[gothic-l] Re: Gutiska Namna
> Well, I may be wrong. Old English ceorl (the noun) implies*kerlaz =
> kairls, but Old Norse karl suggests *karlaz = karls, and I'm not surewhich
> side of the equation Gothic would fall on, and I don't have theresources
> on hand to look up what the leading lights of Germanic studies havesaid on
> the subject -- too often my difficulty, I'm afraid! Possibly bothjust
> 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 thel;
> though by the time of Charles Martel or Charlemagne, I think that theinsertion
> Frankish name was just Karl, and the Latin Carolus reflects the
> 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.pagliarul-@... wrote:
> Hails! Just a thought for onomastics- people often seem to come tothis
> group asking for information on Gothic names. I was thinking a funcan
> 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
> 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
> be transliterated and adapted as was done by Wulfila, and Germanichead:
> 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
>Aileisabaith (not Ailizabaith) doesn't need any asterisk, since it is
> Andy Andraías
> Ardashir Artaksaírksus
> Beth *Aílizabaíþ (declension?)
well attested (Luke's gospel, 9 times). About its declension: Wulfila
treats this name as an undeclined noun.
> > Andy AndraíasDAMN! I need to get better Gothic sources. This text does not appear
> > 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.
in Wright, and so neither does the name. Thanks for bringing this to my
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
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.