)
The ON noun "þraut" f. (difficulty) seems to be related to þrióta.
From "þraut" f. another verb "þreyta" (to get tired) also seems to have formed.
Exactly how these mechanisms work, would be interesting to learn more about.
>Perhaps there is a tendency for nouns that indicate an action or process to"gaut" as causative for "giutan"?
>have "u" for their stem vowel. In that case the most likely form of the words
>for "Goth", "Gothic", on the assumption stated earlier, would be "gut-"; but
>"giut-" and "gaut-" would also seem possible.
>If the Goths' name for themselves meant the Poured-out People then we shouldexactly.
>presumably expect a form like "gutan".
>I myself hold no opinion about whether the Germanic Goth-words are related toI agree. It is a mere observation of a similarity of sounds.
>giutan. However, the assumption that they are does not seem to let us to make
>a definite prediction about what form the word for "Goth" should take.
>Therefore, unless we have other relevant evidence besides the purely
>linguistic, belief that Goth-words are related to giutan rests on what may be
>only a conjecture.
Unless an exposition of the mechanism at work in forming
the word is proposed, it will merely remain an observation of
resemblance. (that could be merely superficial)
>One last thing. This may seem stupid, and probably is, but I will ask itTo give a counter example, the "Franks" seems to be a name
>anyway. The Goths must surely have had a name for themselves before they
>embarked on their wanderings round Europe, for whatever reason. Would you not
>expect them to have taken their existing name with them?
that arose when several tribes formed a kind of union.
Maybe it does have old roots to "the people who used to cast in bronze"?
>Gerry T.Thank you! That is exactly the information I could not find at once.
>P.S. About how you express the perfect in Gothic: "gaut", for example, does
>duty for both "he poured" and "he has poured".
It is of course possible that it is also in Braune, and that I just
couldn't find it, because I didn't read all the small print.
I also saw a note somewhere that the use of modal verbs for forming
the various tenses (tempi), is something that was adopted into the
Germanic languages from Latin. Does any one have some more information
on that? And how does Ulfilas Gothic relate to it?
By "tempi" I mean, (example from English)
we have gone, we had gone, we shall go, we should go, we shall have gone,
we should have gone. (just in case I was not using the right term for
As I am sure you understand the object of mine by putting
the summary of Thorsten Anderssons article on the list was
to present the latest known by me that relates goetar, goter,
gutar to the Goths, except Ingemar, of course. Neither Streitberg
nor Noreen are mentioned in the bibliography by Andersson.
Later products though, from 1997 to 2001, would interest me
much if you happen to know anything. I feel it would be good
to keep up with the latest in the argumentation.
Gothic greetings to the west
> Hej Bertil, this is something that was already mentioned, if not
> in Streitberg's protogermanic grammar, then certainly by Noreen
sometimes people think they make entirely new discoveries
and publish it as such. And then it turns out it has been
published a long time ago. Sometimes people who have done
a lot of reading also *think* they get an entirely new
idea, whereas in reality they have read it somewhere.
>Keth,The idea of relating gaut, goth, etc
>As I am sure you understand the object of mine by putting
>the summary of Thorsten Anderssons article on the list was
>to present the latest known by me that relates goetar, goter,
>gutar to the Goths, except Ingemar, of course. Neither Streitberg
>nor Noreen are mentioned in the bibliography by Andersson.
to the 2nd ablautreihe certainly isn't "cutting edge"
since it was already mentioned by your country man A.Noreen
more than 78 years ago or more.
>Sometimes science doesn't progress along a straight line either.
>Later products though, from 1997 to 2001, would interest me
>much if you happen to know anything. I feel it would be good
>to keep up with the latest in the argumentation.
(meaning that the latest is not always the best)
There are many examples of ideas that have been out of fashion for a long
time, and then surface again. e.g. Gasendi taking up Demokrit's
ideas after a lapse of several milennia. Of course in our own time,
"latest" *is* quite often "best". But it is easy to imagine that
as the scientific literature keeps growing (exponential growth
is hard to cope with), many "gems" of older research will lie
forgotten. This is tough for those who publish in serious journals,
because ideally speaking one has a certain duty to know what has been
>Gothic greetings to the westhicl/index.html