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

Re: [gothic-l] 1st dual imperative & reflexive pronouns with logical subject?

Expand Messages
  • Grsartor@aol.com
    What I think is the rule for use of reflexives in Gothic is simpler than its counterpart in English. If I am right, a reflexive pronoun is used when it refers
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 15, 2005
      What I think is the rule for use of reflexives in Gothic is simpler than its
      counterpart in English. If I am right, a reflexive pronoun is used when it
      refers to the subject of the finite verb (not an infinitive or a participle) in
      its clause. For some examples where Gothic and English practices differ consider

      A. Sentences with a pronoun as the object of a dependent infinitve.

      (i) The king ordered the physician to cure him.

      (ii) The king ordered the physician to cure himself.

      From (ii) a native speaker of English would naturally understand that the
      physician was required to practise self-healing, whereas in (i) he must heal some
      other person, quite possibly the king. If the patient in (i) is indeed the
      king, then Gothic would make the pronoun reflexive, since it refers to the
      subject of the verb "ordered".

      Examples:

      ...þaiei ni wildedun mik þiudanon ufar sis
      who did not want me to rule over them.

      jah bedun ina allai gaujans þize Gaddarene galeiþan fairra sis (Luke 8:37)
      and all the people of the G asked him to go away from them.


      B. Sentences with a pronoun as the object of a participle.

      (i) The king blamed the physician (that was) treating him.

      Whether or not the bracketed words are omitted English would not use a
      reflexive. In Gothic a reflexive would be used if the bracketed words were omitted
      and the patient was the king, the principle being the same as in A.

      Examples:

      wandjands sik du þizai afarlaistjandein sis managein qaþ (Luke 7:9)
      turning to the crowd following him he said

      qaþuþ þan jah þamma haitandin sik (Luke 14:12)
      and he said then to the one inviting him

      What if the inviting was truly reflexive? That is, suppose we wanted to say
      "he said to the one inviting himself". I think Gothic would use a reflexive
      pronoun here also. Consider, for example,

      in galaubeinai liba sun(a)us gudis gibandins sik faur mik (Galatians 2:20)
      I live in the faith of the son of G, [the one] giving himself for me.

      insandidedun ferjans þans us liutein taiknjandans sik garaihtans wisan (Luke
      20:20)
      they sent spies representing themselves as sincere [i.e. the spies pretended
      to be sincere]


      C. Sentences with an adjectival prepositional phrase.

      (i) He feared the darkness (that was) around him.

      Here again, English would not use a reflexive. Gothic, if the bracketed words
      are omitted, would use a reflexive for the same reason as in A and B, unless
      the sense was that he feared the darkness that surrounded someone else.

      Example:

      gasaihwands þan Iesus managans hiuhmans bi sik, haihait galeiþan siponjans
      hindar marein. (Matt 8:18)
      then Jesus, seeing the great crowds around him, ordered his disciples to go
      to the other side of the lake.

      On the other hand, consider

      (ii) He drew his coat more tightly round himself.

      The prepositional phrase is adverbial, and both English and Gothic require a
      reflexive.

      Here is an elaborate one from Mark 12:19, describing what might happen when a
      man dies childless but leaving a wife:

      ei nimai broþar is þo qen is jah ussatjai barna broþr seinamma.
      that his brother must take his wife and have children for his brother


      Here is quite a knotty one from 15:28 of Corinthians I:

      þanuh biþe alla gakunnun sik faura imma, þanuþ-þan is silba sunus gakann sik
      faura þamma ufhnaiwjandin uf ina þo alla, ei sijai guþ alla in allaim
      And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be
      subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

      The use of "ina" seems to violate my proposed rule, but perhaps Wulfila found
      all this nearly as confusing as I do.

      And here I think is another exception to the rule I have proposed:

      ei gebi unsis unagein us handau fijande unsaraize galausidaim skalkinon imma
      (Luke 1:74)
      to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might
      serve him without fear

      In the Gothic version the last word refers to the subject of its clause, and
      so I should have expected "sis".

      Gerry T.




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • llama_nom
      Thanks Gerry, Excellent clear explanation: I hadn t even got round to thinking about participles! The use of imma in the your last example might be due to the
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 16, 2005
        Thanks Gerry,

        Excellent clear explanation: I hadn't even got round to thinking
        about participles! The use of imma in the your last example might
        be due to the fact that the pronoun is separated so far from its
        antecedant. The use of ina in 1Cor 15,28 is a counter example to
        things like

        > insandidedun ferjans þans us liutein taiknjandans sik garaihtans
        wisan (Luke
        > 20:20)

        So it seems like there was some uncertainty over participles.
        Speculation: could this be because these participles are being used
        more than would be natural in colloquial Gothic, in immitation of
        the Greek? If a Gothic speaker was expecting a subordinate clause
        in such circumstances, that could lead to anomalous reflexives even
        where not referring to the subject. But maybe there was already an
        ambiguity there. Is the adjectival "reflexive + participle"
        combination the more common then?

        How does this work for reported speech? I believe there is some
        fluctuation here in Old Norse. Hammer's German Grammer has these
        counter examples to the usual rule about reflexive = subject:

        Karl fand Walter mit einem Bericht ueber sich (Walter).
        Kart fand Walter mit einem Bericht ueber ihn (Karl.

        From what you've said in C, I guess Gothic would be more likely to
        take the opposite tack, that is: sik = *Karls; ina = *Waldahari.


        On a slightly different topic, there was a question recently about
        the use of sa and is, and if there is any rule about which to use.
        I had forgotten there is actually something about this in Wright
        para. 431. He says "IS is sometimes used where we should expect
        SA". He doesn't elabourate on what "we should expect", but gives
        these examples:

        (1) iþ is dugann merjan filu...swaswe is ni mahta in baurg galeiþan
        "and he (the beggar) began to tell everyone...so that he (Jesus)
        couldn´t go into the city"

        (2) saei bigitiþ saiwala seina fraqisteiþ izai, jah saei fraqisteiþ
        saiwalai seinai in meina, bigitiþ þo.

        I think the implication is that the second IS in (1) would more
        often be SA. But ambiguity is avoided in the first part of (2),
        even if the genders were the same, since if he was destroying
        himself a reflexive would be used.

        But one circumstance where IS is very often used with a change of
        subject is in dialogue, in the combinations: 'iþ is qaþ' and 'iþ is
        qaþuh' = "and/but he said", the second more emphatic I
        think: "and/but *he* said".

        Llama Nom





        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Grsartor@a... wrote:
        > What I think is the rule for use of reflexives in Gothic is
        simpler than its
        > counterpart in English. If I am right, a reflexive pronoun is used
        when it
        > refers to the subject of the finite verb (not an infinitive or a
        participle) in
        > its clause. For some examples where Gothic and English practices
        differ consider
        >
        > A. Sentences with a pronoun as the object of a dependent infinitve.
        >
        > (i) The king ordered the physician to cure him.
        >
        > (ii) The king ordered the physician to cure himself.
        >
        > From (ii) a native speaker of English would naturally understand
        that the
        > physician was required to practise self-healing, whereas in (i) he
        must heal some
        > other person, quite possibly the king. If the patient in (i) is
        indeed the
        > king, then Gothic would make the pronoun reflexive, since it
        refers to the
        > subject of the verb "ordered".
        >
        > Examples:
        >
        > ...þaiei ni wildedun mik þiudanon ufar sis
        > who did not want me to rule over them.
        >
        > jah bedun ina allai gaujans þize Gaddarene galeiþan fairra sis
        (Luke 8:37)
        > and all the people of the G asked him to go away from them.
        >
        >
        > B. Sentences with a pronoun as the object of a participle.
        >
        > (i) The king blamed the physician (that was) treating him.
        >
        > Whether or not the bracketed words are omitted English would not
        use a
        > reflexive. In Gothic a reflexive would be used if the bracketed
        words were omitted
        > and the patient was the king, the principle being the same as in A.
        >
        > Examples:
        >
        > wandjands sik du þizai afarlaistjandein sis managein qaþ (Luke 7:9)
        > turning to the crowd following him he said
        >
        > qaþuþ þan jah þamma haitandin sik (Luke 14:12)
        > and he said then to the one inviting him
        >
        > What if the inviting was truly reflexive? That is, suppose we
        wanted to say
        > "he said to the one inviting himself". I think Gothic would use a
        reflexive
        > pronoun here also. Consider, for example,
        >
        > in galaubeinai liba sun(a)us gudis gibandins sik faur mik
        (Galatians 2:20)
        > I live in the faith of the son of G, [the one] giving himself for
        me.
        >
        > insandidedun ferjans þans us liutein taiknjandans sik garaihtans
        wisan (Luke
        > 20:20)
        > they sent spies representing themselves as sincere [i.e. the spies
        pretended
        > to be sincere]
        >
        >
        > C. Sentences with an adjectival prepositional phrase.
        >
        > (i) He feared the darkness (that was) around him.
        >
        > Here again, English would not use a reflexive. Gothic, if the
        bracketed words
        > are omitted, would use a reflexive for the same reason as in A and
        B, unless
        > the sense was that he feared the darkness that surrounded someone
        else.
        >
        > Example:
        >
        > gasaihwands þan Iesus managans hiuhmans bi sik, haihait galeiþan
        siponjans
        > hindar marein. (Matt 8:18)
        > then Jesus, seeing the great crowds around him, ordered his
        disciples to go
        > to the other side of the lake.
        >
        > On the other hand, consider
        >
        > (ii) He drew his coat more tightly round himself.
        >
        > The prepositional phrase is adverbial, and both English and Gothic
        require a
        > reflexive.
        >
        > Here is an elaborate one from Mark 12:19, describing what might
        happen when a
        > man dies childless but leaving a wife:
        >
        > ei nimai broþar is þo qen is jah ussatjai barna broþr seinamma.
        > that his brother must take his wife and have children for his
        brother
        >
        >
        > Here is quite a knotty one from 15:28 of Corinthians I:
        >
        > þanuh biþe alla gakunnun sik faura imma, þanuþ-þan is silba sunus
        gakann sik
        > faura þamma ufhnaiwjandin uf ina þo alla, ei sijai guþ alla in
        allaim
        > And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself
        will be
        > subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God
        may be all in all.
        >
        > The use of "ina" seems to violate my proposed rule, but perhaps
        Wulfila found
        > all this nearly as confusing as I do.
        >
        > And here I think is another exception to the rule I have proposed:
        >
        > ei gebi unsis unagein us handau fijande unsaraize galausidaim
        skalkinon imma
        > (Luke 1:74)
        > to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
        might
        > serve him without fear
        >
        > In the Gothic version the last word refers to the subject of its
        clause, and
        > so I should have expected "sis".
        >
        > Gerry T.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Grsartor@aol.com
        This email might better be called Sa, Is, and Wright. It is about the remark by Wright in his Grammar of the Gothic Language concerning the use of the pronouns
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 18, 2005
          This email might better be called Sa, Is, and Wright. It is about the remark
          by Wright in his Grammar of the Gothic Language concerning the use of the
          pronouns "sa" and "is". Llama_nom unearthed the following from paragraph 431:

          "IS is sometimes used where we should expect
          SA". He gives these examples:

          (1) iþ is dugann merjan filu...swaswe is ni mahta in baurg galeiþan
          "and he (the beggar) began to tell everyone...so that he (Jesus)
          couldn´t go into the city"

          (2) saei bigitiþ saiwala seina fraqisteiþ izai, jah saei fraqisteiþ
          saiwalai seinai in meina, bigitiþ þo.

          Perhaps to avoid the kind of ambiguity that arises in English when there are
          two people that could be "he", as in (1) above Wulfila distinguished between
          them by use of "is" and "sa", possibly in a way natural to Gothic, or perhaps
          in imitation of the original Greek, which in the passage in question, Mark
          1:45, uses two different pronouns: "ho de" - "and he" for the beggar, and "auton
          dynasthai" - "him to be able" for Jesus. I have an impression that "ho de" in
          Greek is used to introduce a contrast: X did one thing but Y did another.
          However, further comment on this should come not from me but from folk with good
          knowledge of Greek. It would also be useful to have a list of sentences in which
          Gothic uses both "is" (or ina etc) and "sa" (or thana etc). Does anyone know
          how to make a word processor search in the required manner?

          I can shed no light on (2). There seems to be no ambiguity in the Greek of
          Matt 10:39, from which (2) comes, even though the same word "auten" corresponds
          to both "izai" and "þo" in the Gothic.

          Another thing about pronouns. In paragraph 263 of Wright it is stated that
          "sein" and its derivatives are used only when they refer to the subject of the
          sentence they are in. But consider Matt 8:22,

          let þans dauþans gafilhan seinans dauþans.
          leave the dead to bury their dead.

          The subject of this sentence is the implicit "þu" of the imperative "let",
          and so here the rule is broken. The placement of "seinans" is also unusual.
          Perhaps both features are something to do with the original Greek, which has the
          reflexive possessive heautón instead of the more usual autón (the accent on the
          o, if it has transmitted right, is meant to show that the vowel is long,
          being omega), and places it before its noun, as in the Gothic. Perhaps the
          construction was emphatic. Again, it would be useful to have the help of someone
          competent in Greek.

          Gerry T.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • llama_nom
          Hi Gerry, I m afraid I haven t had time yet to follow this us properly. But it will be interesting to have a good look at these matters. A couple of examples
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 22, 2005
            Hi Gerry,

            I'm afraid I haven't had time yet to follow this us properly. But
            it will be interesting to have a good look at these matters. A
            couple of examples so far:

            1) J 6,71 sa auk habaida ina galewjan "for he would [later] betray
            him"

            = outos...auton


            2) J 18,13 jah attauhun ina du Annin frumist; sa was auk swaihra
            Kajafin, saei was "And led him away to Annas first; for he was
            father in law to Caiaphas, who was...

            nothing...nothing...'os

            New clause there though, of course.


            3) L 8,37 ina...iþ is (both = Jesus)

            4) Mk 6,27 CA jah suns insandjands sa þiudans spaikulatur, anabauþ
            briggan haubiþ is. iþ is galeiþands afmaimait imma haubiþ in karkarai

            And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head
            to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,

            auton = imma (other pronouns not expressed in Greek)

            In both 3 & 4, "iþ is" signals a change of subject.


            5) R 14,3 iþ sa ni matjands þana matjandan ni stojai; guþ auk ina
            andnam

            'o de...auton


            But I'll try to find more examples like 1 of the two pronouns in the
            same clause.

            Llama Nom




            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Grsartor@a... wrote:
            > This email might better be called Sa, Is, and Wright. It is about
            the remark
            > by Wright in his Grammar of the Gothic Language concerning the use
            of the
            > pronouns "sa" and "is". Llama_nom unearthed the following from
            paragraph 431:
            >
            > "IS is sometimes used where we should expect
            > SA". He gives these examples:
            >
            > (1) iþ is dugann merjan filu...swaswe is ni mahta in baurg galeiþan
            > "and he (the beggar) began to tell everyone...so that he (Jesus)
            > couldn´t go into the city"
            >
            > (2) saei bigitiþ saiwala seina fraqisteiþ izai, jah saei
            fraqisteiþ
            > saiwalai seinai in meina, bigitiþ þo.
            >
            > Perhaps to avoid the kind of ambiguity that arises in English when
            there are
            > two people that could be "he", as in (1) above Wulfila
            distinguished between
            > them by use of "is" and "sa", possibly in a way natural to Gothic,
            or perhaps
            > in imitation of the original Greek, which in the passage in
            question, Mark
            > 1:45, uses two different pronouns: "ho de" - "and he" for the
            beggar, and "auton
            > dynasthai" - "him to be able" for Jesus. I have an impression
            that "ho de" in
            > Greek is used to introduce a contrast: X did one thing but Y did
            another.
            > However, further comment on this should come not from me but from
            folk with good
            > knowledge of Greek. It would also be useful to have a list of
            sentences in which
            > Gothic uses both "is" (or ina etc) and "sa" (or thana etc). Does
            anyone know
            > how to make a word processor search in the required manner?
            >
            > I can shed no light on (2). There seems to be no ambiguity in the
            Greek of
            > Matt 10:39, from which (2) comes, even though the same
            word "auten" corresponds
            > to both "izai" and "þo" in the Gothic.
            >
            > Another thing about pronouns. In paragraph 263 of Wright it is
            stated that
            > "sein" and its derivatives are used only when they refer to the
            subject of the
            > sentence they are in. But consider Matt 8:22,
            >
            > let þans dauþans gafilhan seinans dauþans.
            > leave the dead to bury their dead.
            >
            > The subject of this sentence is the implicit "þu" of the
            imperative "let",
            > and so here the rule is broken. The placement of "seinans" is also
            unusual.
            > Perhaps both features are something to do with the original Greek,
            which has the
            > reflexive possessive heautón instead of the more usual autón (the
            accent on the
            > o, if it has transmitted right, is meant to show that the vowel is
            long,
            > being omega), and places it before its noun, as in the Gothic.
            Perhaps the
            > construction was emphatic. Again, it would be useful to have the
            help of someone
            > competent in Greek.
            >
            > Gerry T.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Grsartor@aol.com
            There does not seem to be much evidence for my conjecture that Gothic is and sa could be used to avoid ambiguity in third-person pronouns. Indeed, I have
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 23, 2005
              There does not seem to be much evidence for my conjecture that Gothic "is"
              and "sa" could be used to avoid ambiguity in third-person pronouns. Indeed, I
              have come across several sentences that might have benefited from such a
              convention. The following are all from Mark:

              jah berun du imma baudana stammana, jah bedun ina ei lagidedi imma handau 7:32
              and they brought to him a deaf stammerer, and asked him to lay a hand on him

              jah qemun in Beþaniin, jah berun du imma blindan jah bedun ina ei imma
              attaitoki 8:22
              and they came to B, and brought to him a blind man, and asked him to touch him

              jah þishwaruh þei ina gafahiþ, gawairpiþ ina, jah hwaþjiþ jah kriustiþ
              tunþuns seinans, jah gastaurkniþ; jah qaþ siponjam þeinaim ei usdreibeina ina, jah
              ni mahtedun 9:18
              and [the demon] wherever he seizes him convulses him, and he foams at the
              mouth and gnashes his teeth, and goes rigid; and I told your disciples to drive
              him out, and they could not.

              jah brahtedun ina at imma. Jah gasaihwands ina sunsaiw sa ahma tahida ina 9:20
              and they brought him to him. And seeing him the demon at once convulsed him.

              jah eis qeþun du im swaswe anabauþ im Iesus, jah lailotun ins 11:5
              and they spoke to them as J had commanded them and they left them.

              jah gasaihwands smakkabagm fairraþro habandan lauf atiddja, ei aufto bigeti
              hwa ana imma; jah qimands at imma ni waiht bigat ana imma niba lauf 11:13
              and seeing from a distance a figtree that had foliage he approached, in case
              he should find something on it; and coming to it he found nothing on it but
              foliage.

              In sentences where forms of both pronouns occur, I have not seen a
              distinction between them, but with luck others will; for Wright must have noticed
              something. Examples:

              iþ saei fraqisteiþ saiwalai seinai in meina jah in þizos aiwaggeljons,
              ganasjiþ þo 8:35
              and he who destroys his soul because of me and the gospel will save it.
              This is remarkably like Wright's second example in para 431, but there is a
              possible ambiguity since both the soul and the gospel are feminine.

              sahwazuh saei afletiþ qen seina jah liugaiþ anþara horinoþ du þizai 10:11
              whoever leaves his wife and marries another does adultery with her.


              Gerry T.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • llama_nom
              Hello all, and especially Gerry who asked these questions last year which I think I can now answer! ... stated that ... subject of the ... imperative let ,
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 13, 2006
                Hello all,

                and especially Gerry who asked these questions last year which I
                think I can now answer!


                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Grsartor@a... wrote:

                >
                > Another thing about pronouns. In paragraph 263 of Wright it is
                stated that
                > "sein" and its derivatives are used only when they refer to the
                subject of the
                > sentence they are in. But consider Matt 8:22,
                >
                > let þans dauþans gafilhan seinans dauþans.
                > leave the dead to bury their dead.
                >
                > The subject of this sentence is the implicit "þu" of the
                imperative "let",
                > and so here the rule is broken.



                I've been looking at reflexives recently. When I get my notes into
                a reasnable shape I'll post what I've got so far, hopefully soon.
                I've come across some really curious stuff, even stranger than
                this! What's going on here, I think, is just another example of the
                ambiguity you pointed out last year with present participles. I
                think what we have here is two clauses, a main clause and a
                subordinate one:

                [MC let [SubC the dead bury their dead] ]

                The first "deads" to be mentioned are thus the accusative subject of
                their own (embedded) clause, and so have every right to a
                reflexive! Compare these examples of accusative and infinitive from
                Old Icelandic, in both of which the reflexive refers to the
                accusative subject of the embedded clause:

                (3) lítr hann einn hræðiligan jötun liggja í sinni rekkju `he sees a
                terrible giant lying in its (=the giant's) bed' (Sörla saga sterka
                3).

                (4) ok báðu hann reyna afl sitt `and bade him try his strength'
                (Gylfaginning 33).

                However, just as with the present participles in your examples [
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/8225 ], there is a
                potential for ambiguity here, in that a reflexive in an embedded
                nonfinite clause can also refer to the subject of the main clause,
                e.g.

                (2) jah dugunnun bidjan ina galeiþan hindar markos seinos = KAI
                ERCANTO PARAKALEIN AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN ´ORIWN AUTWN `and they
                began to ask him (non-refl.) to depart beyond their (refl.) borders'
                (Mk 5,17).

                More and weirder to follow...



                > The placement of "seinans" is also unusual.
                > Perhaps both features are something to do with the original Greek,
                which has the
                > reflexive possessive heautón instead of the more usual autón (the
                accent on the
                > o, if it has transmitted right, is meant to show that the vowel is
                long,
                > being omega), and places it before its noun, as in the Gothic.
                Perhaps the
                > construction was emphatic. Again, it would be useful to have the
                help of someone
                > competent in Greek.
                >
                > Gerry T.


                The possessive pronouns--meins, þeins, *seins, ugkar, igqar, unsar,
                izwar--normally follow their noun where there is no Greek model:
                wato mis ana fotuns meinans ni gaft = `UDWR MOI EPI PODAS OUK
                EDWKAS `you didn't give me water on my feet' (L 7,44, and see also
                Mt 6,17; L 2,28; L 19,35-36; R 11,14; 2Tim 3,4). Sometimes Gothic
                places the possessive after the noun even in contrast to the Greek,
                as at L 6,40; L 9,51; J15,10; Mt 7,24-26. Likewise with the
                genitive of the personal pronoun, when it stands in for the missing
                nominative of *seins, e.g. in friaþwai is = AUTOU EN TH AGAPH `in
                his love' (J 15,10). The reverse order marks a contrast: wepna
                unsaris drauhtinassaus ´OPLA THS STRATEIAS ´HMWN `the weapons of
                *our* warfare' (2Cor 10,4), i.e. spiritual ones as opposed to the
                literal weapons of warriors; iþ þai þeinai siponjos ´OI DE SOI `but
                *your* disciples' (L 5,33), unlike John's disciples and those of the
                Pharisees; ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein, ak silba
                garaihtei wisands `neither equal nor similar to *our* justice, but
                himself being justice' (Sk 1,2). Often also preposed for emphasis
                in agreement with the Greek: seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS
                EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim 4,3); meinai handau TH EMH
                XEIRI `with my own hand' (Phm 1,19); let þans dauþans gafilhan
                seinans nawins = AFES TOUS NEKROUS QAYAI TOUS ´EAUTWN NEKROUS `let
                the dead bury their (own) dead' (L 9,56); seinana sunu = TON ´EAUTOU
                ´UION `his own son'(R 8,3); and so on: R 10,3; 1Cor 15,23; 1Tim
                3,5. A deceptive example: sein ain = TA ´EAUTHS `its own [lit. its-
                own only]' (1Cor 13,5)--unless 'ain' here is really aigin??

                Llama Nom
              • Budelberger, Richard
                24 nivôse an CCXIV (le 13 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 23h07. ... De : llama_nom À : Gothic-L Envoyé : vendredi 13 janvier 2006
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 13, 2006
                  24 nivôse an CCXIV (le 13 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 23h07.

                  ---- Message d'origine ----
                  De : llama_nom <600cell@...>
                  À : Gothic-L
                  Envoyé : vendredi 13 janvier 2006 14:02
                  Objet : [gothic-l] Reflexives continued + Position of possessive pronouns

                  > Hello all,
                  >
                  > and especially Gerry who asked these questions last year which I
                  > think I can now answer!

                  Attention, llama_nom ! La police « EGreek » fait correspondre
                  « ksi » à « x » et « khi » à « c » (/cf/. /infra/).

                  ----
                  > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Grsartor@a... wrote:
                  >
                  >> Another thing about pronouns. In paragraph 263 of Wright
                  >> it is stated that "sein" and its derivatives are used only when
                  >> they refer to the subject of the sentence they are in. But consider
                  >> Matt 8:22,
                  >>
                  >> let þans dauþans gafilhan seinans dauþans.
                  >> leave the dead to bury their dead.
                  >>
                  >> The subject of this sentence is the implicit "þu" of the imperative "let",
                  >> and so here the rule is broken.

                  En grec, non :

                  AFES TOUS NEKROUS QAYAI TOUS ´EAUTWN NEKROUS

                  « TOUS NEKROUS QAYAI TOUS ´EAUTWN NEKROUS »,
                  proposition infinitive ; le sujet du verbe à l'infinitif « QAYAI » est
                  à l'accusatif, ¹« TOUS NEKROUS » ; le verbe « QAYAI » a un
                  complément à l'accusatif, ²« TOUS NEKROUS », dont le
                  « possesseur » est le sujet du verbe, ¹« TOUS NEKROUS » :
                  le pronom est réfléchi : « ´EAUTWN ».
                  Le gothique suit strictement le grec : « þans dauþans »,
                  sujet à l'accusatif = ¹« TOUS NEKROUS » ; « gafilhan »,
                  verbe à l'infinitif = « QAYAI » ; « dauþans », complément
                  du verbe « QAYAI » à l'accusatif = ²« TOUS NEKROUS ».;
                  le possesseur étant le sujet de la proposition infinitive --
                  « the subject of its own sentence » --, le pronom est réfléchi :
                  « seinans ».

                  > I've been looking at reflexives recently. When I get my notes into
                  > a reasnable shape I'll post what I've got so far, hopefully soon.
                  > I've come across some really curious stuff, even stranger than
                  > this! What's going on here, I think, is just another example of the
                  > ambiguity you pointed out last year with present participles. I
                  > think what we have here is two clauses, a main clause and a
                  > subordinate one:
                  >
                  > [MC let [SubC the dead bury their dead] ]
                  >
                  > The first "deads" to be mentioned are thus the accusative subject of
                  > their own (embedded) clause, and so have every right to a reflexive!

                  Oui.

                  > Compare these examples of accusative and infinitive from
                  > Old Icelandic, in both of which the reflexive refers to the
                  > accusative subject of the embedded clause:
                  >
                  > (3) lítr hann einn hræðiligan jötun liggja í sinni rekkju `he sees a
                  > terrible giant lying in its (=the giant's) bed' (Sörla saga sterka
                  > 3).
                  >
                  > (4) ok báðu hann reyna afl sitt `and bade him try his strength'
                  > (Gylfaginning 33).
                  >
                  > However, just as with the present participles in your examples [
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/8225 ], there is a
                  > potential for ambiguity here, in that a reflexive in an embedded
                  > nonfinite clause can also refer to the subject of the main clause,
                  > e.g.
                  >
                  > (2) jah dugunnun bidjan ina galeiþan hindar markos seinos = KAI
                  > ERCANTO

                  « ERXANTO » !

                  > PARAKALEIN AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN ´ORIWN AUTWN `
                  > and they began to ask him (non-refl.) to depart beyond their (refl.)

                  Non. « AUTWN » = « their (non refl.) ».

                  > borders' (Mk 5,17).

                  La proposition infinitive « AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN ´ORIWN AUTWN »
                  est le complément d'objet de la proposition principale, « PARAKALEIN » :
                  « AUTON », sujet à l'accusatif ; « APELQEIN », verbe à l'infinitif ;
                  « APO TWN ´ORIWN », complément du verbe ; le possesseur,
                  « les gens », le sujet de « HLQON », « ERCONTAI », ..., « ERXANTO »,
                  n'est pas « AUTON » (/i. e/. Jésus), le pronom N'est PAS réfléchi, en grec.

                  Je ne comprends pas pourquoi le gothique a le réfléchi « seinos » !..
                  Wright ne commente pas en note. Pourquoi pas « ize » ?

                  > More and weirder to follow...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >> The placement of "seinans" is also unusual.
                  >> Perhaps both features are something to do with the original Greek,
                  >> which has the reflexive possessive heautón instead of the more usual
                  >> autón (the accent on the o, if it has transmitted right, is meant to show
                  >> that the vowel is long, being omega), and places it before its noun, as
                  >> in the Gothic. Perhaps the construction was emphatic.

                  Non, c'est la syntaxe normale du pronom possessif réfléchi : au génitif,
                  « ´EAUT-WN », et enclavé entre l'article « TOUS » et le nom « NEKROUS ».
                  Le gothique copie ici le grec (mais omet l'article, démonstratif trop fort).

                  >> Again, it would be useful to have the help of someone competent in Greek.
                  >>
                  >> Gerry T.
                  >
                  >
                  > The possessive pronouns--meins, þeins, *seins, ugkar, igqar, unsar,
                  > izwar--normally follow their noun where there is no Greek model:

                  Quand le sens est clair, le grec omet le possessif.

                  > wato mis ana fotuns meinans ni gaft = `UDWR MOI EPI PODAS OUK
                  > EDWKAS `you didn't give me water on my feet' (L 7,44, and see also
                  > Mt 6,17; L 2,28; L 19,35-36; R 11,14; 2Tim 3,4). Sometimes Gothic
                  > places the possessive after the noun even in contrast to the Greek,
                  > as at L 6,40; L 9,51; J15,10; Mt 7,24-26. Likewise with the
                  > genitive of the personal pronoun, when it stands in for the missing
                  > nominative of *seins, e.g. in friaþwai is = AUTOU EN TH AGAPH `in
                  > his love' (J 15,10).

                  Non reflexive : (Jesus) MENW AUTOU (Father's) EN TH AGAPH.
                  D'où « is ».

                  > The reverse order marks a contrast: wepna unsaris drauhtinassaus
                  > ´OPLA THS STRATEIAS ´HMWN `the weapons of *our* warfare'
                  > (2Cor 10,4), i.e. spiritual ones as opposed to the literal weapons
                  > of warriors; iþ þai þeinai siponjos ´OI DE SOI `but *your* disciples'
                  > (L 5,33), unlike John's disciples and those of the Pharisees;
                  > ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein, ak silba garaihtei wisands
                  > `neither equal nor similar to *our* justice, but himself being justice'
                  > (Sk 1,2). Often also preposed for emphasis in agreement with the
                  > Greek:

                  Je ne le pense pas. La construction article + pronom + nom est
                  normale en grec (/cf/. /supra/) ; le gothique calque le grec.

                  > seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim 4,3);
                  > meinai handau TH EMH XEIRI

                  « CEIRI » !

                  > `with my own hand' (Phm 1,19); let þans dauþans gafilhan seinans
                  > nawins = AFES TOUS NEKROUS QAYAI TOUS ´EAUTWN NEKROUS
                  > `let the dead bury their (own) dead' (L 9,56); seinana sunu = TON ´EAUTOU
                  > ´UION `his own son'(R 8,3); and so on: R 10,3; 1Cor 15,23; 1Tim
                  > 3,5. A deceptive example: sein ain = TA ´EAUTHS `its own [lit. its-
                  > own only]'

                  « [Lit. : « the its »] »...

                  > (1Cor 13,5)--unless 'ain' here is really aigin??
                  >
                  > Llama Nom
                • llama_nom
                  ... Or even better: HRXANTO ! Thanks for the tip regarding X and C. I wasn t sure which way round to use them, and Google produced lots of examples of both
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 14, 2006
                    --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard"
                    <budelberger.richard@9...> wrote:
                    >

                    >> ERCANTO

                    > « ERXANTO »


                    Or even better: HRXANTO ! Thanks for the tip regarding X and C. I
                    wasn't sure which way round to use them, and Google produced lots of
                    examples of both methods, but I'll follow your advice on this--or
                    I'll try, anyway...


                    >> jah dugunnun bidjan ina galeiþan hindar markos seinos
                    >> KAI HRXANTO PARAKALEIN AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN
                    >> 'and they began to ask him (non-refl.) to depart beyond their
                    (refl.) borders'
                    >> (Mk 5,12)

                    > Non. « AUTWN » = « their (non refl.) ».


                    That's right, not reflexive in the Greek. I was just refering to
                    the Gothic.


                    > Je ne comprends pas pourquoi le gothique a le réfléchi «
                    seinos » !..
                    Wright ne commente pas en note. Pourquoi pas « ize » ?


                    Well, from what I've found, it would seem that Gothic can optionally
                    use a reflexive in a nonfinite embedded clause to refer to an
                    antecedent which is the subject of the matrix clause. Obviously
                    this is a potential source of ambiguity, since the reflexive might
                    also be refering to the subject of its own (subordinate) clause.
                    Even so, the usage is quite normal in Gothic, as shown in Gerry's
                    examples. But where there is a particular need to avoid ambiguity,
                    the non-reflexive pronoun can be used instead, as in the following
                    examples, albeit both matching the Greek in this respect:

                    ei gebi unsis unsagein us handau fijande unsaraize galausidaim
                    skalkinon imma
                    TOU DOUNAI hUMIN AFOBWS EK CEIROS EXQRWN RUSQENTAS LATREUEIN AUTW
                    `that he grant us that we, delivered from the hands of our enemies,
                    might serve him'
                    (L 1,73-74).

                    þannuh biþe alla gakunnun sik faura imma, þanuþ-þan is silba sunus
                    gakann sik faura þamma ufhnaiwjandin uf ina þo alla, ei sijai guþ
                    alla in allaim
                    hOTAN DE hUPOTAGH AUTW TA PANTA, TOTE KAI AUTOS hO hUIOS
                    hUPOTAGHSETAI TW hUPOTACANTI AUTW TA PANTA, hINA H hO QEOS TA PANTA
                    EN PASIN
                    `so then, when all things are subjected to him, well, then the son
                    himself will submit to the one (=the father) who placed all those
                    things under him (=the son), so that God may be all in all.'
                    (1Cor 15,28).

                    However, I haven't found any examples yet, in Gothic, of a reflexive
                    in a FINITE embedded clause (i.e. one introduced by a subordinating
                    conjunction) refering to anything other than the subject of its own
                    clause. Compare the following example with Mk 5,12.

                    bedun ei usliþi hindar markos ize
                    PAREKALESAN hWTOS METABH APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN
                    `they asked him to depart beyond their borders'
                    (Mt 8,34).

                    Here's an example, from Curtius's Greek Grammar, of a reflexive in
                    just such a subordinate clause refering not to the subject of its
                    own clause but to that of the main clause:

                    EISIENAI EKELEUSEN, EI MELLOIS SUN hEAUTW EKPLEIN
                    `he bade you enter if you were going to sail away with him'

                    It would be interesting to see if there are any examples of Gothic
                    contradicting Greek in this respect.


                    >> The reverse order marks a contrast: wepna unsaris drauhtinassaus
                    >> ´OPLA THS STRATEIAS ´HMWN `the weapons of *our* warfare'
                    >> (2Cor 10,4), i.e. spiritual ones as opposed to the literal weapons
                    >> of warriors; iþ þai þeinai siponjos ´OI DE SOI `but *your*
                    disciples'
                    >> (L 5,33), unlike John's disciples and those of the Pharisees;
                    >> ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein, ak silba garaihtei wisands
                    >> `neither equal nor similar to *our* justice, but himself being
                    justice'
                    >> (Sk 1,2). Often also preposed for emphasis in agreement with the
                    >> Greek:

                    > Je ne le pense pas. La construction article + pronom + nom est
                    normale en grec (/cf/. /supra/) ; le gothique calque le grec.

                    >> seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim
                    4,3);
                    >> meinai handau TH EMH CEIRI

                    To me the difference between "their desires" and "their own desires"
                    is one of emphasis or contrast (in this case: their own, as opposed
                    to the will of God). Likewise the context would suggest the
                    emphatic "my own hand", rather than that of my secretary, who
                    normally writes for me. Though it may be quite normal, I get the
                    impression that the more common way of expressing possession, when
                    there is no special emphasis on the possessor, or contrast, is to
                    place the pronoun after the noun:

                    handau izos
                    THS CEIROS AUTHS

                    handu þeina
                    THN CEIRA SOU

                    handau meinai
                    THS CEIROS MOU

                    Isn't TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS a more forceful/emphatic way of expressing
                    possession than these? Sometimes, as in the above examples, Gothic
                    simply follows the Greek word order, but uses the same possessive
                    form that would normally come after the noun. At other times,
                    Gothic, like the Greek, uses a different word:

                    þo swesona lamba
                    TA IDIA PROBATA
                    'his own lambs'
                    (J 10,3)

                    Eph 5,28 [ http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?
                    book=8&chapter=5 ] seems to contain an interesting error in the form
                    of two alternative translations of the same phrase.

                    leik seina
                    sein silbins leik
                    TA hEAUTWN SWMATA
                    his own body

                    Llama Nom

                    P.S. Thanks once again for patiently correcting my mistakes with
                    Greek.
                  • llama_nom
                    ... Would you say that that s the normal order for the reflexive pronoun, when used, but not so usual for other pronouns even when used with reference to the
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jan 14, 2006
                      > > Je ne le pense pas. La construction article + pronom + nom est
                      > normale en grec (/cf/. /supra/) ; le gothique calque le grec.
                      >
                      > >> seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim
                      > 4,3);
                      > >> meinai handau TH EMH CEIRI

                      Would you say that that's the normal order for the reflexive pronoun,
                      when used, but not so usual for other pronouns even when used with
                      reference to the subject of the sentence?

                      ju gahorinoda izai in hairtin seinamma.
                      HDH EMOICEUSEN AUTHN EN TH KARDIA AUTOU
                      "he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

                      andnemun mizdon seina
                      APECOUSIN TON MISQON AUTWN
                      "they have had their reward"

                      jah qam in seinai baurg
                      KAI HLQEN EIS THN IDIAN POLIN
                      "and came into his own city"
                      (in contrast to all the other cities that he's preached in)

                      All explicity reflexive in Gothic, but only one marked in Greek. Does
                      IDIOS have to refer to the subject?

                      Llama Nom
                    • Budelberger, Richard
                      26 nivôse an CCXIV (le 15 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 00h15. ... De : llama_nom À : Gothic-L Envoyé : samedi 14 janvier 2006 15:04 Objet : [gothic-l] Re:
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jan 14, 2006
                        26 nivôse an CCXIV (le 15 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 00h15.

                        ---- Message d'origine ----
                        De : llama_nom
                        À : Gothic-L
                        Envoyé : samedi 14 janvier 2006 15:04
                        Objet : [gothic-l] Re: Reflexives continued + Position of possessive pronouns

                        > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Budelberger, Richard wrote:
                        >
                        >>> ERCANTO
                        >
                        >> « ERXANTO »
                        >
                        > Or even better: HRXANTO !

                        « Damned ! I am done (/ou/ I am made) !... »

                        > Thanks for the tip regarding X and C. I wasn't sure which way round to use them,
                        > and Google produced lots of examples of both methods, but I'll follow your advice
                        > on this--or I'll try, anyway...

                        Oui, oui... :

                        >>> jah dugunnun bidjan ina galeiþan hindar markos seinos
                        >>> KAI HRXANTO PARAKALEIN AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN
                        >>> 'and they began to ask him (non-refl.) to depart beyond their (refl.) borders'
                        >>> (Mk 5,12)

                        « Mc *5*, 17 ! ».

                        >> Non. « AUTWN » = « their (non refl.) ».
                        >
                        > That's right, not reflexive in the Greek. I was just refering to the Gothic.
                        >
                        >> Je ne comprends pas pourquoi le gothique a le réfléchi « seinos » !..
                        >> Wright ne commente pas en note. Pourquoi pas « ize » ?

                        Je crois que je commence à comprendre (une erreur du traducteur gothique,
                        pourtant très soigneux) ; dans un message ultérieur, car c'est long et difficile...

                        > Well, from what I've found, it would seem that Gothic can optionally
                        > use a reflexive in a nonfinite embedded clause to refer to an
                        > antecedent which is the subject of the matrix clause. Obviously
                        > this is a potential source of ambiguity, since the reflexive might
                        > also be refering to the subject of its own (subordinate) clause.
                        > Even so, the usage is quite normal in Gothic, as shown in Gerry's
                        > examples. But where there is a particular need to avoid ambiguity,
                        > the non-reflexive pronoun can be used instead, as in the following
                        > examples, albeit both matching the Greek in this respect:
                        >
                        > ei gebi unsis unsagein us handau fijande unsaraize galausidaim
                        > skalkinon imma
                        > TOU DOUNAI hUMIN AFOBWS EK CEIROS EXQRWN RUSQENTAS LATREUEIN AUTW

                        « ...hHMIN...ECQRWN... » !..

                        > `that he grant us that we, delivered from the hands of our enemies, might serve him'
                        > (L 1,73-74).
                        >
                        > þannuh biþe alla gakunnun sik faura imma,
                        > þanuþ-þan is silba sunus gakann sik faura þamma ufhnaiwjandin uf ina þo alla,
                        > ei sijai guþ alla in allaim
                        > hOTAN DE hUPOTAGH AUTW TA PANTA,
                        > TOTE KAI AUTOS hO hUIOS hUPOTAGHSETAI
                        > TW hUPOTACANTI AUTW TA PANTA,
                        > hINA H hO QEOS TA PANTA EN PASIN

                        « ...hUPOTAXANTI... »...

                        > `so then, when all things are subjected to him,
                        > well, then the son himself will submit
                        > to the one (=the father) who placed all those things under him (=the son),
                        > so that God may be all in all.'
                        > (1Cor 15,28).
                        >
                        > However, I haven't found any examples yet, in Gothic, of a reflexive
                        > in a FINITE embedded clause (i.e. one introduced by a subordinating
                        > conjunction) refering to anything other than the subject of its own
                        > clause. Compare the following example with Mk 5,12.

                        « Mc *5*, 17 ».

                        > bedun ei usliþi hindar markos ize
                        > PAREKALESAN hWTOS METABH APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN

                        « ...hWPOS... ».

                        > `they asked him to depart beyond their borders'
                        > (Mt 8,34).
                        >
                        > Here's an example, from Curtius's Greek Grammar, of a reflexive
                        > in just such a subordinate clause refering not to the subject of
                        > its own clause but to that of the main clause:
                        >
                        > EISIENAI EKELEUSEN, EI MELLOIS SUN hEAUTW EKPLEIN
                        > `he bade you enter if you were going to sail away with him'
                        >
                        > It would be interesting to see if there are any examples of Gothic
                        > contradicting Greek in this respect.

                        Je ne comprends plus très bien ; on parlait des pronoms-adjectifs
                        possessifs réfléchis et non réfléchis, et on traite ici du pronom réfléchi
                        indirect.

                        >>> The reverse order marks a contrast: wepna unsaris drauhtinassaus
                        >>> ´OPLA THS STRATEIAS ´HMWN `the weapons of *our* warfare'
                        >>> (2Cor 10,4), i.e. spiritual ones as opposed to the literal weapons
                        >>> of warriors; iþ þai þeinai siponjos ´OI DE SOI `but *your* disciples'
                        >>> (L 5,33), unlike John's disciples and those of the Pharisees;
                        >>> ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein, ak silba garaihtei wisands
                        >>> `neither equal nor similar to *our* justice, but himself being justice'
                        >>> (Sk 1,2). Often also preposed for emphasis in agreement with the
                        >>> Greek:
                        >
                        >> Je ne le pense pas. La construction article + pronom + nom est
                        >> normale en grec (/cf/. /supra/) ; le gothique calque le grec.

                        À revoir après recensement des constructions dans les Évangiles.
                        On trouve tous les ordres... Il existe de grandes différences entre Matthieu
                        et Luc d'une part, Marc et Jean de l'autre.

                        >>> seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim 4,3);
                        >>> meinai handau TH EMH CEIRI
                        >
                        > To me the difference between "their desires" and "their own desires"
                        > is one of emphasis or contrast (in this case: their own, as opposed
                        > to the will of God). Likewise the context would suggest the
                        > emphatic "my own hand", rather than that of my secretary, who
                        > normally writes for me. Though it may be quite normal, I get the
                        > impression that the more common way of expressing possession, when
                        > there is no special emphasis on the possessor, or contrast, is to
                        > place the pronoun after the noun:

                        Je ne le pense pas pour le grec néo-testamenatire.

                        > handau izos
                        > THS CEIROS AUTHS
                        >
                        > handu þeina
                        > THN CEIRA SOU
                        >
                        > handau meinai
                        > THS CEIROS MOU
                        >
                        > Isn't TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS a more forceful/emphatic way of expressing
                        > possession than these?

                        Oui.

                        > Sometimes, as in the above examples, Gothic simply follows the Greek
                        > word order, but uses the same possessive form that would normally come
                        > after the noun. At other times, Gothic, like the Greek, uses a different word:
                        >
                        > þo swesona lamba
                        > TA IDIA PROBATA
                        > 'his own lambs'
                        > (J 10,3)
                        >
                        > Eph 5,28 [ http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?book=8&chapter=5 ]
                        > seems to contain an interesting error in the form of two alternative translations
                        > of the same phrase.
                        >
                        > leik seina
                        > sein silbins leik
                        > TA hEAUTWN SWMATA
                        > his own body

                        J'ai trouvé une hypercorrection (?) en gothique du texte grec (Lc *14*, 26) :

                        EI TIS ERCETAI PROS ME KAI OU MISEI _TON PATERA hEAUTOU_ (...)
                        ETI TE KAI _THN YUCHN hEAUTOU_, OU DUNATAI EINAI MOU MAQHTHS.

                        jabai hvas gaggiþ du mis jah ni fijaiþ _attan seinana_ (...)
                        nauhuþ þan _seina silbins saiwala_ · ni mag meins siponeis wisan·

                        > Llama Nom
                        >
                        > P.S. Thanks once again for patiently correcting my mistakes with Greek.

                        Et /my own mistakes/ à moi en français, anglais, grec, gothique ?..


                        R. B.
                      • Budelberger, Richard
                        26 nivôse an CCXIV (le 15 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 03h03. ... De : llama_nom À : Gothic-L Envoyé : samedi 14 janvier 2006 22:49 Objet : [gothic-l] Re:
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jan 15, 2006
                          26 nivôse an CCXIV (le 15 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 03h03.

                          ---- Message d'origine ----
                          De : llama_nom
                          À : Gothic-L
                          Envoyé : samedi 14 janvier 2006 22:49
                          Objet : [gothic-l] Re: Reflexives continued + Position of possessive pronouns

                          >>> Je ne le pense pas. La construction article + pronom + nom est
                          >>> normale en grec (/cf/. /supra/) ; le gothique calque le grec.
                          >>
                          >>>> seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim 4,3);
                          >>>> meinai handau TH EMH CEIRI
                          >
                          > Would you say that that's the normal order for the reflexive pronoun,
                          > when used, but not so usual for other pronouns even when used with
                          > reference to the subject of the sentence?

                          En grec classique, c'est l'ordre normal pour le pronom-adjectif possessif
                          réfléchi au génitif, /e. g/. Lc *2*, 3 :

                          καὶ ἐπορεύοντο πάντες ἀπογράφεσθαι, ἕκαστος εἰς *τὴν _ἑαυτοῦ_ πόλιν*
                          jah ïddjedun allai ei melidai weseina· hvarji zuh ïn _seinai_ baurg

                          Aux 1e et 2e personnes, l'adjectif seul peut être employé :

                          *TH _EMH_ CEIRI*
                          meinai handau

                          Mais nous lisons le Nouveau Testament, dont le grec est… néo-testamentaire !
                          /cf/. Lc *2*, 39 :

                          ἐπέστρεψαν (…) εἰς /πόλιν/ _ἑαυτῶν_ Ναζαρέθ
                          gawandidedun sik (…) ïn /baurg/ _seina_ Nazaraiþ

                          Lc *14*, 27 :

                          ὅστις οὐ βαστάζει /τὸν σταυρὸν/ _ἑαυτοῦ_
                          saei ni bairiþ /galgan/ _seinana_

                          Comme dit précédemment, je reviendrai plus en détail sur cet ordre,
                          car je pense qu'il n'est pas compris par les /scholars/ spécialistes des
                          Évangiles, alors que le traducteur gothique – ainsi que saint Jérôme,
                          /cf/. /infra/ –, lui, l'a parfaitement maîtrisé (à quelques erreurs près).

                          > ju gahorinoda izai in hairtin seinamma.
                          > HDH EMOICEUSEN AUTHN EN TH KARDIA AUTOU
                          > "he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

                          Mt *5*, 28.

                          > andnemun mizdon seina
                          > APECOUSIN TON MISQON AUTWN
                          > "they have had their reward"

                          Mt *6*, 2.

                          > jah qam in seinai baurg
                          > KAI HLQEN EIS THN IDIAN POLIN
                          > "and came into his own city"
                          > (in contrast to all the other cities that he's preached in)

                          Mt *9*, 1.

                          > All explicity reflexive in Gothic, but only one marked in Greek.

                          Les deux premiers exemples prouvent ce que je dis plus haut ;
                          on a là en réalité un pronom-adjectif possessif *réfléchi* _déplacé_,
                          ordre : article + nom + pr.-adj. poss. réfl., au lieu de l'ordre « classique » :
                          article + pr.-adj. poss. réfl. + nom. Mais les /scholars/ s'obstinent à y voir –
                          en raison de leur position – un pronom-adjectif possessif *non réfléchi* :
                          AUTOU et AUTWN au lieu de hAUTOU et hAUTWN, formes brèves de
                          hEAUTOU et hEAUTWN. Saint Jérôme et le traducteur gothique (Wulfilas ?
                          je ne le crois plus tellement…) sont de bien meilleurs hellénistes de la /koinê/
                          que nos modernes /scholars/ ; ils avaient l'avantage sur les modernes
                          d'*entendre* parler le grec, avec ou sans aspiration ! (C'est ce point que
                          je traiterai plus tard. C'est ce qui m'a permis – grâce au texte byzantin et à
                          sa traduction gothique – de découvrir un frère inconnu de Jésus : André, /cf/
                          <news://news.franconews.org/dpv0ah$npa$2@...> et
                          <news://news.franconews.org/dq3ii8$56u$1@...>.)

                          > Does IDIOS have to refer to the subject?

                          Anatole Bailly indique dans son « Dictionnaire grec-français »
                          qu'à partir du ~Ir siècle, les inscriptions attiques utilisent l'adjectif
                          IDIOS en lieu et place du pr.-adj. poss. réfl. au génitif hEAUTOU,
                          hEAUTWN ; on trouve ainsi IDIOS en emploi réfléchi – je me limite
                          aux Évangiles :

                          — Mc *4*, 34 *τοῖς _ἰδίοις_ μαθηταῖς* ἐπέλυεν πάντα
                          discipulis _suis_ disserebat omnia
                          siponjam _seinaim_ andband allata

                          — Mt *9*, 1 ἦλθεν εἰς *τὴν _ἰδίαν_ πόλιν*
                          venit in civitatem _suam_
                          qam ïn _seinai_ baurg
                          — Mt *25*, 14 ἐκάλεσεν *τοὺς _ἰδίους_ δούλους*
                          vocavit servos _suos_

                          — Lc *6*, 41 τὴν δὲ δοκὸν τὴν ἐν *τῷ _ἰδίῳ_ ὀφθαλμῷ* οὐ κατανοεῖς;
                          quae in oculo _tuo_ est non consideras
                          ïþ anza ïn _þeinamma_ augin ni gaumeis

                          — Lc *6*, 44 ἕκαστον γὰρ δένδρον ἐκ *τοῦ _ἰδίου_ καρποῦ* γινώσκεται
                          unaquaeque enim arbor de fructu _suo_ cognoscitur
                          hvarjizuh raihtis bagme us /swesamma/ akrana uskunþs ïst

                          — Io *4*, 44 προφήτης ἐν *τῇ _ἰδίᾳ_ πατρίδι* τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.
                          propheta in _sua_ patria honorem non habet

                          — Io *5*, 43 ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν /τῷ ὀνόματι/ _τῷ ἰδίῳ_
                          si alius venerit in nomine _suo_

                          — Io *7*, 18 ὁ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ λαλῶν /τὴν δόξαν/ _τὴν ἰδίαν_ ζητεῖ·
                          Qui a semet ipso loquitur gloriam _propriam_ quaerit
                          saei fram sis silbin rodeiþ hauhiþa _seina_ sokeiþ

                          IDIOS peut être remplacé par hEAUTOU – Mc *4*, 34 ;Mt *9*, 1 ; *25*, 14 ;
                          Lc *6*, 44 ;Io *4*, 44 ; *5*, 43 ; *7*, 18 –, SEAUTOU – Lc *6*, 41. Le gothique
                          conserve l'ordre, sauf en Mc *4*, 34 et change la construction en Lc *6*, 44.

                          Mais IDIOS peut conserver son statut d'adjectif (possessif non réfléchi) :

                          — Mt *25*, 15 ἔδωκεν (…) ἑκάστῳ κατὰ *τὴν /ἰδίαν/ δύναμιν*
                          dedit (…) unicuique secundum /propriam/ virtutem

                          (Le sujet est « le maître » EDOKEN, IDIAN renvoie à EKASTW,
                          « chacun des serviteurs ».)

                          L'adjectif peut être substantivé :

                          — Io *8*, 44 ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ /τῶν ἰδίων/ λαλεῖ
                          Cum loquitur mendacium, ex /propriis/ loquitur
                          þan rodeiþ liugn us /seinaim/ rodeiþ

                          — Io *13*, 1 ἀγαπήσας /τοὺς ἰδίους/ τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
                          cum dilexisset /suos/ qui erant in mundo

                          > Llama Nom

                          Que dois-je faire, Llama Nom, Matthew Carver, Þiudans ?
                          Poursuivre mes messages en français dans « Gothic-L »,
                          ou – afin de ne pas déranger les autres participants – renvoyer
                          ailleurs grâce à un « /Cf/. <news:Message-Id> (in French). » ?…


                          R. B.
                        • Francisc Czobor
                          ... Pour moi, français c est OK, ça ne me dérange pas du tout. Francisc
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jan 16, 2006
                            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard"
                            <budelberger.richard@9...> wrote:
                            >
                            > ...
                            >
                            > Que dois-je faire, Llama Nom, Matthew Carver, Þiudans ?
                            > Poursuivre mes messages en français dans « Gothic-L »,
                            > ou â€" afin de ne pas déranger les autres participants â€" renvoyer
                            > ailleurs grâce à un « /Cf/. <news:Message-Id> (in French). » ?…
                            >
                            >
                            > R. B.
                            >

                            Pour moi, français c'est OK, ça ne me dérange pas du tout.

                            Francisc
                          • thiudans
                            I agree, but I think Mr. Budelberger s posts are helpful and valuable to the list at large, so it would be best, if at all possible, to use English so that
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jan 16, 2006
                              I agree, but I think Mr. Budelberger's posts are helpful and valuable
                              to the list at large, so it would be best, if at all possible, to use
                              English so that they can benefit who are not able to read French
                              and/or for whom the encoding does not come across properly.

                              Cheers,
                              Matthew


                              --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Francisc Czobor" <fericzobor@y...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard"
                              > <budelberger.richard@9...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > ...
                              > >
                              > > Que dois-je faire, Llama Nom, Matthew Carver, Þiudans ?
                              > > Poursuivre mes messages en français dans « Gothic-L »,
                              > > ou â€" afin de ne pas déranger les autres participants â€" renvoyer
                              > > ailleurs grâce à un « /Cf/. <news:Message-Id> (in French). » ?…
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > R. B.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Pour moi, français c'est OK, ça ne me dérange pas du tout.
                              >
                              > Francisc
                              >
                            • David Kiltz
                              ... Don t know what the official policy is, but French works fine for me too. David
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jan 17, 2006
                                On 16.01.2006, at 18:14, Francisc Czobor wrote:

                                > Pour moi, français c'est OK, ça ne me dérange pas du tout.

                                Don't know what the official policy is, but French works fine for me
                                too.

                                David
                              • llama_nom
                                ... informatiquement, Don t be so sure of that! I haven t even worked out how to type Greek characters yet in a way that will display correctly in these
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jan 18, 2006
                                  > je suis probablement la personne la plus mal outillée
                                  informatiquement,

                                  Don't be so sure of that! I haven't even worked out how to type
                                  Greek characters yet in a way that will display correctly in these
                                  messages, hence my error-riddled capitals. And it's only recently
                                  that I've learnt the trick of toggling between different encoding
                                  options in the VIEW menu of Explorer so that I can at least read the
                                  majority of the UNICODE Greek characters (although accented vowels
                                  still all appear as little squares).

                                  > Que vaut-il mieux ? un message en anglais sur les /maranos/ --
                                  qui a permis toutefois de dériver vers /gasehvum/ *vs* /gasehvun/ ! -
                                  -,
                                  ou en français sur les possessifs réfléchis ?..

                                  Absolutely. One of the best discussions we've had here in ages.
                                  I'll try to summarise where we've got up to, no doubt adding to the
                                  confusion! Please let me know if I've misunderstood or
                                  inadvertantly misrepresented anything you've written.

                                  (1) Streitberg comments, in Gotische Syntax, that the normal word
                                  order in Gothic, when there is no Greek model to follow, is to place
                                  the possessive pronoun/adjective, reflexive or otherwise (meins,
                                  þeins, sein-, is, izos, unsar, izwar, igqar, ugkar, ize, izo), after
                                  the noun possessed (L 7,44; Mt 6,17; L 2,28; L 19,35-36; R 11,14;
                                  2Tim 3,4) Sometimes in contrast to the Greek, unless of course
                                  these were a feature of the Greek text the Gothic translator(s) used
                                  (L 6,40; L 9,51; J15,10; Mt 7,24-26). A few instances where the
                                  possessive pronoun/adjective comes first, can be seen as emphatic,
                                  to express a contrast (2Cor 10,4; L 5,33). These comments refer to
                                  the Gothic, when there is no Greek model in instances where the
                                  translator(s) was/were forced to make a slightly looser rendering
                                  than usual.

                                  (2) Gothic 3rd person pronouns in a non-finite embedded clause may
                                  refer to the subject of the embedded clause (Mk 14,67), or to the
                                  subject of the main clause (Mk 15,17). But sometimes, the Gothic
                                  uses non-reflexive forms in a non-finite embedded clause to refer to
                                  the subject of the main clause (L 1,73-74; 1Cor 15,28). These
                                  examples appear to diverge from Greek usage, but Richard has
                                  suggested that this appearence may be deceptive, see below.

                                  (3) There are a lot of instances in the New Testament, where Gothic
                                  appears to use the distinctive 3rd person reflexive possessive
                                  pronoun/adjective sein- to translate the Greek AUTOU "of him",
                                  genitive of the pronoun AUTOS. These are in contexts where the
                                  reflexive form would be appropriate according the rules of both
                                  Gothic and Greek grammar, namely, where the possessor is the subject
                                  of the clause in which the possessive pronoun/adjective appears.
                                  However, Richard has suggested that in such instances, AUTOU may in
                                  fact represent hAUTOU, a shortened form of the reflexive hEAUTOU.
                                  As he points out, the translator(s) of the Gothic bible was/were in
                                  a better position to understand such matters than modern scholars of
                                  NT Greek. In classical Greek, it was normal for the reflexive
                                  possessive pronoun/adjetcive to come before the noun, but in New
                                  Testament Greek it very often comes after. I suggested that this
                                  might be a matter of emphasis, but Richard--who knows far more about
                                  this--has pointed out that the writers of the various gospels have
                                  different preferrences in this regard. So, perhaps more of an
                                  arbitrary or stylistic difference?

                                  (3) Now, this creates a bit of a dilemma for those of us looking for
                                  evidence for Gothic syntax. If the Gothic translator(s) were aware
                                  of these Greek 3rd person pronouns, possessive and otherwise, as
                                  distinct reflexive forms (even though this information is not
                                  conveyed in modern editions of the Greek New Testament), then their
                                  choice of reflexive or non-reflexive forms in Gothic can't tell us
                                  anything about native Gothic usage, or if it did, we wouldn't know,
                                  since we don't have access to the information they had about when
                                  AUTOS is really hAUTOS! In fact (if I understand Richard
                                  correctly), if anything, the Gothic use of reflexives might
                                  actually, in some cases, be useful evidence for interpreting the
                                  meaning of the Greek text.

                                  (4) A thought: how well does Gothic agree with the Vulgate and
                                  earlier Latin translations in the matter of reflexives? Are there
                                  any differences in the rules governing the use of reflexives in
                                  Latin and Greek at this time? Do the Latin translations show a
                                  tendency to immitate any Greek practise, in respect of reflexives,
                                  which isn't natural to Latin?

                                  (5) If Richard is right, and the use of reflexive forms in Gothic is
                                  based on a Greek tradition which preserved the distinction between
                                  AUTOU and hAUTOU in these instances where modern editions print
                                  AUTOU, then reliable evidence for Gothic native usage would have to
                                  come from elsewhere, for example from instances where Gothic *seins
                                  translates the Greek possessive adjective IDIOS which, though often
                                  used in place of the reflexive, doesn't necessarily always have to
                                  refer to the subject. He cites Mt 25,55, unfortunately not
                                  preserved in the Gothic translation [
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/8639 ], "he gave to
                                  each one according to his (THN IDIAN) ability".

                                  There, how's that sound?

                                  Llama Nom
                                • llama_nom
                                  ... possessifs réfléchis et non réfléchis, et on traite ici du pronom réfléchi indirect. I felt that the example was relevent because in Gothic,
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jan 18, 2006
                                    >> > Here's an example, from Curtius's Greek Grammar, of a reflexive
                                    >> in just such a subordinate clause refering not to the subject of
                                    >> its own clause but to that of the main clause:
                                    >>
                                    >> EISIENAI EKELEUSEN, EI MELLOIS SUN hEAUTW EKPLEIN
                                    >> `he bade you enter if you were going to sail away with him'
                                    >>
                                    >> It would be interesting to see if there are any examples of Gothic
                                    >> contradicting Greek in this respect.

                                    > Je ne comprends plus très bien ; on parlait des pronoms-adjectifs
                                    possessifs réfléchis et non réfléchis, et on traite ici du pronom
                                    réfléchi
                                    indirect.

                                    I felt that the example was relevent because in Gothic, according to
                                    Streitberg and Wright, the same rule applies to the possessive
                                    adjective sein-, as to the accusative, dative and genitive pronouns:
                                    sik, sis, seina -- namely, that they must refer back to the subject
                                    of the clause. But, as we saw, in non-finite embedded clauses, all
                                    of these types of reflexive pronoun might refer back to the subject
                                    of the main clause:

                                    jah auk þai frawaurhtans þans frijondans sik frijond
                                    KAI GAR hOI hAMARTWLOI TOUS AGAPWNTAS (?h)AUTOUS AGAPWSIN
                                    `for even the sinners love those who love them'
                                    (L 6,32)

                                    habaid þana stojandan sik
                                    ECEI TON KRINONTA (?h)AUTON
                                    `will have one judging him'
                                    (J 12,48)

                                    jah dugunnun bidjan ina galeiþan hindar markos seinos
                                    KAI HRXANTO PARAKALEIN AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN hORIWN (?h)AUTWN
                                    `and they began to ask him to depart beyond their borders'
                                    (Mk 5,17).

                                    I quoted the example from Curtius's Greek Grammar as another example
                                    of long-distance reflexivisation (i.e. antecedent in a higher
                                    clause).

                                    Llama Nom
                                  • llama_nom
                                    Streitberg lists a couple of examples that break the rule that a reflexive is used wherever permitted. (1) wairþs sa waurstwa mizdons is AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jan 18, 2006
                                      Streitberg lists a couple of examples that break the rule that a
                                      reflexive is used wherever permitted.

                                      (1) wairþs sa waurstwa mizdons is
                                      AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU AUTOU
                                      `the worker [is] worthy of his reward'
                                      (1Tim 5,18).

                                      Could the absence of the copula have caused this?

                                      (2) þairh gakust þis andbahtjis mikiljandans guþ ana ufhauseinai
                                      andahaitis izwaris in aiwaggeljon Xristaus jah in ainfalþein
                                      gamainduþais du im jah du allaim,

                                      "through the proof of this service, praising God for the obedience
                                      of your confession to the gospel of Christ and for the generosity of
                                      [your] contributions to them and to all,"

                                      jah izei bidai izwis gairnjandans izwara
                                      KAI AUTWN DEHSEI hUPER hUMWN EPIPOQOUNTWN hUMAS
                                      "and by their prayer for you, those who long for you"
                                      (2Cor 9,13-14)

                                      Maybe we can put this one down to the complexity of that sentence,
                                      and/or the fact the present participles are used in place of a
                                      finite verb.
                                    • Budelberger, Richard
                                      29 nivôse an CCXIV (le 18 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 18h54. ... De : Llama Nom À : Gothic-L Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2006 09:32 Objet : [gothic-l]
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jan 18, 2006
                                        29 nivôse an CCXIV (le 18 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 18h54.

                                        ---- Message d'origine ----
                                        De : Llama Nom
                                        À : Gothic-L
                                        Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2006 09:32
                                        Objet : [gothic-l] Re: Reflexives + Position of possessive pronouns

                                        Encore quelques mots en français avant le silence
                                        des espaces infinis :

                                        >> je suis probablement la personne la plus
                                        >> mal outilléeinformatiquement,
                                        >
                                        > Don't be so sure of that! I haven't even worked out how to type
                                        > Greek characters yet in a way that will display correctly in these
                                        > messages,

                                        Il existe plusieurs outils, selon votre système d'exploitation, et
                                        des logiciels excellents, comme « BabelMap » et « BabelPad »
                                        d'Andrew West (béni soit-il !), « SC UniPad », le pilote de clavier
                                        de mon ami Belge -- « Personne n'est parfait ! », /Some Like it/
                                        /Hot/ -- Denis Liégeois.

                                        > hence my error-riddled capitals.

                                        Des erreurs, oui, un peu ; mais c'est surtout *très* difficile à lire ;
                                        comme un lecteur antique lisant d'illisibles /papyri/ !

                                        > And it's only recently that I've learnt the trick of toggling between
                                        > different encoding options in the VIEW menu of Explorer so that
                                        > I can at least read the majority of the UNICODE Greek characters
                                        > (although accented vowels still all appear as little squares).

                                        C'est que vous ne disposez pas de polices UNICODE ;
                                        si /Arial Unicode MS/ ne semble plus disponible sur le /Web/,
                                        il y a /Vusillus Old Face Italic/ -- seule la version italique est
                                        « free » --,/Titus Bistream Unicode/, /Palatino/, et surtout
                                        /Code2000/ de James Kass (<http://home.att.net/~jameskass/>).

                                        Mes messages UNICODE sont correctement encodés et déclarés :

                                        Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
                                        Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

                                        Toute personne disposant d'un logiciel pas trop ancien et
                                        d'une police UNICODE le lira sans difficultés ; « Yahoo! »
                                        n'influe en rien sur ces messages, mais les transmet tels quels.

                                        Voir <http://club.euronet.be/frederique.bouras/utf8grec.htm>.

                                        Si vous le souhaitez, je peux proposer sur un forum de binaires
                                        quelques polices UNICODE : /Vusillus Old Face Italic/ (143 Ko),
                                        /MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal/ (157 Ko), /Georgia Greek/ (233 Ko).


                                        Pour le reste, je réserve une réponse : la situation est très complexe,
                                        et je vais voir ça de plus près (grec, latin, gothique ; hélas ! quel dommage
                                        d'être ignorant en syriaque, géorgien et copte !..). (Je crains que le gothique
                                        ne soit beaucoup plus influencé par le latin que je ne le pensais (espérais),
                                        diminuant sa valeur pour le /Textual Criticism/.) J'ai toutefois un regret, très
                                        grand regret : mon analyse de l'emploi du réfléchi/non réfléchi en grec (et ses
                                        conséquences en latin et gothique) m'a permis de découvrir (le 7 janvier) --
                                        et de le signaler à la Ville et au monde le 10 janvier -- un cinquième frère de
                                        Jésus, en plus de Jacques, Joseph/Joset, Simon et Jude, du nom d'André.
                                        Et la Ville et le monde s'en moquent ! Ah ! si c'était une /épouse/ de Jésus...


                                        R. B., qui n'est prophète nulle part, ni dans /leurs/ territoires, ni les /siens/.
                                      • llama_nom
                                        (1) distahida mikilþuhtans gahugdai hairtins seinis DIESCORPISEN hUPERHFANOUS DIANOIA KARDIAS AUTWN he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jan 18, 2006
                                          (1) distahida mikilþuhtans gahugdai hairtins seinis
                                          DIESCORPISEN hUPERHFANOUS DIANOIA KARDIAS AUTWN
                                          he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts
                                          (L 1,52)

                                          [
                                          http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/142lc1f.html
                                          ], see line 13.

                                          My question: Is there anything in the Greek original that would
                                          explain this? (In spite of it being literally "of their heart",
                                          AUTWN is clearly plural, isn't it? The use of a singular in such
                                          contexts is also found in Icelandic and Old English.)

                                          If not, compare the following example of a reflexive with a non-
                                          subject antecedent in Old Icelandic.

                                          (2) ok mun enn sem fyrr eptir framaverk, at þér munuð laun hyggja
                                          vinum sínum fyrir sitt starf
                                          "and, as always after glorious accomplishments, I expect you'll
                                          think to reward your friends for their work"
                                          (Ásmundar saga kappabana 3)

                                          And take a look at Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson `Old Icelandic: A Non-
                                          Configurational Language?' NOWELE 26:3-29 [ http://www.hi.is/%
                                          7Eeirikur/ ], section 3.5. Could something similar be going on in
                                          Gothic?

                                          The common factor in these examples seems to be that the noun
                                          modified by the reflexive implies some action on the part of the
                                          person it refers to. The implied action is obvious in the Old
                                          Icelandic example 'starf' "work". Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson's examples
                                          16.a. and b. are both of this type. The noun 'gahugds', from the
                                          verb hugjan `to think', implies the action of thinking or devising
                                          plans on the part of the object. Alternatively, the
                                          adjective 'mikiþuhtans' also implies an action, "thinking themselves
                                          great", although explaining the action as implicit in the noun seems
                                          more in keeping with the Icelandic examples.

                                          Or am I missing something much more obvious?

                                          Llama Nom
                                        • David Kiltz
                                          ... Just wanted to confirm that. Richard s messages display fine on my machine (which has Unicode fonts installed + enabled apps). The French also display fine
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jan 18, 2006
                                            On 18.01.2006, at 21:27, Budelberger, Richard wrote:

                                            > Mes messages UNICODE sont correctement encodés et déclarés :
                                            >
                                            > Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
                                            > Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
                                            >
                                            > Toute personne disposant d'un logiciel pas trop ancien et
                                            > d'une police UNICODE le lira sans difficultés ; « Yahoo! »
                                            > n'influe en rien sur ces messages, mais les transmet tels quels.

                                            Just wanted to confirm that. Richard's messages display fine on my
                                            machine (which has Unicode fonts installed + enabled apps). The
                                            French also display fine in llama_nom's answers. However, e.g. in
                                            Ingemar's answer, it's garbled.

                                            David

                                            P.S. In addition to the very useful fonts enumerated by Richard, may
                                            I draw your attention to 'Gentium' (http://scripts.sil.org/cms/
                                            scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium) a free font covering
                                            virtually the entire Latin range and which sports, among other
                                            things, excellent Greek support.
                                            P.S. TitusCyberbit is about the most complete Unicode fonts I know
                                            of, but only has one typeface (regular), AFAIK. Here's the link:
                                            http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/indexe.htm (Click on the right side
                                            Instrumentalia > Software/ Fonts.
                                            Lastly, I would like to point out to you this rather useful, I think,
                                            table at Titus. Most, if not all, of may know it already though:
                                            http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/germ/gotverb.htm
                                          • Tore Gannholm
                                            Hi, I have also noticed that Ingemar has his computer wrongly set or is using a e-mail server that can t handle French or Scandinavian letters. Tore
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jan 19, 2006
                                              Hi,

                                              I have also noticed that Ingemar has his computer wrongly set or is
                                              using a e-mail server that can't handle French or Scandinavian letters.

                                              Tore

                                              On Jan 19, 2006, at 7:26 AM, David Kiltz wrote:

                                              > On 18.01.2006, at 21:27, Budelberger, Richard wrote:
                                              >
                                              >> Mes messages UNICODE sont correctement encodés et déclarés :
                                              >>
                                              >> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
                                              >> Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
                                              >>
                                              >> Toute personne disposant d'un logiciel pas trop ancien et
                                              >> d'une police UNICODE le lira sans difficultés ; « Yahoo! »
                                              >> n'influe en rien sur ces messages, mais les transmet tels quels.
                                              >
                                              > Just wanted to confirm that. Richard's messages display fine on my
                                              > machine (which has Unicode fonts installed + enabled apps). The
                                              > French also display fine in llama_nom's answers. However, e.g. in
                                              > Ingemar's answer, it's garbled.
                                              >
                                              > David
                                              >
                                              > P.S. In addition to the very useful fonts enumerated by Richard, may
                                              > I draw your attention to 'Gentium' (http://scripts.sil.org/cms/
                                              > scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium) a free font covering
                                              > virtually the entire Latin range and which sports, among other
                                              > things, excellent Greek support.
                                              > P.S. TitusCyberbit is about the most complete Unicode fonts I know
                                              > of, but only has one typeface (regular), AFAIK. Here's the link:
                                              > http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/indexe.htm (Click on the right side
                                              > Instrumentalia > Software/ Fonts.
                                              > Lastly, I would like to point out to you this rather useful, I think,
                                              > table at Titus. Most, if not all, of may know it already though:
                                              > http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/germ/gotverb.htm
                                              >
                                              > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a
                                              > blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            • Budelberger, Richard
                                              30 nivôse an CCXIV (le 19 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 13h31. ... De : Llama Nom À : Gothic-L Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2006 21:10 Objet : [gothic-l]
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jan 19, 2006
                                                30 nivôse an CCXIV (le 19 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 13h31.

                                                ---- Message d'origine ----
                                                De : Llama Nom
                                                À : Gothic-L
                                                Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2006 21:10
                                                Objet : [gothic-l] Reflexives (two examples of reflexives not used where they ought to be)

                                                > Streitberg lists a couple of examples that break the rule that a
                                                > reflexive is used wherever permitted.
                                                >
                                                > (1) wairþs sa waurstwa mizdons is
                                                > AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU AUTOU
                                                > `the worker [is] worthy of his reward'
                                                > (1Tim 5,18).

                                                Et que dit Streitberg pour son parallèle chez Luc ? :

                                                wairþs auk ist waurstwja mizdons *seinaizos*
                                                AXIOS GAR hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU (?h)AUTOU
                                                dignus enim est operarius mercede *sua*
                                                (Lc *10*, 7).

                                                > Could the absence of the copula have caused this?

                                                N'avons-nous pas trop tendance à croire qu'il n'existe
                                                qu'UN traducteur en gothique, Wulfila, toujours égal à
                                                lui-même ; cette divergence *is* / *seinaizos* peut être
                                                la marque de /deux/ traducteurs différents ; ou d'un copiste
                                                qui s'autorise une correction ? ou... ? ou... ?..


                                                R. B.
                                              • Grsartor@aol.com
                                                Hailai allai, especially Llama_nom for his consideration of the questions I raised last year about reflexive pronouns, but gave up on. I decided the solution
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jan 19, 2006
                                                  Hailai allai, especially Llama_nom for his consideration of the questions I
                                                  raised last year about reflexive pronouns, but gave up on. I decided the
                                                  solution was beyond me, and left its discovery to others. However there is one thing
                                                  I should like to say. It concerns the "missing" nominative form *seins.
                                                  Surely the reason for its non-existence is that normally there would be no reason
                                                  for it to be used. For example, in a statement like "his son is sick" you would
                                                  presumably have

                                                  sunus is ist siuks,

                                                  because the son is the subject of the sentence and the his-word ("is") refers
                                                  to someone else (the father). Even if the father is explicitly brought into
                                                  the sentence, as in "the father says that his son is sick", the son remains the
                                                  subject in its own clause:

                                                  sa atta qiþiþ þatei sunus is ist siuks (I think)

                                                  If instead an accusative and infinitive construction is used, ("the father
                                                  declares his son to be sick") I believe this would be regarded by grammarians as
                                                  only one clause, and the reflexive pronoun would presumably be expected in
                                                  Gothic. But as it would be in the accusative case, it would still not be *seins:

                                                  sa atta qiþiþ sunu seinana siukana wisan (I suppose)

                                                  (I can think of one kind of sentence that might call for *seins. It is
                                                  exemplified by "he is his own boss". Possibly Gothic would have used a more emphatic
                                                  word than *seins here, just as English would have "his own" rather than
                                                  simply "his". But at least *seins looks as if it would be grammatically
                                                  justifiable.)

                                                  Gerry T.


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Ingemar Nordgren
                                                  ... I tried this one and downloaded something called a languge tool or similar - the only download there was. When I tried to drive the exe.file my computer
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Jan 19, 2006
                                                    --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <derdron@g...> wrote:

                                                    > P.S. TitusCyberbit is about the most complete Unicode fonts I know
                                                    > of, but only has one typeface (regular), AFAIK. Here's the link:
                                                    > http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/indexe.htm (Click on the right side
                                                    > Instrumentalia > Software/ Fonts.

                                                    I tried this one and downloaded something called a languge tool or
                                                    similar - the only download there was. When I tried to drive the
                                                    exe.file my computer went mad and started to dump physical memory. I
                                                    had to cut of the current and I will for sure never activate that file
                                                    again. It has now passed my paper bag to the garbage heap in the ether.

                                                    Best
                                                    Ingemar
                                                  • llama_nom
                                                    Hails, Gaizahardu! ... It is ... used a more emphatic ... than ... grammatically ... Glad you spotted my belated reply! I can t think of a he is his own
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Jan 20, 2006
                                                      Hails, Gaizahardu!

                                                      > (I can think of one kind of sentence that might call for *seins.
                                                      It is
                                                      > exemplified by "he is his own boss". Possibly Gothic would have
                                                      used a more emphatic
                                                      > word than *seins here, just as English would have "his own" rather
                                                      than
                                                      > simply "his". But at least *seins looks as if it would be
                                                      grammatically
                                                      > justifiable.)

                                                      Glad you spotted my belated reply! I can't think of a "he is his
                                                      own boss" example, but as you say, there are ways around the
                                                      forbidden s-word: * silbins fauragaggja ist; * swes fauragaggja
                                                      ist. Comparisons are another place where 'is' has to stand in for
                                                      the missing *seins.

                                                      Ganah siponi ei wairþai swe laisareis is jah skalks swe frauja is
                                                      jah skalks swe frauja is;

                                                      ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὡς
                                                      ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ.

                                                      It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the
                                                      servant as his lord.

                                                      (Mt 10,25).

                                                      (Can anyone read those Greek characters there? I just pasted them
                                                      in; thanks for the fonts advice, Richard, Ingemar, Tore, David--I'll
                                                      look into that.) I still haven't found the answer to my original
                                                      question that sparked all this off last year, namely, what happens
                                                      with impersonal verbs with an oblique (?)subject. Mt 6,7--þugkeiþ
                                                      im auk ei in filuwaurdein seinai andhausjaindau--can't tell us
                                                      because 'seinai', if I'm right, can only refer to the unstated
                                                      passive subject of andhausjaindau.

                                                      > However there is one thing
                                                      > I should like to say. It concerns the "missing" nominative form
                                                      *seins.
                                                      > Surely the reason for its non-existence is that normally there
                                                      would be no reason
                                                      > for it to be used. For example, in a statement like "his son is
                                                      sick" you would
                                                      > presumably have
                                                      >
                                                      > sunus is ist siuks,
                                                      >
                                                      > because the son is the subject of the sentence and the his-word
                                                      ("is") refers
                                                      > to someone else (the father). Even if the father is explicitly
                                                      brought into
                                                      > the sentence, as in "the father says that his son is sick", the
                                                      son remains the
                                                      > subject in its own clause:
                                                      >
                                                      > sa atta qiþiþ þatei sunus is ist siuks (I think)

                                                      It could be that *seins is avoided by just never using 'þugkeiþ
                                                      imma' to say "he thinks his son to be sick", but instead saying: *
                                                      þugkeiþ imma, ei sunus is siuks sijai. Or using a different verb.
                                                      But what about "he likes his son" / "his son pleases him".
                                                      Probably 'is' would be substituted whether 'imma' was actually
                                                      treated as the subject or not. But I wonder what would happen in a
                                                      sentence such as "he likes his son's friends"?

                                                      * galeikaiþ imma frijonds sunaus (seinis?, is?)

                                                      > If instead an accusative and infinitive construction is used,
                                                      ("the father
                                                      > declares his son to be sick") I believe this would be regarded by
                                                      grammarians as
                                                      > only one clause, and the reflexive pronoun would presumably be
                                                      expected in
                                                      > Gothic. But as it would be in the accusative case, it would still
                                                      not be *seins:
                                                      >
                                                      > sa atta qiþiþ sunu seinana siukana wisan (I suppose)

                                                      I've seen accusative + infinitive explained as two clauses, and
                                                      that's the way I framed my answer, but presumably Wright and
                                                      Streitberg are treating it as one clause when they say that
                                                      reflexives ALWAYS refer to the subject of their own clause. But to
                                                      treat it as a single clause might lead to contradictions since
                                                      Streitberg certainly regards the accusative argument as the subject
                                                      of the infinitive (which would explain the fact that reflexives can
                                                      refer to it), so it seemed simplest to me to think of it as two, the
                                                      embedded infinitive clause being the direct object of the finite
                                                      verb in the main clause. But I know very little about syntax as
                                                      yet, so you could be right. Any thoughts on L 1,51?

                                                      gatawida swinþein in arma seinamma, distahida mikilþuhtans gahugdai
                                                      hairtins seinis;

                                                      ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ, διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ
                                                      καρδίας αὐτῶν:

                                                      He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in
                                                      the imagination of their hearts.

                                                      I suppose the most obvious, if disappointing, explanation would be
                                                      that it's just a mistake caused by the apparent parallel with the
                                                      first half of the senetence. If the Greek symbols don't come out
                                                      right, that's AUTOU (sg.) = seinamma in the first part, and AUTWN
                                                      (pl.) = seinis in the second.

                                                      Llama Nom
                                                    • Budelberger, Richard
                                                      6 pluviôse an CCXIV (le 25 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 10h47. ... De : Budelberger, Richard À : Gothic-L Envoyé :
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Jan 25, 2006
                                                        6 pluviôse an CCXIV (le 25 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 10h47.

                                                        ---- Message d'origine ----
                                                        De : Budelberger, Richard <budelberger.richard@...>
                                                        À : Gothic-L
                                                        Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2006 21:27
                                                        Objet : Re: [gothic-l] Re: Reflexives + Position of possessive pronouns

                                                        > C'est que vous ne disposez pas de polices UNICODE ;
                                                        > si /Arial Unicode MS/ ne semble plus disponible sur le /Web/,
                                                        > il y a /Vusillus Old Face Italic/ -- seule la version italique est
                                                        > « free » --,/Titus Bistream Unicode/, /Palatino/, et surtout
                                                        > /Code2000/ de James Kass (<http://home.att.net/~jameskass/>).

                                                        Voir aussi cette excellente page <http://www.travelphrases.info/fonts.html>
                                                        classée par écritures rappelée dans la liste « Textual Criticism »,
                                                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism>.


                                                        R. B.
                                                      • llama_nom
                                                        ... Not vinum sínum . ... http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/142lc1f.html ... themselves ... seems
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Feb 2, 2006
                                                          Correction, this should read:

                                                          > (2) ok mun enn sem fyrr eptir framaverk, at þér munuð laun hyggja
                                                          > vinum *yðrum* fyrir sitt starf
                                                          > "and, as always after glorious accomplishments, I expect you'll
                                                          > think to reward your friends for their work"
                                                          > (Ásmundar saga kappabana 3)

                                                          Not 'vinum sínum'.




                                                          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > (1) distahida mikilþuhtans gahugdai hairtins seinis
                                                          > DIESCORPISEN hUPERHFANOUS DIANOIA KARDIAS AUTWN
                                                          > he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts
                                                          > (L 1,52)
                                                          >
                                                          > [
                                                          >
                                                          http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/142lc1f.html
                                                          > ], see line 13.
                                                          >
                                                          > My question: Is there anything in the Greek original that would
                                                          > explain this? (In spite of it being literally "of their heart",
                                                          > AUTWN is clearly plural, isn't it? The use of a singular in such
                                                          > contexts is also found in Icelandic and Old English.)
                                                          >
                                                          > If not, compare the following example of a reflexive with a non-
                                                          > subject antecedent in Old Icelandic.
                                                          >
                                                          > (2) ok mun enn sem fyrr eptir framaverk, at þér munuð laun hyggja
                                                          > vinum sínum fyrir sitt starf
                                                          > "and, as always after glorious accomplishments, I expect you'll
                                                          > think to reward your friends for their work"
                                                          > (Ásmundar saga kappabana 3)
                                                          >
                                                          > And take a look at Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson `Old Icelandic: A Non-
                                                          > Configurational Language?' NOWELE 26:3-29 [ http://www.hi.is/%
                                                          > 7Eeirikur/ ], section 3.5. Could something similar be going on in
                                                          > Gothic?
                                                          >
                                                          > The common factor in these examples seems to be that the noun
                                                          > modified by the reflexive implies some action on the part of the
                                                          > person it refers to. The implied action is obvious in the Old
                                                          > Icelandic example 'starf' "work". Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson's examples
                                                          > 16.a. and b. are both of this type. The noun 'gahugds', from the
                                                          > verb hugjan `to think', implies the action of thinking or devising
                                                          > plans on the part of the object. Alternatively, the
                                                          > adjective 'mikiþuhtans' also implies an action, "thinking
                                                          themselves
                                                          > great", although explaining the action as implicit in the noun
                                                          seems
                                                          > more in keeping with the Icelandic examples.
                                                          >
                                                          > Or am I missing something much more obvious?
                                                          >
                                                          > Llama Nom
                                                          >
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.