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

[gothic-l] anaks

Expand Messages
  • Christian Petersen
    It s correct that Lehmann has etymologized as mentioned. But everyone be aware of the fact that finding etymologies is a process of proposal and rejection. In
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 10, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      It's correct that Lehmann has etymologized as mentioned.
      But everyone be aware of the fact that finding etymologies is a process
      of proposal and rejection. In this case, Lehmann seems to have accepted
      the view of Theodor von Grienberger; but there are other ones as well.
      However - for you, Robert, it might be of importance that there's
      supposed to be a related OCS stem 'nagl-' ('sudden'), from which I don't
      think it's still productive.
      Chris
    • etsasse@acsu.buffalo.edu
      wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=618 ... But in that listing there is doubt as to
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 11, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        <37b0aede.5e9af1a-@...-kiel.de> wrote:
        original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=618
        > It's correct that Lehmann has etymologized as mentioned.

        But in that listing there is doubt as to the -s origin/meaning in
        this word.
        Didn't Old English though use -s as an adverbial marker, which is
        still found in ME 'needs' as in 'I don't think it needs be...', or
        other words like 'nights/days' as in 'He works nights.'. I admit to
        being new to this field, but why wouldn't Lehman mention that?
      • Neil Fulton
        ... I don t think it s really a valid comparison: in the OE period it s still fairly obvious that the -es adverbial ending is from the gen. sg. masc./neut.
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 13, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          etsasse@... writes:
          > <37b0aede.5e9af1a-@...-kiel.de> wrote:
          > original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=618
          > > It's correct that Lehmann has etymologized as mentioned.
          >
          > But in that listing there is doubt as to the -s origin/meaning in
          > this word.
          > Didn't Old English though use -s as an adverbial marker, which is
          > still found in ME 'needs' as in 'I don't think it needs be...', or
          > other words like 'nights/days' as in 'He works nights.'. I admit to
          > being new to this field, but why wouldn't Lehman mention that?

          I don't think it's really a valid comparison: in the OE period
          it's still fairly obvious that the -es adverbial ending is from
          the gen. sg. masc./neut. n./adj. ending, although it has been
          sufficiently abstracted that it can be used with feminines too,
          e.g. nihtes, "by night" to go with daeges, "by day". It's only
          in the ME period, when some of these forms have been reduced, and
          appear side-by-side with similar forms without the terminal -s,
          that it comes to be regarded as a simple marker of adverbness.

          In Gothic, we have a similar, though I think less productive, use
          of the genitive, as in forms like gistradagis, but I don't see
          that it can have anything to do with the -s of anaks, because we'd
          have to account somehow for the missing -i-. So if you want to
          get the -s from the n./adj. system, I think you have to follow
          Kieckers and say it's from a nominative.

          Neil
        • etsasse@acsu.buffalo.edu
          ... But in Gothic, there is (at least one) adverbial genitive based word for which you don t have to account for a missing -i-, nahts without even being
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 17, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            > I don't think it's really a valid comparison: in the OE period
            > it's still fairly obvious that the -es adverbial ending is from
            > the gen. sg. masc./neut. n./adj. ending, although it has been
            > sufficiently abstracted that it can be used with feminines too,
            > e.g. nihtes, "by night" to go with daeges, "by day". It's only
            > in the ME period, when some of these forms have been reduced, and
            > appear side-by-side with similar forms without the terminal -s,
            > that it comes to be regarded as a simple marker of adverbness.
            >
            > In Gothic, we have a similar, though I think less productive, use
            > of the genitive, as in forms like gistradagis, but I don't see
            > that it can have anything to do with the -s of anaks, because we'd
            > have to account somehow for the missing -i-. So if you want to
            > get the -s from the n./adj. system, I think you have to follow
            > Kieckers and say it's from a nominative.

            But in Gothic, there is (at least one) adverbial genitive based
            word for which you don't have to account for a missing -i-, 'nahts'
            without even being *abstracted* for the feminine in this case. Do we
            know exactly what noun root the -k- descends from in anaks though, and
            thus its gender?
            Sorry for picking nits, but in this way, I tend to learn.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.