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

[gothic-l] Re: anaks

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.