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

[gothic-l] Re: Gutiska Namôns

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.