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

Re: Gothic equivalent for English 'must': another view of SKULD

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    And just when I thought I understood this, here is an alternate view on SKULD. In this article, SKULD, in the phrase _skuldu ist_, is characterised as
    Message 1 of 15 , May 21, 2004
      And just when I thought I understood this, here is an alternate view
      on SKULD. In this article, SKULD, in the phrase _skuldu ist_, is
      characterised as belonging to a class of "predicate nouns with modal
      meaning" - "Indo-European Syntactic Rules & Gothic Morphology", by
      Vyacheslav V Ivanov, p. 11).

      http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf

      I'm not sure how you'd distinguish between a neuter noun and a neuter
      adjective used in this way. Wright saw it as an adjective. Koebler
      has the adjective SKULDS, but lists instances under the headword of
      the verb SKULAN, of which SKULDS is the past participle. Though he
      does have a noun *skuld, it is treated as strictly hypothetical.

      Either way, an interesting article on Gothic & IE syntax.

      Llama Nom



      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <penterakt@f...> wrote:
      >
      > Hailai sijuth!
      >
      > And another alternative: nauths ist, literally "there is a need",
      > works the same way as: thaurfts ist (with thaurfts here being the
      > noun). With each, the thing needed is genitive. As a verb,
      thaurban
      > = "need", while skulan = "must, shall", with implications of
      > obligation, but also used to make a compound future tense, where
      the
      > simple present might not be specific enough. Hey is everyone else
      > doing what I'm doing and typing some Gothic phrase into Google to
      > bypass the "Wulfila Project down for repairs" screen?
      >
      > Skuld- (apart from being the past tense of skulan) is used in two
      > ways, with different meanings: 1) as an adjective, agreeing with
      the
      > nominative subject, and 2) impersonally as a neuter adjective +dat.
      >
      > "PASSIVE" skulds ist +inf. "one must be"
      > "ACTIVE" skuld ist (+dat.) +inf. "one must" or "one is allowed to"
      or
      > more literally "it is permissible [for one] to"
      > ni skuld ist (+dat.) +inf. "it is not permissible [for one] to"
      >
      > "Passive" and "active" might be slightly confusing labels, in the
      > context, but the examples should make it clear. For the former,
      see
      > L 9,44 skulds ist...atgiban "MUST BE handed over"; and for the
      latter
      > Mk 10,2 skuldu sijai mann qen afsatjan? "is a man ALLOWED TO
      divorce
      > his wife?" and 1Cor 6,15 skuld auk ist thata riurjo gahamon
      > unriurein "for that which is perishable MUST clothe itself with the
      > imperishable".
      >
      > (This works even in 2 Cor 5,10, if you remember that
      ataugjan 'show'
      > has, when used passively, the special sense of "appear" as well
      > as "show oneself"--allai weis ataugjan skuldai sijum "we must all
      > appear".)
      >
      > So with our hypothetical example: skulum galeithan "we should
      leave",
      > but: skuld ist unsis galeithan "we are allowed to leave", or to
      > reverse it: skuldai sijum bileithan "we must be left", and in the
      > past: skuldai wesum bileithan [fram im] "we should have been left
      [by
      > them]". Or to deny it: ni skuld ist unsis galeithan "we aren't
      > allowed to go", or if optional, ni thaurbum galeithan "we don't
      need
      > to go". To query: skuldu ist unsis galeithan? "are we allowed to
      > go?"; niu skuld ist? "aren't we allowed?"; skulumu galeithan "do we
      > have to go?"; or: ibai skulum galeithan "do we really have to go?"
      > Or if we just don't give a damn: ni waiht wulthrais ist unsis
      hwathar
      > galeithaima thau ni galeithaima "it's of no importance to us
      whether
      > we go or not!"
      >
      > Llama Nom
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "ashley overs"
      > <ashlovers_12344@h...> wrote:
      > > thanks it realy helps me.
      > >
      > >
      > > >From: matthew carver <me@m...>
      > > >Reply-To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
      > > >To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
      > > >Subject: Re: [gothic-l] Re: Gothic equivalent for English 'must'
      > > >Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:30:17 -0700
      > > >
      > > >hails!
      > > >
      > > >also there i believe is the possibility of
      > > >the construction "skulds ist (+DAT)"
      > > >meaning it is owing, lawful. Thaurfts
      > > >from tharf- has the meaning of necessity,
      > > >obligation. I thought these were impersonal
      > > >constructions requiring a dative. Where
      > > >does the phrase with thaurfts occur in the
      > > >gothic bible as a modal or auxiliary verb?
      > > >
      > > >-matthew
      > > >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.