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

[gothic-l] Re: Gutiska Namna

Expand Messages
  • jdm314@aol.com
    jdm31-@aol.com wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=712 ... Well, I may be wrong. Old English ceorl (the noun) implies *kerlaz
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 1, 1999
      jdm31-@... wrote:
      original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=712
      >
      Well, I may be wrong. Old English ceorl (the noun) implies *kerlaz =

      I should know this, I suppose, but is that the etymon of churl?

      > kairls, but Old Norse karl suggests *karlaz = karls, and I'm not sure
      which
      > side of the equation Gothic would fall on, and I don't have the
      resources
      > on hand to look up what the leading lights of Germanic studies have
      said on
      > the subject -- too often my difficulty, I'm afraid! Possibly both
      just

      Same here ;)

      > reflect an IE e/o ablaut, e.g.. a root with different forms
      *ger-/*gor-.
      > Very probably we are missing an original vowel between the r and the
      l;
      > though by the time of Charles Martel or Charlemagne, I think that the
      > Frankish name was just Karl, and the Latin Carolus reflects the
      insertion
      > of a "svarabhakti" vowel.

      I really wish I could find that book of mine on names in Latin. It was
      published by the Vatican and gives all sorts of details on traditional
      latinizations of non-Roman names, and also etymologies, though it
      insists on using OHG for ALL it's pan-germanic roots.

      >
      > >Actually James Jim and Jimmy are Ïakobus, not Ïakob. That is, believe
      > >it or not, an important distinction. I mean, the source of the two
      > >names is identical, but the reflexes are different in numerous
      > >languages.
      >
      > I suppose we could even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for
      "James"?

      We certainly could, as I believe Iacomus is attested, but I wouldn't
      recommend it, afterall both Ïakob and Ïakobus are attested in our
      Gothic texts, so why bother adding a new coining? Furthermore no one
      bothers to use Iacomus in Latin anyway ;)


      -Ïustinus
      >
      >
      > /\ WISTR LAG WIGS RAIHTS
      > \/ WRAIQS NU IST <> David
      Salo
      > <dsalo@...> <>
      >
      >
    • etsasse@acsu.buffalo.edu
      ... *kerlaz = ... which ... resources ... said on ... just ... *ger-/*gor-. ... l; ... insertion ... This reminds me of the Runic form of the Germanic word for
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 1, 1999
        > Well, I may be wrong. Old English ceorl (the noun) implies
        *kerlaz =
        > kairls, but Old Norse karl suggests *karlaz = karls, and I'm not sure
        which
        > side of the equation Gothic would fall on, and I don't have the
        resources
        > on hand to look up what the leading lights of Germanic studies have
        said on
        > the subject -- too often my difficulty, I'm afraid! Possibly both
        just
        > reflect an IE e/o ablaut, e.g.. a root with different forms
        *ger-/*gor-.
        > Very probably we are missing an original vowel between the r and the
        l;
        > though by the time of Charles Martel or Charlemagne, I think that the
        > Frankish name was just Karl, and the Latin Carolus reflects the
        insertion
        > of a "svarabhakti" vowel.


        This reminds me of the Runic form of the Germanic word for 'raven',
        Icelandic 'hrafn' (Gothic '?') where the Runic form has vowels inserted
        between EVERY future consonant cluster so that we get a highly proto-,
        yet attested, form 'harabana'. I could see the same happening here as
        *karalaz or something, but maybe with some front vowel after the k-
        instead to account for the palatalization found in 'churl' later on?
        Consider this English list:

        brid -> bird
        crul -> curl
        x -> kral (= churl)

        Could x have equaled 'kral' at some point? And if it did, then do
        the additional forms from other languages like karl with the
        svarabhakti between k- and -r show that *karal- was possible?
      • g.pagliarulo@iol.it
        g.pagliarul-@iol.it wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=701 ... this ... can ... Aileisabaith (not Ailizabaith) doesn t need
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 3, 1999
          g.pagliarul-@... wrote:
          original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=701
          > Hails! Just a thought for onomastics- people often seem to come to
          this
          > group asking for information on Gothic names. I was thinking a fun
          > activity might be to compile a list of names, not necessarily as they
          > would have been used by the Goths, but as would be used by us on the
          > list.
          > Er, that came out a bit convoluted. What I mean is, a list of common
          > names in the modern western world as they would be given in Gothic. A
          > whole lot of biblical names are already attested, Greco-Roman names
          can
          > be transliterated and adapted as was done by Wulfila, and Germanic
          > names could be calqued over. (Celtic, Slavic and other names will,
          > unfortunately, be a bit harder)
          > So just to get you guys started, here are some off the top of my
          head:
          >
          > Andy Andraías
          > Ardashir Artaksaírksus
          > Beth *Aílizabaíþ (declension?)
          Aileisabaith (not Ailizabaith) doesn't need any asterisk, since it is
          well attested (Luke's gospel, 9 times). About its declension: Wulfila
          treats this name as an undeclined noun.
          >
        • jdm314@aol.com
          ... DAMN! I need to get better Gothic sources. This text does not appear in Wright, and so neither does the name. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 3, 1999
            > > Andy Andraías
            > > Ardashir Artaksaírksus
            > > Beth *Aílizabaíþ (declension?)
            > Aileisabaith (not Ailizabaith) doesn't need any asterisk, since it is
            > well attested (Luke's gospel, 9 times). About its declension: Wulfila
            > treats this name as an undeclined noun.

            DAMN! I need to get better Gothic sources. This text does not appear
            in Wright, and so neither does the name. Thanks for bringing this to my
            attention.
            Anyway, a couple more notes on this thread... Mr. Salo listed
            Reikhardus for Richard. I just wanted to ask- why not Reikahardus?
            Wright of course says taht the stem letter is usually there but
            sporadically dropped, so without a Goth handy we couldn't assume either
            way was wrong. Did you just drop it because the next root begins with
            an h?
            As for the subject header, I see that namna is in fact the correct
            form. I also see that I typed nams.. oops, I meant to type it in as
            namins or something like that... which is still wrong, but at least not
            as obnoxiously wrong as nams.


            -Ïusteinus
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.