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

[gothic-l] Re: 'namna' is correct

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Howey
    Hello: I m no expert, but I had read that ben in Hebrew/Jewish names means son of , like the -son/-sen suffix attached to a lot of Scandinavian names. I
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello:

      I'm no expert, but I had read that "ben" in Hebrew/Jewish names means "son
      of", like the -son/-sen suffix attached to a lot of Scandinavian names. I
      don't know about "Benjamin" specifically, but, according to what I've read,
      if "benjamin" was segmented, then there should be another name, let's say
      "Aaron" and then "ben Jamin" (Aaron, son of Jamin) -- just like in Leif
      Erikson (Leif, son of Erik).

      Andy Howey

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Christian Petersen [mailto:ctp@...-kiel.de]
      Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 2:04 PM
      To: Gothic List
      Subject: [gothic-l] 'namna' is correct



      I suppose we could even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for "James"?

      Since this is meant to be a question, let me answer briefly: unlikely.
      As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son called Benjamin.
      It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking community segmented
      'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was considered to be the one who
      fathered the 'b.n'.
      Christian
      _____

      <http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757>
      click here <http://clickhere.egroups.com/img/000757/BA1078.gif>

      Click Here!
      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l
      <http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l>
      www.egroups.com <http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group communications
    • Andy Schwarz
      Um, my Oxford Study Edition of the New English Bible, states the following about the birth of Benjamin, son of Rachel and Jacob: Then with her [Rachel s] last
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Um, my Oxford Study Edition of the New English Bible, states the following
        about the birth of Benjamin, son of Rachel and Jacob:

        "Then with her [Rachel's] last breath , as she was dying, she named him
        Benboni
        {b}, but his father called him Benjamin.{c}

        {b} That is, Son of my ill luck.
        {c} That is, Son of good luck or Son of the right hand."

        It would seem that since the bible pretty much spelled out the meaning of
        Benjamin in the text, it would have been hard for people to backform the jamin
        to mean anything but "good luck" or "right hand" They were, after all, The
        people of the book, and probably would have been knowledgeable enough to know
        the meaning of the name which made up one of the twelve tribes.

        Just my two shekels,

        Andy



        At 02:04 PM 9/1/99 , you wrote:

        <blockquote type=cite cite><blockquote type=cite cite>I suppose we could
        even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for "James"?</pre><font
        size=3></blockquote>Since this is meant to be a question, let me answer
        briefly: unlikely. <br>As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son
        called Benjamin. <br>It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking
        community segmented 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was considered to
        be the one who fathered the 'b.n'. <br>Christian <br><hr><div
        align="center"><a href="http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757"><br>Click
        Here! <br></a></div>eGroups.com home: <a
        href="http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l">http://www.egroups.com/group/go
        thic-l</a><br><a href="http://www.egroups.com/"
        eudora="autourl">www.egroups.com</a> - Simplifying group
        communications<br></blockquote><br></font></html>
        >
        > <blockquote type=cite cite>I suppose we could even have a Late
        Latin-based Iakomus for "James"?</pre>> <font
        size=3></blockquote>Since this is meant to be a question, let me answer
        briefly: unlikely. <br>> As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son
        called Benjamin. <br>> It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking
        community segmented 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was considered to
        be the one who fathered the 'b.n'. <br>> Christian <br>> <hr>> <div
        align="center">> <a href="http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757"><br>>
        Click Here! <br>> </a></div>> eGroups.com home: <a
        href="http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l">http://www.egroups.com/group/go
        thic-l</a><br>> <a href="http://www.egroups.com/"
        eudora="autourl">www.egroups.com</a> - Simplifying group
        communications<br>> </blockquote><br>> </font></html>>
        >>
        >> I suppose we could even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for
        "James"?</pre>>> <font size=3></blockquote>Since this is meant to
        be a question, let me answer briefly: unlikely. <br>>> As the OT tells us,
        Jacob and Rachel had a son called Benjamin. <br>>> It's likely that, later
        on, the Hebrew speaking community segmented 'ben-jamin' in the way that
        'j.m.n' was considered to be the one who fathered the 'b.n'. <br>>>
        Christian <br>>> <hr>>> <div align="center">>> <a
        href="http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757"><br>>> Click Here! <br>>>
        </a></div>>> eGroups.com home: <a
        href="http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l">http://www.egroups.com/group/go
        thic-l</a><br>>> <a href="http://www.egroups.com/"
        eudora="autourl">www.egroups.com</a> - Simplifying group
        communications<br>>> </blockquote><br>>> </font></html>>>
        >
        > Since this is meant to be a question, let me answer briefly: unlikely.
        > As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son called Benjamin.
        > It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking community segmented
        > 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was considered to be the one who
        fathered
        > the 'b.n'.
        > Christian
        >
        > ----------
        > <http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757>
        > Click Here!
        > eGroups.com home:
        > <http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l>http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l
        > www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
      • Tomas Mac an Chrosain
        Concerning James: Apparently, the original Hebrew has Yakov/Yakob. The letter beth may have been a bilabial fricative because modern Hebrew pronunciations
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Concerning James:

          Apparently, the original Hebrew has Yakov/Yakob. The letter beth may
          have been a bilabial fricative because modern Hebrew pronunciations
          (Sephardic) use /v/ as the final vowel which may have been originally a
          bilabial fricative rather than a labio-dental fricative. Borrowed into
          Indo-European Greek as Iacobos and Latin as Iacobus /Yakobos/ and
          /Yakobus/ there would have existed a nasalized lenited version in
          Iacomus /Yakomus/ which becomes later Giacomo. Seamus and James is
          simply borrowed from Norman French as is Sean/John in Gaelic and English
          respectively. Jacques is also French from Iacobus! Even in modern Greek
          the letter beta is now pronounced /v/ rather than /b/. As early as Koine
          Greek, the beta may have became a bilabial fricative before becoming a
          labio-dental fricative as in Modern Greek. In other Eastern European
          languages such as Russian it is Yakov, probably borrowed directly from
          mediaeval Greek.
          At any rate, we are dealing with Semitic names borrowed into Greek and
          eventually to other languages such as Latin, Gothic etc. At any rate,
          both B and M are bilabial sounds a plosive/stop in B and nasal in M.
          Carolus with the svarabhakti vowel in the o is probably correct here as
          /KA-ro-lus/ and the Frankish name was probably Karl in which a
          svarabhakti schwa was heard after the r. It gave rise to French Charles
          -- pronounced /"Tcharless"/ in Old French and /"Sharl"/ in modern
          French, and Carlos in Spanish, Carlo in Italian.
          English churl from OE ceorl was probably /CHEH-rl/ with another
          pronunication in Northumbrian /k'e-r-l/ with the svarabhakti. A form in
          crul is simply an example of metathesis. Apparently some dialects of Old
          English trilled or flapped the r and the Wessex dialect did not -- just
          as in Modern English varieties. Probably Common Germanic kerlaz with a
          variant in karlaz. The distintinction was probably the palatal k- versus
          the non palatalized k-.
          As for Jason, in Greek the intitial iota could have been the vowel
          followed by the /j/, Latin would have simply made this /j-/ like the y
          in yellow. Latin I and Greek iota were commonly used to represent the
          consonantal /j-/ when followed by a vowel. Modern Latin or Romance
          languages changed this to the /dj-/ quality rather comparatively late --
          toward the last two centuries of the first millenium. Spanish speakers
          apparently had a hard time keeping up with the Italian fashions in
          pronunciation for we find Diego/Iago for Iacobus/Giacomo and Juan and
          Jose for Iohannes/Giovanni and Iosephus/Giuseppe. French was probably
          first in changing the pronunciation of initial consonantal i.
          Would not Karls (with a non palatalized k-) be a likely candidate for a
          Gothic form of Charles/Carl?
          Tomas
        • jdm314@aol.com
          jdm31-@aol.com wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=720 ... following ... him ... I thoungt it was Benoni, but I don t have my
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            jdm31-@... wrote:
            original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=720
            > Um, my Oxford Study Edition of the New English Bible, states the
            following
            > about the birth of Benjamin, son of Rachel and Jacob:
            >
            > "Then with her [Rachel's] last breath , as she was dying, she named
            him
            > Benboni

            I thoungt it was Benoni, but I don't have my bible handy.

            > {b}, but his father called him Benjamin.{c}
            >
            > {b} That is, Son of my ill luck.
            > {c} That is, Son of good luck or Son of the right hand."
            >
            > It would seem that since the bible pretty much spelled out the
            meaning of
            > Benjamin in the text, it would have been hard for people to backform
            the jamin
            > to mean anything but "good luck" or "right hand" They were, after
            all, The

            Right hand is actually the first meaning, but the point is that it's a
            well-omened name.


            > people of the book, and probably would have been knowledgeable enough
            to know
            > the meaning of the name which made up one of the twelve tribes.

            Embelishment of the stories certainly did occur with all sorts of
            exegesis beyond what we get in the bible, but I agree with you: the
            Benjamin > Jamin > James thing is inspired, but almost certainly a new
            idea.

            -JDM


            >
            > Just my two shekels,
            >
            > Andy
            >
            >
            >
            > At 02:04 PM 9/1/99 , you wrote:
            >
            > <blockquote type=cite cite><blockquote type=cite cite>I suppose we
            could
            > even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for "James"?</pre><font
            > size=3></blockquote>Since this is meant to be a question, let me
            answer
            > briefly: unlikely. <br>As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son
            > called Benjamin. <br>It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking
            > community segmented 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was
            considered to
            > be the one who fathered the 'b.n'. <br>Christian <br><hr><div
            > align="center"><a href="http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757"><br>C
            lick
            > Here! <br></a></div>eGroups.com home: <a
            > href="http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l">http://www.egroups.com/g
            roup/go
            > thic-l</a><br><a href="http://www.egroups.com/"
            > eudora="autourl">www.egroups.com</a> - Simplifying group
            > communications<br></blockquote><br></font></html>
            > >
            > > <blockquote type=cite cite>I suppose we could even have a Late
            > Latin-based Iakomus for "James"?</pre>> <font
            > size=3></blockquote>Since this is meant to be a question, let me
            answer
            > briefly: unlikely. <br>> As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a
            son
            > called Benjamin. <br>> It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking
            > community segmented 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was
            considered to
            > be the one who fathered the 'b.n'. <br>> Christian <br>> <hr>> <div
            > align="center">> <a href="http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757"><br
            >>
            > Click Here! <br>> </a></div>> eGroups.com home: <a
            > href="http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l">http://www.egroups.com/g
            roup/go
            > thic-l</a><br>> <a href="http://www.egroups.com/"
            > eudora="autourl">www.egroups.com</a> - Simplifying group
            > communications<br>> </blockquote><br>> </font></html>>
            > >>
            > >> I suppose we could even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for
            > "James"?</pre>>> <font size=3></blockquote>Since this is
            meant to
            > be a question, let me answer briefly: unlikely. <br>>> As the OT
            tells us,
            > Jacob and Rachel had a son called Benjamin. <br>>> It's likely that,
            later
            > on, the Hebrew speaking community segmented 'ben-jamin' in the way
            that
            > 'j.m.n' was considered to be the one who fathered the 'b.n'. <br>>>
            > Christian <br>>> <hr>>> <div align="center">>> <a
            > href="http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757"><br>>> Click Here!
            <br>>>
            > </a></div>>> eGroups.com home: <a
            > href="http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l">http://www.egroups.com/g
            roup/go
            > thic-l</a><br>>> <a href="http://www.egroups.com/"
            > eudora="autourl">www.egroups.com</a> - Simplifying group
            > communications<br>>> </blockquote><br>>> </font></html>>>
            > >
            > > Since this is meant to be a question, let me answer briefly:
            unlikely.
            > > As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son called Benjamin.
            > > It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking community segmented
            > > 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was considered to be the one who
            > fathered
            > > the 'b.n'.
            > > Christian
            > >
            > > ----------
            > > <http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/757>
            > > Click Here!
            > > eGroups.com home:
            > > <http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l>http://www.egroups.com/group
            /gothic-l
            > > www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            >
            >
            >
          • Tomas Mac an Chrosain
            ... ne. Well, were dealing with a Semitic name here. If Benjamin is from b-n y-m-n we have the nasalization of -b- (a bilabial and probably fricative). m is a
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              jdm314@... wrote:
              >
              > jdm31-@... wrote:
              > original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=715
              > > > I suppose we could even have a Late Latin-based Iakomus for "James"?
              > > >
              > > Since this is meant to be a question, let me answer briefly: unlikely.
              > > As the OT tells us, Jacob and Rachel had a son called Benjamin.
              > > It's likely that, later on, the Hebrew speaking community segmented
              > > 'ben-jamin' in the way that 'j.m.n' was considered to be the one who
              > > fathered the 'b.n'.
              >
              > An interesting explanation, but one I have never heard (not that I'm
              > an authority). But if this is the case, what languages do we have an -m
              > form attested in? I know English James, Italian Giacomo, Gaelic
              > Seamus... and actually I'd always heard the English "James" was a
              > Scotticism anyway, but I don't know how reliable that source was.
              > Other languages that distinguish Jacob and James usually do so without
              > the m getting involved, French Jacques/Jacob, Spanish Diego/Jacob...
              > oh, on the other hand Jaime... well I guess I have to concede the point
              > the way things are going here.
              >
              > > Christian
              ne.

              Well, were dealing with a Semitic name here. If Benjamin is from b-n
              y-m-n
              we have the nasalization of -b- (a bilabial and probably fricative). m
              is a bilabial nasal. This makes sense. However, the -m- variant probably
              is a coincidence with the later Latin variation in Iacomus; it simply
              derives from the same phonetic phenomenon. This is because -b- is medial
              and in this position has a tendency toward a form of lenition either
              fricative or nasal. In any case, if the beth was originally a bilabial
              fricative then medially it would have a tendency to become nasalized.
              In Latin we can compare the variant spellings of the British tribe
              Catuvellauni as CATUUELLAUNI or CATUBELLAUNI /KA-tu-WEL-lau-ni/ or
              /KA-tu-BEL-lau-ni/..both /w/ and /b/ are bilabial. Here no nasalization
              but we have a glide versus a plosive.
              Tomas
            • jdm314@aol.com
              jdm31-@aol.com wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=721 ... your post, but neither do I have anything interesting to say about
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                jdm31-@... wrote:
                original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=721
                > Concerning James:
                >
                > Apparently, [SNIP, I do not contovert anything in the majority of
                your post, but neither do I have anything interesting to say about it]

                > As for Jason, in Greek the intitial iota could have been the vowel
                > followed by the /j/, Latin would have simply made this /j-/ like the y
                > in yellow. Latin I and Greek iota were commonly used to represent the
                > consonantal /j-/ when followed by a vowel. Modern Latin or Romance
                > languages changed this to the /dj-/ quality rather comparatively late
                --
                > toward the last two centuries of the first millenium. Spanish speakers

                I know this story off course, my point about Iason is NOT the
                orthography, though. My point was that since the name occurs in poetry
                (both Greek and Latin) we know that the i was pronounced as a VOWEL in
                this particular name (at least in the formal situation of a poem)
                However, it seems to me likely that colloquially it was pronounced
                CONSONENTALLY as i was in many other words and names, since it yields a
                j- in other languages, and the consonental i- regularly does this.
                Contrast names like Io (not Jo) and so on.
                Note, of course, that Jason's fater was Æson, which is simply a
                metathesis of his name when written in Greek- IASÔN/AISÔN


                > apparently had a hard time keeping up with the Italian fashions in
                > pronunciation for we find Diego/Iago for Iacobus/Giacomo and Juan and
                > Jose for Iohannes/Giovanni and Iosephus/Giuseppe. French was probably

                Diego/Iago I get, but are Juan and Jose borrowed from Italian?? I
                assumed they were just the Spanish outcomes of those names.
                Though ingluence of Giuseppe sure explains why Pepe is a nickname for
                Jose!


                > first in changing the pronunciation of initial consonantal i.
                > Would not Karls (with a non palatalized k-) be a likely candidate for
                a
                > Gothic form of Charles/Carl?

                It sounds more likely to me, but then I don't know the first thing
                about this subject and I'm just going on sound ;)

                Ïusteinus

                > Tomas
              • Tomas Mac an Chrosain
                ... Latin was centered in Italian Rome. Latin speech was always judged by the Roman standard. Modern Italian is considered the closest Romance Language
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 4, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Iusteinus:
                  > Diego/Iago I get, but are Juan and Jose borrowed from Italian?? I
                  > assumed they were just the Spanish outcomes of those names.
                  > Though ingluence of Giuseppe sure explains why Pepe is a nickname for
                  > Jose!
                  >
                  Latin was centered in Italian Rome. Latin speech was always judged by
                  the Roman standard. Modern Italian is considered the closest Romance
                  Language descendent of the ancient Latin even counting the archaism of
                  Sardininan.
                  IOSEPHUS was probably pronounced /"Yo-SEP-hus"/ at first, then later
                  IOSEPHE (vocative) "Yo-SE-pe" and variants in Yu-SE-pe and /Yu-SEP-pe/
                  then finally /Dju-SEP-pe/ "Giuseppe." PH /p+h/ was originally
                  distinguished from PH /f/. Late Latin still had an influence on the
                  provinces and took their fashions from Rome until the Latin culture
                  gradually was established in provincial cities.
                  after the Roman empire, and during Carolus Magnus time, the vain attempt
                  to keep Latin was lost and an uphill battle -- something like to trying
                  to impose Elizabethan--Shakespearean and Authorized Biblical King James
                  English on modern North Americans and peoples of the United Kingdom.

                  > > Would not Karls (with a non palatalized k-) be a likely candidate for
                  > a
                  > > Gothic form of Charles/Carl?
                  >
                  > It sounds more likely to me, but then I don't know the first thing
                  > about this subject and I'm just going on sound ;)
                  >
                  > Ïusteinus

                  If not Karls then perharps Kairls?
                  I assume that no one has found the cognate word in Gothic.
                  It seems to me that given what was said about the origin of the
                  name/noun Karl/Ceorl on the others' postings, we have a divergence
                  between a palatal and non-palatal k- in protoGermanic.
                  What would be the Gothic equivalents of:
                  Jarl
                  Karl
                  Thrall
                  Indeed, would this not be imposing a projection of an Icelandic Norse
                  social system onto the Goths, whose own social system was may have been
                  similar in arrangement but probably different in details and
                  terminology.
                  Tomas
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.