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

Evidence of East Germanic in Scandinavian Inscriptions

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    Further to the discussion on Gothic runes: Looijenga (Looijenga, T, Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700, Texts & Contexts, Doctoral
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 27, 2004
      Further to the discussion on Gothic runes:


      Looijenga (Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the
      Continent AD 150-700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation,
      Groningen 1997) mentions the possibility of East Gmc forms in the
      following runic inscriptions of Scandinavian provenance (references
      here to chapter & number of object in Looijenga, 1997) -

      5-17 Udby, Sealand (silver rosette fibula), TALGIDA : LAMO
      6-8 Darum, Jutland (bracteate), ALU NIUJIL
      6-14 Gurfiles, Gotland (bracteate), LAThAA

      - commenting that LAMO could be a West Gmc masculine n-stem, or and
      East Gmc feminine n-stem (but why not feminine and North Gmc?!), but
      that TALGIDA is East Gmc.
      Looijenga contrasts NIUJIL with the Skonanger bracteate spelling
      NIUWILA, apparently the West Gmc equivalent.
      LAThA is considered East Gmc on account of the -A, instead of the
      usual Proto-Norse LAThU 'invitation' - a very common word on the
      bracteates with possible cultic significance.

      However, other names in -o are not considered specifically East Gmc -
      whether ?feminine (HARISO (Himlingøje), LEThRO (Staarup), or ?
      masculine (WAGNIJO (Vimose), NIThIJO (Illerup)) - the masculine
      names, if such they are, being West Gmc n-stems according to
      Looijenga.


      Koebler (Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989)
      lists
      the following possible East Gmc forms:

      Moos, Gotland (spearhead, 3rd c. (But 2nd according to Looijenga;
      2nd, according to the site Tore mentioned "but perhaps around 300")),
      GAOIS, _*gaujis_, 'barker?'
      Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?

      The transcription of that latter comes from Moltke (Moltke,
      E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen 1976,
      p. 94). The first I guess is included because of the final -S as
      opposed to Proto-Norse -Z. I think Koebler included Etelhem because
      that final question mark might be an A. Moltke considers the
      interpretation:

      M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA

      But, guessing that the M rune might here stand for the similarly
      shaped E, he inclines more towards:

      EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA

      I'm not sure whether his replacement of the A with a question mark is
      due to uncertainly of what rune is actually written, or
      because "verbet skulle ende paa -o." He also says that the East Gmc
      features seen in inscriptions from Vimose and elsewhere all rest on
      not very convincing interpretations (p. 106). Presumably this
      applies to -

      Vimose. Looijenga 5.10 is a bronze buckle which reads: AADAGASU
      LAASAUWIJA. Krause's interpretation does seem to be in terms of
      Gothic: _A(nsu) a(n)dag a(n)sula a(n)sau wija_, "Ase! Den Andag weihe
      ich, der kleine Ase, dem Asen (Wodan)", that is, "God! I, Ansula,
      consecrate Andag to the god."
      Looijenga herself interprets this as: _Andag Ansulaas, auwija!
      _, "Andag the Godless, luck!" The -uw- of the final word being noted
      as evidence of West Gmc gemination. The smoothing of the diphthong -
      is there any parallel for this in Norse so early? - is not discussed.
      Seebold suggested a connection with Latin ansula/ansa ring, and OI
      aes < ansjo 'hole for a cord' - perhaps the inscription refers to the
      buckle.


      So yes, Moltke has a point. It seems a bit of a leap to assume East
      Gmc influence on the basis of just one unexpected vowel in an
      unstressed ending, in one inscription, especially when other
      unexpected forms need a different explanation (e.g. L5-16 the
      Nøvling
      fibula: _talgidai_; Moltke, pps. 97-98). Moltke accounts for the
      many anomalous forms - which he considers mistakes - with the idea
      that most smiths were illiterate and only copying their runes. Aside
      from the errors themselves, he points to the verb _talgjan_ 'to cut
      in wood', suggesting that the real runemaster would give the smith a
      piece of wood with runes to use as a guide. Similarly, he says,
      _faihjan_ > _fahjan_ 'paint' is inappropriate to the context of
      carving in gold, but might refer to the original runes painted by the
      expert on some other material as a guide.
      This would explain a lot. On the other hand, it's not impossible
      that these words acquired a specialist meaning in the context of
      runes. And of course, spotting mistakes offers just as much leeway
      for shoehorning as does the hunt for archaic or exotic forms.
      But is there a way of 'testing' Moltke's idea? I wonder whether
      runes on less costly materials, or in a more casual context (if such
      can be established), show fewer anomalies.

      Finally, I don't know if this is a comprehensive list, so if anyone
      can add to it - perhaps with more convincing examples?! - I'd be very
      interested. Scandinavian items so far from:

      Darum
      Etelhem
      Gurfiles
      Moos
      Udby
      Vimose (bronze buckle).

      Of these, Moos seems the most convincing. Maybe it's Norse and the -
      S is a genitive ending, but on balance I think it's probably
      nominative and Gothic.

      Llama Nom

      ********************************************
      Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989
      Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-
      700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation, Groningen 1997
      Moltke, E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen
      1976, p. 94
    • Tore Gannholm
      I have some photos of the Kylver stone from Stånga Gotland on http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/historia_/kylverstenen/default.htm Tore ... --
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 27, 2004
        I have some photos of the Kylver stone from Stånga Gotland on

        http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/historia_/kylverstenen/default.htm

        Tore


        >Further to the discussion on Gothic runes:
        >
        >
        >Looijenga (Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the
        >Continent AD 150-700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation,
        >Groningen 1997) mentions the possibility of East Gmc forms in the
        >following runic inscriptions of Scandinavian provenance (references
        >here to chapter & number of object in Looijenga, 1997) -
        >
        >5-17 Udby, Sealand (silver rosette fibula), TALGIDA : LAMO
        >6-8 Darum, Jutland (bracteate), ALU NIUJIL
        >6-14 Gurfiles, Gotland (bracteate), LAThAA
        >
        >- commenting that LAMO could be a West Gmc masculine n-stem, or and
        >East Gmc feminine n-stem (but why not feminine and North Gmc?!), but
        >that TALGIDA is East Gmc.
        >Looijenga contrasts NIUJIL with the Skonanger bracteate spelling
        >NIUWILA, apparently the West Gmc equivalent.
        >LAThA is considered East Gmc on account of the -A, instead of the
        >usual Proto-Norse LAThU 'invitation' - a very common word on the
        >bracteates with possible cultic significance.
        >
        >However, other names in -o are not considered specifically East Gmc -
        >whether ?feminine (HARISO (Himlingøje), LEThRO (Staarup), or ?
        >masculine (WAGNIJO (Vimose), NIThIJO (Illerup)) - the masculine
        >names, if such they are, being West Gmc n-stems according to
        >Looijenga.
        >
        >
        >Koebler (Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989)
        >lists
        >the following possible East Gmc forms:
        >
        >Moos, Gotland (spearhead, 3rd c. (But 2nd according to Looijenga;
        >2nd, according to the site Tore mentioned "but perhaps around 300")),
        >GAOIS, _*gaujis_, 'barker?'
        >Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?
        >
        >The transcription of that latter comes from Moltke (Moltke,
        >E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen 1976,
        >p. 94). The first I guess is included because of the final -S as
        >opposed to Proto-Norse -Z. I think Koebler included Etelhem because
        >that final question mark might be an A. Moltke considers the
        >interpretation:
        >
        >M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA
        >
        >But, guessing that the M rune might here stand for the similarly
        >shaped E, he inclines more towards:
        >
        >EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA
        >
        >I'm not sure whether his replacement of the A with a question mark is
        >due to uncertainly of what rune is actually written, or
        >because "verbet skulle ende paa -o." He also says that the East Gmc
        >features seen in inscriptions from Vimose and elsewhere all rest on
        >not very convincing interpretations (p. 106). Presumably this
        >applies to -
        >
        >Vimose. Looijenga 5.10 is a bronze buckle which reads: AADAGASU
        >LAASAUWIJA. Krause's interpretation does seem to be in terms of
        >Gothic: _A(nsu) a(n)dag a(n)sula a(n)sau wija_, "Ase! Den Andag weihe
        >ich, der kleine Ase, dem Asen (Wodan)", that is, "God! I, Ansula,
        >consecrate Andag to the god."
        >Looijenga herself interprets this as: _Andag Ansulaas, auwija!
        >_, "Andag the Godless, luck!" The -uw- of the final word being noted
        >as evidence of West Gmc gemination. The smoothing of the diphthong -
        >is there any parallel for this in Norse so early? - is not discussed.
        >Seebold suggested a connection with Latin ansula/ansa ring, and OI
        >aes < ansjo 'hole for a cord' - perhaps the inscription refers to the
        >buckle.
        >
        >
        >So yes, Moltke has a point. It seems a bit of a leap to assume East
        >Gmc influence on the basis of just one unexpected vowel in an
        >unstressed ending, in one inscription, especially when other
        >unexpected forms need a different explanation (e.g. L5-16 the
        >Nøvling
        >fibula: _talgidai_; Moltke, pps. 97-98). Moltke accounts for the
        >many anomalous forms - which he considers mistakes - with the idea
        >that most smiths were illiterate and only copying their runes. Aside
        >from the errors themselves, he points to the verb _talgjan_ 'to cut
        >in wood', suggesting that the real runemaster would give the smith a
        >piece of wood with runes to use as a guide. Similarly, he says,
        >_faihjan_ > _fahjan_ 'paint' is inappropriate to the context of
        >carving in gold, but might refer to the original runes painted by the
        >expert on some other material as a guide.
        >This would explain a lot. On the other hand, it's not impossible
        >that these words acquired a specialist meaning in the context of
        >runes. And of course, spotting mistakes offers just as much leeway
        >for shoehorning as does the hunt for archaic or exotic forms.
        >But is there a way of 'testing' Moltke's idea? I wonder whether
        >runes on less costly materials, or in a more casual context (if such
        >can be established), show fewer anomalies.
        >
        >Finally, I don't know if this is a comprehensive list, so if anyone
        >can add to it - perhaps with more convincing examples?! - I'd be very
        >interested. Scandinavian items so far from:
        >
        >Darum
        >Etelhem
        >Gurfiles
        >Moos
        >Udby
        >Vimose (bronze buckle).
        >
        >Of these, Moos seems the most convincing. Maybe it's Norse and the -
        >S is a genitive ending, but on balance I think it's probably
        >nominative and Gothic.
        >
        >Llama Nom
        >
        >********************************************
        >Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989
        >Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-
        >700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation, Groningen 1997
        >Moltke, E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen
        >1976, p. 94
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank
        >email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        --
      • llama_nom
        ... Thanks once again. Unfortunately, I can t seem to get the picture this time. When I click on the link, I get the introductory text, but it seems to break
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 28, 2004
          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm@s...>
          wrote:
          > I have some photos of the Kylver stone from Stånga Gotland on
          >
          > http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/historia_/kylverstenen/default.htm
          >
          > Tore
          >

          Thanks once again. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get the picture
          this time. When I click on the link, I get the introductory text,
          but it seems to break off just as it starts quoting from Guta saga.

          > >Moos, Gotland (spearhead, 3rd c. (But 2nd according to Looijenga;
          > >2nd, according to the site Tore mentioned "but perhaps around
          300")),
          > >GAOIS, _*gaujis_, 'barker?'

          This is the usual explanation, but I wonder if it could as easily be
          related to Gothic words like _gawi_ 'dictrict', and _gauja_ 'native,
          inhabitant'?

          > >Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?

          > >
          > >M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA

          Moltke:

          > >
          > >EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA

          The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the Naples
          deed (6th century).

          Llama Nom
        • Tore Gannholm
          With the arrow next you have to go to page 3 On page 6 you have the 24 letter alphabeth Tore ... --
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 28, 2004
            With the arrow next you have to go to page 3

            On page 6 you have the 24 letter alphabeth

            Tore


            >--- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm@s...>
            >wrote:
            >> I have some photos of the Kylver stone from Stånga Gotland on
            >>
            >> http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/historia_/kylverstenen/default.htm
            >>
            >> Tore
            >>
            >
            >Thanks once again. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get the picture
            >this time. When I click on the link, I get the introductory text,
            >but it seems to break off just as it starts quoting from Guta saga.
            >
            >> >Moos, Gotland (spearhead, 3rd c. (But 2nd according to Looijenga;
            >> >2nd, according to the site Tore mentioned "but perhaps around
            >300")),
            >> >GAOIS, _*gaujis_, 'barker?'
            >
            >This is the usual explanation, but I wonder if it could as easily be
            >related to Gothic words like _gawi_ 'dictrict', and _gauja_ 'native,
            >inhabitant'?
            >
            >> >Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?
            >
            >> >
            >> >M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA
            >
            >Moltke:
            >
            >> >
            >> >EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA
            >
            >The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the Naples
            >deed (6th century).
            >
            >Llama Nom
            >

            --
          • akoddsson
            ... This is, simply put, a far-out reading ;) ... This is logical, intelligible and clear. ... Naples deed (6th century). Sure, but it doesn t occur in the
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 2, 2004
              > > >Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?
              >
              > > >> > >M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA

              This is, simply put, a far-out reading ;)

              > Moltke:
              >
              > > >
              > > >EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA

              This is logical, intelligible and clear.

              > The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the
              Naples deed (6th century).

              Sure, but it doesn't occur in the inscription. I could be mistaken,
              but it seems that this thread is all about transfering Scandinavian
              runic inscription to far-off peoples and realms. One fellow cited
              claims they are in a Semitic tongue, another Gothic. Evidently, not
              everyone has an easy time reading Early Scandinavian/North Germanic.
              Here is a basic rule of thumb to follow: an inscription belongs to
              the area it was found in unless it can be proven that 1)it has been
              moved there from somewhere else or 2)it is in a foreign language. I
              have translated this language back and forth into more modern nordic
              idioms thousands of times. I am hardly convinced that it is foreign
              and I get suspicious when people claim that an object was moved just
              to explain something they don't understand.

              An apple seldom falls far from the tree.

              Regards,
              Konrad


              > Llama Nom
            • llama_nom
              ... Germanic. ... nordic ... just ... Absolutely! I m just quoting the examples that have been suggested by scholars - however far-fetched, to see if there is
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 4, 2004
                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@y...>
                wrote:
                > > > >Etelhem, Sweden (fibula), MKMRLAWRT?
                > >
                > > > >> > >M(I)K M(E)R(I)LA W(O)RTA
                >
                > This is, simply put, a far-out reading ;)
                >
                > > Moltke:
                > >
                > > > >
                > > > >EK ER(I)LA(Z) W(O)RTA
                >
                > This is logical, intelligible and clear.
                >
                > > The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the
                > Naples deed (6th century).
                >
                > Sure, but it doesn't occur in the inscription. I could be mistaken,
                > but it seems that this thread is all about transfering Scandinavian
                > runic inscription to far-off peoples and realms. One fellow cited
                > claims they are in a Semitic tongue, another Gothic. Evidently, not
                > everyone has an easy time reading Early Scandinavian/North
                Germanic.
                > Here is a basic rule of thumb to follow: an inscription belongs to
                > the area it was found in unless it can be proven that 1)it has been
                > moved there from somewhere else or 2)it is in a foreign language. I
                > have translated this language back and forth into more modern
                nordic
                > idioms thousands of times. I am hardly convinced that it is foreign
                > and I get suspicious when people claim that an object was moved
                just
                > to explain something they don't understand.
                >
                > An apple seldom falls far from the tree.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Konrad
                >


                Absolutely! I'm just quoting the examples that have been suggested
                by scholars - however far-fetched, to see if there is in fact some
                reasoning behind them that I might have overlooked. Or in the case
                of "Merila", playing Devil's Advocate, and guessing what that reason
                might be, however tenuous. I fully anticipate this list of "possible
                East Germanic inscriptons in Scandinavia" to be wittled down -
                perhaps to zero!

                I guess Koebler's list was similarly intended, erring on the generous
                side, just in case - a lexicographical instinct?

                About Etelhem: Moltke's reading certainly looks more familiar, which
                does make it easier to believe. My only reservation is that so many
                runic inscriptions need 'editing' to make them 'right', that (by
                another rule of thumb) I'm always wary of taking familiarity for
                logic. That said, "ek erilaz" is probably best (even though strictly
                speaking it "doesn't appear in the inscription" either).

                On apples and trees: Let's not forget though that this was The Age of
                Migrations. Peter Heather in "The Goths" mentions finds in Denmark
                of distinctive Chernjakhov-culture items, suggesting trade links with
                the Black Sea area. Looijenga in "Runes Around the North Sea..."
                mentions this too, including a rather intriguing reference to
                a "crystal bullet with a Gnostic inscription in Greek" (I'm
                paraphrasing here from memory, and possibly garbling!). This was
                clearly an era when many apples did sometimes fall far.

                That said, the vast majority of runic finds are centered on
                Scandinavia, so as far as runes go, the influence might be expected
                to go more the other way. What do you make of the other items on the
                list? The Moos spear head, etc. The final -s doesn't look Norse,
                unless it's a genitive - but the other spear-heads I've read about
                are all interpreted as names in the nominative.

                Llama Nom
              • llama_nom
                ... Germanic. ... I ve just come across this, in the Gothic Names appendix to Koebler s Gotisches Woerterbuch: Merila, got., PN (551): Vw.: s. mereis; Q.:
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 5, 2004
                  > > The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the
                  > Naples deed (6th century).
                  >
                  > Sure, but it doesn't occur in the inscription. I could be mistaken,
                  > but it seems that this thread is all about transfering Scandinavian
                  > runic inscription to far-off peoples and realms. One fellow cited
                  > claims they are in a Semitic tongue, another Gothic. Evidently, not
                  > everyone has an easy time reading Early Scandinavian/North
                  Germanic.

                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > Konrad
                  >


                  I've just come across this, in the "Gothic Names" appendix to
                  Koebler's Gotisches Woerterbuch:

                  Merila, got., PN (551): Vw.: s. mereis; Q.: UrkN (551); B.: Merila
                  UrkN 3,1 UrkN; ?
                  hierher auch M(e)r(i)la (= Merila), Fibel von Etelhem (5. Jh.)
                  (ostgerm.), Krause,
                  Runeninschriften 40 Nr. 14; Son.: s. a. Mirica, Lehmann M52

                  So that connection has been made before. But you're right, this
                  still doesn't really explain why the inscription has been regarded as
                  East Gmc.

                  Also in Koebler's "Gothic Names" appendix (refs. to
                  Krause, 'Runeninschriften') -

                  Andag - Schnalle, Vimose
                  Krause 60,24
                  c. 200

                  Awings - Scheidenbeschlag, Vimose
                  Krause 59,23
                  c. 400

                  The buckle I already mentioned.

                  >>Vimose. Looijenga 5.10 is a bronze buckle which reads: AADAGASU
                  LAASAUWIJA. Krause's interpretation does seem to be in terms of
                  Gothic: _A(nsu) a(n)dag a(n)sula a(n)sau wija_, "Ase! Den Andag weihe
                  ich, der kleine Ase, dem Asen (Wodan)", that is, "God! I, Ansula,
                  consecrate Andag to the god."<<

                  If Krause's reading is right, the dative -AU and the first person
                  singular verb ending -A are (I assume) the distinguishing features.
                  But Looijenga and others have interpreted this inscription quite
                  differently, in ways that don't suggest Gothic at all. So I think it
                  stays on the 'extremely tenuous' pile for now.

                  But what about AWINGS? If people consider a final -S evidence of
                  East Gmc, this would have as much right to inclusion as GAOIS on the
                  Moos spear head. But again, I wonder if it could be a Norse
                  genitive - or even just a varient spelling of z/R? But would I be
                  right in thinking that when an inscription consists of a single name
                  it is usually in the nominative?

                  But how certain is AWINGS? The Kiel Runenprojekt ascribes this
                  interpretation to Krause and also Antonsen, but I haven't seen the
                  inscription, so I don't know how clear it is.

                  Meanwhile...

                  Looijenga (Chap. 5, Nr. 16) and Moltke (pps. 97-98) both mention the
                  Nøvling silver rosette fibula, which has the preterite: talgidai.
                  (Not considered correct in anything.) Moltke sees this as a spelling
                  mistake caused by illiteracy! Looijenga suggests two possibilities:
                  1) it is due to the falling together of ai & e in Norse; 2) it reads
                  _talgida i_ carved in'. No reference here to East Gmc, even though
                  the form _talgida_ is called East Grm in the entry for Udby
                  (Looijenga 5,17).

                  Unstressed vowels in a little-attested language hundreds of years ago
                  are never going to be great evidence for anything... And even if
                  runic spelling was very consistent, there still wouldn't have to be
                  many anomalies to completely throw modern researchers. In these
                  cases, as you've said, a default assumption of Norse seems best.

                  Another thing to bear in mind - in considering if an object is of
                  distant origin - would be the type of object. Ordinary, everyday
                  items might be less likely to be imports from exotic locations!
                  (Looijenga makes this point in relation to the Letcani spindle whorl,
                  whose humble function and Romanian provenance add to the case for it
                  being Gothic.) Unless they were small personal possessions of
                  sentimental value that came with a person.

                  Llama Nom

                  ********************************************
                  Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989
                  http://www.koeblergerhard.de
                  Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-
                  700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation, Groningen 1997
                  Moltke, E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum, Copenhagen
                  1976, p. 94
                • akoddsson
                  ... mistaken, but it seems that this thread is all about transfering Scandinavian runic inscription to far-off peoples and realms. One fellow cited claims they
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 6, 2004
                    --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <penterakt@f...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > > The name _Merila_ appears among the Gothic signatures in the
                    > > Naples deed (6th century).
                    > >
                    > > Sure, but it doesn't occur in the inscription. I could be
                    mistaken, but it seems that this thread is all about transfering
                    Scandinavian runic inscription to far-off peoples and realms. One
                    fellow cited claims they are in a Semitic tongue, another Gothic.
                    Evidently, not everyone has an easy time reading Early
                    Scandinavian/North Germanic.

                    > I've just come across this, in the "Gothic Names" appendix to
                    > Koebler's Gotisches Woerterbuch:
                    >
                    > Merila, got., PN (551): Vw.: s. mereis; Q.: UrkN (551); B.: Merila
                    > UrkN 3,1 UrkN; ?
                    > hierher auch M(e)r(i)la (= Merila), Fibel von Etelhem (5. Jh.)
                    > (ostgerm.), Krause,
                    > Runeninschriften 40 Nr. 14; Son.: s. a. Mirica, Lehmann M52
                    >
                    > So that connection has been made before. But you're right, this
                    still doesn't really explain why the inscription has been regarded
                    as East Gmc.

                    The E-W-N classification system for the inscriptions (aka Antonsen)
                    is not really realistic, in my view.

                    > Also in Koebler's "Gothic Names" appendix (refs. to
                    > Krause, 'Runeninschriften') -
                    >
                    > Andag - Schnalle, Vimose
                    > Krause 60,24
                    > c. 200
                    >
                    > Awings - Scheidenbeschlag, Vimose
                    > Krause 59,23
                    > c. 400
                    >
                    > The buckle I already mentioned.
                    >
                    > >>Vimose. Looijenga 5.10 is a bronze buckle which reads: AADAGASU
                    > LAASAUWIJA. Krause's interpretation does seem to be in terms of
                    Gothic: _A(nsu) a(n)dag a(n)sula a(n)sau wija_, "Ase! Den Andag weihe
                    ich, der kleine Ase, dem Asen (Wodan)", that is, "God! I, Ansula,
                    consecrate Andag to the god."<<

                    > If Krause's reading is right, the dative -AU and the first person
                    singular verb ending -A are (I assume) the distinguishing features.
                    But Looijenga and others have interpreted this inscription quite
                    differently, in ways that don't suggest Gothic at all. So I think
                    it stays on the 'extremely tenuous' pile for now.

                    I agree. Most inscriptions are easily legible, but not all. We need
                    to bare in mind that our 'writers' were often barely literate, if at
                    all. Also, people scribled and made mistake then, just as we do even
                    today. Just hand a child pen and paper and see what happens ;)

                    > But what about AWINGS? If people consider a final -S evidence of
                    East Gmc, this would have as much right to inclusion as GAOIS on the
                    Moos spear head. But again, I wonder if it could be a Norse
                    genitive - or even just a varient spelling of z/R?

                    It's no doubt a name from auja, neut.sg., like *awingaz
                    *Awingas, gen.sg., might have been intended. We often see
                    svarabhakti a's and missing a's, as you know. *awingas (stainaz)?

                    But would I be
                    > right in thinking that when an inscription consists of a single
                    name it is usually in the nominative?

                    No, there are examples of genitive only, like keþan in Norway and
                    several others of this type. If a name occurs by itself on a stone
                    and in the genitive, then it means that the stone/memorial belongs
                    to this person.

                    > But how certain is AWINGS? The Kiel Runenprojekt ascribes this
                    > interpretation to Krause and also Antonsen, but I haven't seen the
                    > inscription, so I don't know how clear it is.

                    Working within the general framework of the inscriptions, most of
                    which are clearly intelligible, a smart path is to simply examine
                    the inscription from a grammatical perspective. Nothing ends in the
                    formation -ings in Early Runic or its nordic descendants, therefore
                    shapes like -ingaz and -ingas come to mind - typical masculine forms
                    with the -ingaz suffiz, just like any other.

                    > Meanwhile...
                    >
                    > Looijenga (Chap. 5, Nr. 16) and Moltke (pps. 97-98) both mention
                    the Nøvling silver rosette fibula, which has the preterite:
                    talgidai. (Not considered correct in anything.) Moltke sees this
                    as a spelling mistake caused by illiteracy!

                    While it is no doubt true that many were completely untrained in
                    spelling, there were certainly enough runes to represent the sounds
                    on the whole. However, there was no æ rune (always long). Writers
                    used both -ai and -e (ê) to represent this sound, in verbs from the
                    original *-æ- and in dat.sgs. from monothongization of ai to æ'(also
                    written ê, but not identical to regular long ê). If Antonsen is
                    right in thinking that the sixth vowel rune, which was discontinued
                    before the old inscriptions, represented æ' (as in *jæ'ran), then it
                    disappeared because of stressed æ'-to-â change in NG, leaving the æ'
                    in unstressed positions to be represented by -ai or -e, which never
                    represents this sound in stressed positions. Thus, talgidai is just
                    as normal as talgide, as far as spelling goes.

                    Looijenga suggests two possibilities:
                    > 1) it is due to the falling together of ai & e in Norse; 2) it
                    reads _talgida i_ carved in'. No reference here to East Gmc, even
                    though the form _talgida_ is called East Grm in the entry for Udby
                    (Looijenga 5,17).

                    The unstressed æ'(ê) in the 3rd sg.pres. of weak verbs is NWG, not
                    just proto-norse. It predates the earliest inscriptions.

                    > Unstressed vowels in a little-attested language hundreds of years
                    ago are never going to be great evidence for anything...

                    They are, however, consistently rendered and dicernable. I, for one,
                    have no problems understanding the phonology here, only vague areas
                    of the morphology.

                    "And even if runic spelling was very consistent,

                    For the most part, it is. Perhaps surprisingly, considering the
                    general level of literacy.

                    there still wouldn't have to be
                    > many anomalies to completely throw modern researchers. In these
                    > cases, as you've said, a default assumption of Norse seems best.

                    True, any anomality, even a scrible, can throw modern researchers. A
                    grade school teacher teaching the alphabet and spelling might be in
                    a good position to access the frequency of mistakes/mispellings ;)

                    > Another thing to bear in mind - in considering if an object is of
                    distant origin - would be the type of object. Ordinary, everyday
                    items might be less likely to be imports from exotic locations!
                    (Looijenga makes this point in relation to the Letcani spindle
                    whorl, whose humble function and Romanian provenance add to the case
                    for it being Gothic.) Unless they were small personal possessions
                    of sentimental value that came with a person.

                    Llama, join Theudiskon at yahoogroups if you haven't already. There
                    is no topic there except the language and runic inscription are not
                    off topic. You clearly have an interest in the early language(s) ;)

                    Regards,
                    Konrad

                    > Llama Nom
                    >
                    > ********************************************
                    > Koebler, G, 'Gotisches Wörterbuch', 2. Auflage 1989
                    > http://www.koeblergerhard.de
                    > Looijenga, T, 'Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD
                    150-
                    > 700, Texts & Contexts,' Doctoral Dissertation, Groningen 1997
                    > Moltke, E, 'Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse', Forum,
                    Copenhagen
                    > 1976, p. 94
                  • llama_nom
                    ... Antonsen) ... I d like to know more about this. Are you saying it s unrealistic only in the context of the Scandinavian inscriptions, or unrealistic per
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 9, 2004
                      > The E-W-N classification system for the inscriptions (aka
                      Antonsen)
                      > is not really realistic, in my view.
                      >

                      I'd like to know more about this. Are you saying it's unrealistic
                      only in the context of the Scandinavian inscriptions, or unrealistic
                      per se? The usual assumption with the (admittedly sparse) south
                      east European inscriptions is that Gothic -s (from Gmc -z or -s) is
                      spelt with the S-rune (cf. Szabadbattyan, Kovel, Letcani). Are
                      there any clear examples of S being used for etymological Gmc Z in
                      the Scandinavian corpus? And if there were, would this be evidence
                      for East Gmc? What, if anything, would consitute evidence? The
                      change z > R (palatal voiced alveolar) doesn't show up in runic
                      spelling, so that might make it difficult to distinguish between the
                      ancestors of North and East Gmc dialects. And when did z > r in
                      West Germanic?

                      Latin, I think, had no way of distinguishing [s] and [z], but maybe
                      there is evidence from Greek records of barbarian names - except
                      that the most common example (the usual nominative singular ending)
                      is usually obscured in classical writings by the Greek/Latin
                      terminations.

                      Something I've always wondered is, how much evidence actually exists
                      for the traditional list of the "East Germanic" tribes: Vandals,
                      Sueves, Gepids, Herulians, Skirians, Rugians, Burgundians, etc. Are
                      there specific Gothic-like features discernable in names, loan
                      words, legal terms, or whatever - or is this list made largely on
                      the basis of assumed geagraphical origin/habitation?

                      The one example that does come to mind, is the name of the Vandal
                      dynastic founder twin Raus (cf. Modern German: Rohr). There is also
                      the French roseau 'reed', probably borrowed from either the
                      Visigoths or the Burgundians, as far as I know.

                      >
                      > But would I be
                      > > right in thinking that when an inscription consists of a single
                      > name it is usually in the nominative?
                      >
                      > No, there are examples of genitive only, like keþan in Norway and
                      > several others of this type. If a name occurs by itself on a stone
                      > and in the genitive, then it means that the stone/memorial belongs
                      > to this person.

                      Ah yes, thanks for putting me right there - and I've just remembered
                      the Caister inscription from England: RAIHAN, which is taken to
                      mean "of a deer".


                      However, there was no æ rune (always long). Writers
                      > used both -ai and -e (ê) to represent this sound, in verbs from
                      the
                      > original *-æ- and in dat.sgs. from monothongization of ai to
                      æ'(also
                      > written ê, but not identical to regular long ê). If Antonsen is
                      > right in thinking that the sixth vowel rune, which was
                      discontinued
                      > before the old inscriptions, represented æ' (as in *jæ'ran), then
                      it
                      > disappeared because of stressed æ'-to-â change in NG, leaving the
                      æ'
                      > in unstressed positions to be represented by -ai or -e, which
                      never
                      > represents this sound in stressed positions. Thus, talgidai is
                      just
                      > as normal as talgide, as far as spelling goes.

                      > The unstressed æ'(ê) in the 3rd sg.pres. of weak verbs is NWG, not
                      > just proto-norse. It predates the earliest inscriptions.
                      >

                      So where does ô fit into all this?, as on the Gallehus horn: TAWIDO.

                      I wonder if the convention of equating /e/ and /ai/ spread beyond
                      Scandinavia. If so, that undermines the usefulness of the form U(N)
                      ThF(I)NTHAI, on the Charnay fibula, for establishing the value
                      of /ai/ in Gothic (or Burgundian in this case). Which is a shame...


                      > there still wouldn't have to be
                      > > many anomalies to completely throw modern researchers. In these
                      > > cases, as you've said, a default assumption of Norse seems best.
                      >
                      > True, any anomality, even a scrible, can throw modern researchers.
                      A
                      > grade school teacher teaching the alphabet and spelling might be
                      in
                      > a good position to access the frequency of mistakes/mispellings ;)

                      Mine more than most, I think...



                      >
                      > Llama, join Theudiskon at yahoogroups if you haven't already.
                      There
                      > is no topic there except the language and runic inscription are
                      not
                      > off topic. You clearly have an interest in the early language(s) ;)
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Konrad


                      Thanks for the tip - I shall!

                      Llama Nom
                    • akoddsson
                      ... only in the context of the Scandinavian inscriptions, or unrealistic per se? Only in the context of Scandinavian inscriptions. My basic rule is: it belongs
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 10, 2004
                        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <penterakt@f...> wrote:
                        > > The E-W-N classification system for the inscriptions (aka
                        > Antonsen) is not really realistic, in my view.
                        >
                        > I'd like to know more about this. Are you saying it's unrealistic
                        only in the context of the Scandinavian inscriptions, or unrealistic
                        per se?

                        Only in the context of Scandinavian inscriptions. My basic rule is:
                        it belongs where it was found unless proven otherwise. Antonsen has
                        some Scandinavian inscriptions listed under east or west along with
                        actual territorial east and west inscriptions. He classified these
                        according to certain ideas about the language (1975).

                        The usual assumption with the (admittedly sparse) south
                        > east European inscriptions is that Gothic -s (from Gmc -z or -s)
                        is spelt with the S-rune (cf. Szabadbattyan, Kovel, Letcani). Are
                        there any clear examples of S being used for etymological Gmc Z in
                        the Scandinavian corpus?

                        Not that I can recall. We discussed awings (Denmark).

                        And if there were, would this be evidence
                        > for East Gmc? What, if anything, would consitute evidence?

                        See above. Antonsen lists awings as east germanic #93 due to this.

                        The
                        > change z > R (palatal voiced alveolar) doesn't show up in runic
                        spelling, so that might make it difficult to distinguish between the
                        ancestors of North and East Gmc dialects.

                        This is the classic dilemma of whether to write R or z. z always
                        becomes R and R is always from z, at least in north germanic. What
                        should we write? I just write z because its lower case. More then
                        likely, z - R cannot be dated. However, R could mutate preceeding
                        vowels, some of which are shown in inscriptions. There is evidence
                        of this in Old Norse and Old English as well.

                        And when did z > r in
                        > West Germanic?

                        400+ for sure, but how much later I'm not sure. We could look it up.

                        > Latin, I think, had no way of distinguishing [s] and [z], but
                        maybe there is evidence from Greek records of barbarian names -
                        except that the most common example (the usual nominative singular
                        ending) is usually obscured in classical writings by the Greek/Latin
                        terminations.

                        Unfortunately true.

                        > Something I've always wondered is, how much evidence actually
                        exists for the traditional list of the "East Germanic" tribes:
                        Vandals, Sueves, Gepids, Herulians, Skirians, Rugians, Burgundians,
                        etc. Are there specific Gothic-like features discernable in names,
                        loan words, legal terms, or whatever - or is this list made largely
                        on the basis of assumed geagraphical origin/habitation?

                        This is outside of my sphere ;) However, the Rugians would appear to
                        be from Rogaland in Norway. Bornholm is also an island off the south
                        of Sweden. It's called borgundarhólmr in Old Norse. While this alone
                        does not prove anything, the names look very suspicious. How many of
                        the limited germanic groups used these names for themselves?

                        > The one example that does come to mind, is the name of the Vandal
                        dynastic founder twin Raus (cf. Modern German: Rohr). There is also
                        the French roseau 'reed', probably borrowed from either the
                        Visigoths or the Burgundians, as far as I know.

                        > > But would I be
                        right in thinking that when an inscription consists of a single name
                        it is usually in the nominative?

                        > > No, there are examples of genitive only, like keþan in Norway
                        and several others of this type. If a name occurs by itself on a
                        stone and in the genitive, then it means that the stone/memorial
                        belongs to this person.

                        > Ah yes, thanks for putting me right there - and I've just
                        remembered the Caister inscription from England: RAIHAN, which is
                        taken to mean "of a deer".

                        Yes, this is the common gen.sg.masc.n-stem at this north/west stage.

                        > However, there was no æ rune (always long). Writers
                        used both -ai and -e (ê) to represent this sound, in verbs from the
                        original *-æ- and in dat.sgs. from monothongization of ai to æ'(also
                        written ê, but not identical to regular long ê). If Antonsen is
                        right in thinking that the sixth vowel rune, which was discontinued
                        before the old inscriptions, represented æ' (as in *jæ'ran), then it
                        disappeared because of stressed æ'-to-â change in NG, leaving the æ'
                        in unstressed positions to be represented by -ai or -e, which never
                        represents this sound in stressed positions. Thus, talgidai is just
                        as normal as talgide, as far as spelling goes.

                        > > The unstressed æ'(ê) in the 3rd sg.pres. of weak verbs is NWG,
                        not just proto-norse. It predates the earliest inscriptions.

                        > So where does ô fit into all this?, as on the Gallehus horn:
                        TAWIDO.

                        1st person sg. past indicative: tawidô

                        I'll post the Gallehus Horn to Theudiskon for our grammar exercise.

                        > I wonder if the convention of equating /e/ and /ai/ spread beyond
                        Scandinavia. If so, that undermines the usefulness of the form U(N)
                        ThF(I)NTHAI, on the Charnay fibula, for establishing the value
                        of /ai/ in Gothic (or Burgundian in this case). Which is a shame...

                        There simply was no rune at this stage to represent æ', whether from
                        original unstressed æ' or from monothongization of unstressed ai to
                        æ'. UAIEO were the only vowel options, hence E for both E and Ê, AI
                        for AI, but E or AI for unstressed Æ'.

                        > > there still wouldn't have to be
                        many anomalies to completely throw modern researchers. In these
                        cases, as you've said, a default assumption of Norse seems best.

                        > > True, any anomality, even a scrible, can throw modern
                        researchers. A grade school teacher teaching the alphabet and
                        spelling might be in a good position to access the frequency of
                        mistakes/mispellings ;)

                        > Mine more than most, I think...

                        I still can't spell english worth a damn. I need a dictionary ;)

                        > > Llama, join Theudiskon at yahoogroups if you haven't already.
                        There is no topic there except the language and runic inscription
                        are not off topic. You clearly have an interest in the early language
                        (s) ;)
                        >
                        > Thanks for the tip - I shall!

                        See you there. We can post, read, compare and discuss all the runes
                        we want there.

                        Regards,
                        Konrad

                        > Llama Nom
                      • llama_nom
                        ... the ... up. I knew it caused mutation in ON, but hadn t heard of that effect in OE. Do you know any examples? According to Campbell s Old English
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 11, 2004
                          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@y...>
                          wrote:

                          >
                          > The
                          > > change z > R (palatal voiced alveolar) doesn't show up in runic
                          > spelling, so that might make it difficult to distinguish between
                          the
                          > ancestors of North and East Gmc dialects.
                          >
                          > This is the classic dilemma of whether to write R or z. z always
                          > becomes R and R is always from z, at least in north germanic. What
                          > should we write? I just write z because its lower case. More then
                          > likely, z - R cannot be dated. However, R could mutate preceeding
                          > vowels, some of which are shown in inscriptions. There is evidence
                          > of this in Old Norse and Old English as well.
                          >
                          > And when did z > r in
                          > > West Germanic?
                          >
                          > 400+ for sure, but how much later I'm not sure. We could look it
                          up.

                          I knew it caused mutation in ON, but hadn't heard of that effect in
                          OE. Do you know any examples? According to Campbell's 'Old English
                          Grammar', if I understand this right, the change happened AFTER the
                          fronting of a > æ, which apparently occured independently in Friesian
                          and English. Two examples he gives (which don't seem to have
                          mutation) are: ærn 'house' < *rænn < *razn (cf. Goth. razn), and hærn
                          < *hrænn < *hrazn 'wave'. With metathesis in both cases.


                          >
                          > > Something I've always wondered is, how much evidence actually
                          > exists for the traditional list of the "East Germanic" tribes:
                          > Vandals, Sueves, Gepids, Herulians, Skirians, Rugians, Burgundians,
                          > etc. Are there specific Gothic-like features discernable in names,
                          > loan words, legal terms, or whatever - or is this list made largely
                          > on the basis of assumed geagraphical origin/habitation?

                          >
                          > This is outside of my sphere ;) However, the Rugians would appear
                          to
                          > be from Rogaland in Norway. Bornholm is also an island off the
                          south
                          > of Sweden. It's called borgundarhólmr in Old Norse. While this
                          alone
                          > does not prove anything, the names look very suspicious. How many
                          of
                          > the limited germanic groups used these names for themselves?
                          >

                          Yes, Borgundarhólmr:Burgundians like Gotland:Goths, and Vendel(Sweden)
                          +Vendsyssel(Jutland):Vandals. The names match etymologically, but
                          the tribes first appear in history in the region of modern day
                          Poland. Peter Heather, in 'The Goths', downplays the Gotland
                          connection, for archeological reasons, but it seems there must have
                          been some link, given all these Scandinatian names, even if only a
                          ruling dynasty. The Rugian's have also been associated with the
                          island of Ruegen, haven't they?

                          One other possibility might by the Suevian personal names with Requis-
                          = Goth. riqis 'peace'. I'm not sure if this has cognates outside
                          Gothic, but as a neuter a-stem ending in -is, it is probably an old
                          consonant stem, like OE æg (pl. ægru). The -s- stays in oblique
                          forms (unlike hatis), but voicing of -s- is often lost in Gothic due
                          to analogy. Except that if Gmc z was still z in NWG, at this stage,
                          this doesn't really work as a diagnostic feature!

                          >
                          > > So where does ô fit into all this?, as on the Gallehus horn:
                          > TAWIDO.
                          >
                          > 1st person sg. past indicative: tawidô
                          >
                          > I'll post the Gallehus Horn to Theudiskon for our grammar exercise.

                          Thanks!

                          Llama Nom
                        • faltin2001
                          ... What ... evidence ... English ... Friesian ... hærn ... Burgundians, ... names, ... largely ... (Sweden) ... In fact, a Vandalic origin from Vendsyssel
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 12, 2004
                            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <penterakt@f...> wrote:
                            > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@y...>
                            > wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            > > The
                            > > > change z > R (palatal voiced alveolar) doesn't show up in runic
                            > > spelling, so that might make it difficult to distinguish between
                            > the
                            > > ancestors of North and East Gmc dialects.
                            > >
                            > > This is the classic dilemma of whether to write R or z. z always
                            > > becomes R and R is always from z, at least in north germanic.
                            What
                            > > should we write? I just write z because its lower case. More then
                            > > likely, z - R cannot be dated. However, R could mutate preceeding
                            > > vowels, some of which are shown in inscriptions. There is
                            evidence
                            > > of this in Old Norse and Old English as well.
                            > >
                            > > And when did z > r in
                            > > > West Germanic?
                            > >
                            > > 400+ for sure, but how much later I'm not sure. We could look it
                            > up.
                            >
                            > I knew it caused mutation in ON, but hadn't heard of that effect in
                            > OE. Do you know any examples? According to Campbell's 'Old
                            English
                            > Grammar', if I understand this right, the change happened AFTER the
                            > fronting of a > æ, which apparently occured independently in
                            Friesian
                            > and English. Two examples he gives (which don't seem to have
                            > mutation) are: ærn 'house' < *rænn < *razn (cf. Goth. razn), and
                            hærn
                            > < *hrænn < *hrazn 'wave'. With metathesis in both cases.
                            >
                            >
                            > >
                            > > > Something I've always wondered is, how much evidence actually
                            > > exists for the traditional list of the "East Germanic" tribes:
                            > > Vandals, Sueves, Gepids, Herulians, Skirians, Rugians,
                            Burgundians,
                            > > etc. Are there specific Gothic-like features discernable in
                            names,
                            > > loan words, legal terms, or whatever - or is this list made
                            largely
                            > > on the basis of assumed geagraphical origin/habitation?
                            >
                            > >
                            > > This is outside of my sphere ;) However, the Rugians would appear
                            > to
                            > > be from Rogaland in Norway. Bornholm is also an island off the
                            > south
                            > > of Sweden. It's called borgundarhólmr in Old Norse. While this
                            > alone
                            > > does not prove anything, the names look very suspicious. How many
                            > of
                            > > the limited germanic groups used these names for themselves?
                            > >
                            >
                            > Yes, Borgundarhólmr:Burgundians like Gotland:Goths, and Vendel
                            (Sweden)
                            > +Vendsyssel(Jutland):Vandals. The names match etymologically, but
                            > the tribes first appear in history in the region of modern day
                            > Poland.



                            In fact, a Vandalic origin from Vendsyssel has been practically
                            disproven by the work of various Polish archaeologists. I can provide
                            the reference if desired (also the error seems to live on for ever).
                            Also, the link Burgundarholm and Burgundiones is apparendly
                            misleading. At least according to the Reallexikon der Germanischen
                            Altertumskunde article on Bornholm. The name of the island and the
                            name of the people both are believed to derive from a word meaning
                            tall or high-rising, but in line with the archaeological evidence the
                            material culture of the earliest attested settlement regions of the
                            Burgundiones at the Oder, East Brandenburg and Nieder Lausitz was
                            certainly not derived from Bornholm.

                            For Rogaland and the Rugians, Hachmann pointed out that the link is
                            tentative and bordering on the abstruse. Hachmann shows that Rogaland
                            was itself thinly populated and subject to colonisation at the
                            relevant time in history and can therefore hardly be considered the
                            origin of migrating Rugians.

                            Cheers
                            Dirk
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.