Re: Some indistinct grammar information
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@h...> wrote:
> I don't know how good verbix is but acording to them saian issaisot.
> No s at all.T1=saian&D1=15&H1=115
> Look at: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?
See for yourself [
http://www.wulfila.be/Corpus/Find.asp ], 'saisost' is attested at L
19,21. It is the only 2nd sg. past form of a strong verb ending in
a vowel to have survived. See Braune/Helm 'Gotische Grammatik' 170,
note 2: "Ob alle vokalische auslautende Stämme die Endung -st
annahmen, ist wegen Mangel an Belegen nicht sicher" (Whether all
stems ending in a vowel took the ending -st is uncertain due to the
lack of evidence).
I don't think Verbix is currently a very reliable guide to Gothic
verbs. I've just had a quick look at it, but I see that the final
consonant is missing in the 3rd sg. imperative of 'magan', 'kunnan'
and derivatives. It doesn't recognise that some derivatives
of 'kunnan' are preterite-present verbs, others weak 3. Those it
doesn't recognise at all it mistakes for class 4 verbs, because of
the -nan. The "warning" about verbs it doesn't recognise shouldn't
deceive you into thinking that it is reliable about all of the
others. There are even problems with the verb "to be" (with the
imperative, for which Gothic actually only used the subjunctive).
>'waian' is attested in the past plural 3rd person: waiwoun (Mt 7,25-
> Even waian is like this on their site:
27), but not the 2nd singular. So nobody really knows. Our only
clue is 'saisost', which suggests the ending -st after vowels, thus
> A weird thing is itan. Could that be êt in 1st sing. and êtt in2nd,
> past ofcourse? Shouldnt it be like at and ast or smth?'itan' and 'fra-itan' are irregular in Gothic as they are in the
other early Germanic languages. The vowel of the past plural
appears also in the singular. So instead of the expected *at, we
would have *et. Attested is the plural 'etun' (17,27-28), fretun (L
8,5; M 4,4); and the singular 'fret' (L 15,30). Compate past
1st/3rd singular Old English 'æt' (long vowel); Icelandic 'át'. In
Gothic, the 2nd sg. past would be *est, and for 'fra-itan' *frest.
Note also that -b + t > -ft, thus 'gaft' "you gave". By this
logic, -g ought to become 'h'. It doesn't in 'magt' "you can", but
I suspect this is just an analogical spelling, since <g> may have
been pronounced the same as <h> in this position anyway.
Incidentally, the change of dentals to 's' before the 't' of the 2nd
person sg. past suggests that certain other consonants should have
changed too, as they do before -t- in other parts of speech. Thus
perhaps *skoft "you made" (from 'skapjan') and *woht "you were
awake" (from 'wakan'). But unfortunately no examples have survived
to show whether this did happen, or whether they were *skopt,
*wokt. For what it's worth, my guess is *skoft, etc. But who