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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Sep 1, 1999
      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 2 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
        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 3 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
          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 4 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
            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 5 of 9 , Sep 2, 1999
              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 6 of 9 , Sep 4, 1999
                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.