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

[gothic-l] Re: anaks

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.