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

[gothic-l] Re: Gutiska Namna

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Sep 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 8 , Sep 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 8 , Sep 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          > > 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.