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

crimean gothic

Expand Messages
  • brynhild84
    Hello all, does anyone know a good link for Crimean Gothic or any other resources for it. I had found one site that talked about it, but it didn t seem very
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,
      does anyone know a good link for Crimean Gothic or any other resources
      for it. I had found one site that talked about it, but it didn't seem
      very realiable.
      Thanks,
      brynhild84
    • llama_nom
      ... resources ... Here is a reliable site [ http://www.gotica.de/ ] where you can see, among other things, Busbeque s letter in the original Latin, together
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "brynhild84" <AaronCarpenter@m...>
        wrote:

        > does anyone know a good link for Crimean Gothic or any other
        resources
        > for it.

        Here is a reliable site [ http://www.gotica.de/ ] where you can see,
        among other things, Busbeque's letter in the original Latin,
        together with an extensive bibliography. This, as far as I know, is
        the only evidence now available for what Crimean Gothic was like.
        Here [ http://www.geocities.com/erwan-ar-skoul/gothmod.htm ] is a
        list of words from that letter with definitions in English.

        MacDonald Stearns, Crimean Gothic. Analysis and Etymology of the
        Corpus, Saratoga (Calif.) 1978. (Studia Linguistica et Philologica 6)

        MacDonald Stearns, Das Krimgotische. In: Heinrich Beck (Hrsg.),
        Germanische Rest- und Trümmersprachen, Berlin / New York 1989, 175–
        194 (RGA Ergänzungsband 3).

        Ottar Grønvik, Die dialektgeographische Stellung des Krimgotischen
        und die krimgotische cantilena, Oslo 1983.

        Of these I've only seen Grønvik's article which is very
        interesting. It carefully argues that the language we call "Crimean
        Gothic" shares some early sound changes with West Germanic, but
        underwent later changes in common with Biblical Gothic. I'm sure
        there must be other useful sites on the internet somewhere hidden
        amongst the rubbish.

        Llama Nom
      • llama_nom
        Here is a slightly edited version of a summary of Ottar Grønvik: Die dialektgeographische Stelling des Krimgotischen und die krimgotische cantilena. which I
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Here is a slightly edited version of a summary of Ottar
          Grønvik: "Die dialektgeographische Stelling des Krimgotischen
          und die krimgotische cantilena." which I posted a while ago.


          In brief, he argues that Crimean Gothic is a West Germanic dialect
          that separated from the WG continuum at some time before c. 200 AD
          and after that underwent sound changes in common with the language
          that evolved into Biblical Gothic. For phonetic spellings I've
          used the SAMPA notation [
          http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm ].

          Otherwise I've followed the spellings in the article.


          Features of Crimean Gothic:

          1) No i/j mutation (thus agreeing with Gothic against NWG).
          2) z > s finally, as in Gothic (*schnos v. OE snoru, ON snør)-- good
          evidence for treatment of Gmc. /z/, as Busbecq apparently didn't
          recognise the word as Germanic.
          3) u & i preserved before nasal + cons., or before high vowel in
          following syllable (gira < *giri), otherwise lowered in same
          circumstances as in NWG (boga, *schnos v. *thuru; schwester v.
          wintch).
          4) Raising of e > i before u/w irregular (seuene, fyder), but so too
          in other dialects.
          5) ð > d, as in WG, and subsequently devoiced (plut). Initially and
          in voiced medial positions þ > d. But þ > þ, spelt <tz>, finally
          and medially in voiceless environment. Due to frequent occurrence
          as enclitic in such positions, the pronoun tzo `thou' retained the
          sound.
          6) Unstressed vowels > @ (schwa), represented by random vowel
          letters, except for Old Crimean Gothic o:n > u:, spelt <ou>
          (kadariou = /kad@rju:/ < *ka(n)dario:n < Lat. centurio:n-).
          7) /n/ lost after long vowel (kadariou), but kept after short (verb
          inf. ending -en).
          8) i: > i: u: > u: e: > i: o: > u: eu > i:
          iu > i:, y:? ai > e: au > o:
          9) initial /h/ lost.

          (Thinks: Point (3) assumes that a-umlaut etc. was a NWG innovation.
          Question, can we tell whether Gothic was unaffected by this change,
          or just lost the distinction between these sounds at a later date?
          Grønvik doesn't bring into the discussion the letter names from the
          Vienna-Salzburg codex: chozma, geuua, enguz.)

          Regarding /i:/ from Gmc. e:1, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.1. that /e:/
          > /a:/ very early in NG but not among the West Germanic people of
          the Elbe region till the end of the 2nd century AD. Later still
          among the Franks in the vicinity of the Rhine. Regarding ð > d,
          Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.2 that this a common WG development, ? 2nd c.
          or earlier. Regarding rhoticism of Gmc /z/, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.4
          that WG probably retained /z/ before 200. The final devoicing he
          sees as a Migration Era sound change shared by Crimean and Biblical
          Gothic. Similarly with the monophthongisation of /ai/ and /au/.

          (The full reasoning behind these assumptions is not explained, but I
          gather there are some Latin inscriptions to West Germanic goddesses
          (`Matrons') which preserve a Germanic dative plural ending: Aflims,
          Vatvims, Saitchamimi(s).)

          10) warthata = /wartt@te/ < warhta + preterite ending repeated by
          analogy.
          11) /al:/ lapis = ON hallr, OE heall, rather than Got. hallus.
          12) thurn = *thuru = /dur@/, old dual form cognate with OE, OS duru,
          rather than Got. daur, daurons.
          _______________________________________________________


          Sequence of changes acc. Grønvik:

          1. NWG
          u > u / o
          e > e / i

          2. WG to 200
          æ: > e:
          d, ð > d
          z > z
          lþ > lþ
          þ > þ, ð
          e – u/w > i
          xj > xxj
          ngw > ng

          3. Pre-Gothic
          jj > ddj
          Reduction of unstressed vowels
          Devoicing of final fricatives
          Monophthongisation of ai, au > E:, O:
          rB > rb (dorbiza)
          No i-umlaut

          4. Old Crimean Gothic + Gothic 350 – 550
          iu > y:
          eu > e:
          e:, o: > i:, u:
          E:, O: > e:, o:
          Further reduction of unstressed vowels
          (þ >) [ð], [d]
          xt, xs > tt, ss
          sk > sch
          sw, sl, sn > schw, schl, schn
          b, d, g devoiced initially
          h-, -h- > Ø


          The song! He reconstructs/interprets thus, explaining his reasoning
          in full detail. I've written it out in SAMPA phonetic notation
          after.

          wara wara ing[a]dolou
          scu te gira galtzou
          heemisclep dorbize ea

          war@ war@ in-gad@lu: (in-gad@lu)
          Su: t@ gir@ galtTu: (galTu:)
          he:m@SlEp: dorb@z@ E@

          Guard (watch over / look after / protect) the very beautiful one.
          You gave (paid) desirable [horse] shoes.
          Let the hungry horse out graze at home.

          The 1st & 3rd lines are taken to be commands/requests.

          scu = *schu `set of [horse] shoes' < gaskohi `pair of shoes' (as in
          Biblical Gothic, but not specifically EG).

          *schlep `let loose to graze' he suggests is a loan from ON sleppa
          (while also considering a possible WG etymology). Following Norse
          grammar he takes <dorbize> as a dative f. sg. adjective, pointing
          out that the pronominal-style of the adjective ending agrees with WG
          rather than Biblical Gothic. He also considers (as less likely) the
          possibility that this is a comparative.

          <te> is interpreted as WG, although acc. G's phonology it could
          equally apply be from a Gothic-like /du/.

          The situation of the song is compared to the opening lines of
          Norwegian heroic ballads. As a less likely possibility he suggests
          a children's rhyme.
        • Fredrik
          Doesn t it seem to be as crimean gothic differences from biblical also appears in later visi- and ostrogothic as they were spoken in italy and spain. Such as
          Message 4 of 8 , May 16, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Doesn't it seem to be as crimean gothic differences from biblical
            also appears in later visi- and ostrogothic as they were spoken in
            italy and spain. Such as e: to i:, o: to u: etc?

            The fact that CG has e as in schwester where biblical has i isn't
            that just a difference that developed as a dialectal form in perhaps
            visigothic?

            if CG have similarities with WG in grammar rather than with Biblical
            gothic, isn't that perhaps because Bibilical gothic has a major greek
            influence and the spoken language probably was more germanic than the
            written and thus more similar to WG than the written biblical gothic?

            (see more below)

            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Here is a slightly edited version of a summary of Ottar
            > Grønvik: "Die dialektgeographische Stelling des Krimgotischen
            > und die krimgotische cantilena." which I posted a while ago.
            >
            >
            > In brief, he argues that Crimean Gothic is a West Germanic dialect
            > that separated from the WG continuum at some time before c. 200 AD
            > and after that underwent sound changes in common with the language
            > that evolved into Biblical Gothic. For phonetic spellings I've
            > used the SAMPA notation [
            > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm ].
            >
            > Otherwise I've followed the spellings in the article.
            >
            >
            > Features of Crimean Gothic:
            >
            > 1) No i/j mutation (thus agreeing with Gothic against NWG).
            > 2) z > s finally, as in Gothic (*schnos v. OE snoru, ON snør)-- good
            > evidence for treatment of Gmc. /z/, as Busbecq apparently didn't
            > recognise the word as Germanic.
            > 3) u & i preserved before nasal + cons., or before high vowel in
            > following syllable (gira < *giri), otherwise lowered in same
            > circumstances as in NWG (boga, *schnos v. *thuru; schwester v.
            > wintch).
            > 4) Raising of e > i before u/w irregular (seuene, fyder), but so too
            > in other dialects.

            Would some exlain this to me.
            Should e have risen to i in seuene? Is the u in seuene a way of
            writing v or w?

            about fyder: if e has been raised to i, then y is just another way of
            spelling i. But couldn't this be a u-umlaut?
            fidwor > fyder.

            OPr maybe it raised from fedwor to fidwor and then u-umlauted to
            fyder with weakened o to e.

            > 5) ð > d, as in WG, and subsequently devoiced (plut). Initially and
            > in voiced medial positions þ > d. But þ > þ, spelt <tz>, finally
            > and medially in voiceless environment. Due to frequent occurrence
            > as enclitic in such positions, the pronoun tzo `thou' retained the
            > sound.
            > 6) Unstressed vowels > @ (schwa), represented by random vowel
            > letters, except for Old Crimean Gothic o:n > u:, spelt <ou>
            > (kadariou = /kad@rju:/ < *ka(n)dario:n < Lat. centurio:n-).
            > 7) /n/ lost after long vowel (kadariou), but kept after short (verb
            > inf. ending -en).
            > 8) i: > i: u: > u: e: > i: o: > u: eu > i:
            > iu > i:, y:? ai > e: au > o:
            > 9) initial /h/ lost.
            >
            > (Thinks: Point (3) assumes that a-umlaut etc. was a NWG innovation.
            > Question, can we tell whether Gothic was unaffected by this change,
            > or just lost the distinction between these sounds at a later date?
            > Grønvik doesn't bring into the discussion the letter names from the
            > Vienna-Salzburg codex: chozma, geuua, enguz.)
            >
            > Regarding /i:/ from Gmc. e:1, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.1. that /e:/
            > > /a:/ very early in NG but not among the West Germanic people of
            > the Elbe region till the end of the 2nd century AD. Later still
            > among the Franks in the vicinity of the Rhine. Regarding ð > d,
            > Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.2 that this a common WG development, ? 2nd c.
            > or earlier. Regarding rhoticism of Gmc /z/, Grønvik says 4.4.2.3.4
            > that WG probably retained /z/ before 200. The final devoicing he
            > sees as a Migration Era sound change shared by Crimean and Biblical
            > Gothic. Similarly with the monophthongisation of /ai/ and /au/.
            >
            > (The full reasoning behind these assumptions is not explained, but I
            > gather there are some Latin inscriptions to West Germanic goddesses
            > (`Matrons') which preserve a Germanic dative plural ending: Aflims,
            > Vatvims, Saitchamimi(s).)
            >
            > 10) warthata = /wartt@te/ < warhta + preterite ending repeated by
            > analogy.
            > 11) /al:/ lapis = ON hallr, OE heall, rather than Got. hallus.
            > 12) thurn = *thuru = /dur@/, old dual form cognate with OE, OS duru,
            > rather than Got. daur, daurons.
            > _______________________________________________________
            >
            >
            > Sequence of changes acc. Grønvik:
            >
            > 1. NWG
            > u > u / o
            > e > e / i
            >
            > 2. WG to 200
            > æ: > e:
            > d, ð > d
            > z > z
            > lþ > lþ
            > þ > þ, ð
            > e – u/w > i
            > xj > xxj
            > ngw > ng
            >
            > 3. Pre-Gothic
            > jj > ddj
            > Reduction of unstressed vowels
            > Devoicing of final fricatives
            > Monophthongisation of ai, au > E:, O:
            > rB > rb (dorbiza)
            > No i-umlaut
            >
            > 4. Old Crimean Gothic + Gothic 350 – 550
            > iu > y:
            > eu > e:
            > e:, o: > i:, u:
            > E:, O: > e:, o:
            > Further reduction of unstressed vowels
            > (þ >) [ð], [d]
            > xt, xs > tt, ss
            > sk > sch
            > sw, sl, sn > schw, schl, schn
            > b, d, g devoiced initially
            > h-, -h- > Ø
            >
            >
            > The song! He reconstructs/interprets thus, explaining his reasoning
            > in full detail. I've written it out in SAMPA phonetic notation
            > after.
            >
            > wara wara ing[a]dolou
            > scu te gira galtzou
            > heemisclep dorbize ea
            >
            > war@ war@ in-gad@lu: (in-gad@lu)
            > Su: t@ gir@ galtTu: (galTu:)
            > he:m@SlEp: dorb@z@ E@
            >
            > Guard (watch over / look after / protect) the very beautiful one.
            > You gave (paid) desirable [horse] shoes.
            > Let the hungry horse out graze at home.
            >
            > The 1st & 3rd lines are taken to be commands/requests.
            >
            > scu = *schu `set of [horse] shoes' < gaskohi `pair of shoes' (as in
            > Biblical Gothic, but not specifically EG).
            >
            > *schlep `let loose to graze' he suggests is a loan from ON sleppa
            > (while also considering a possible WG etymology). Following Norse
            > grammar he takes <dorbize> as a dative f. sg. adjective, pointing
            > out that the pronominal-style of the adjective ending agrees with
            WG
            > rather than Biblical Gothic. He also considers (as less likely) the
            > possibility that this is a comparative.
            >
            > <te> is interpreted as WG, although acc. G's phonology it could
            > equally apply be from a Gothic-like /du/.
            >
            > The situation of the song is compared to the opening lines of
            > Norwegian heroic ballads. As a less likely possibility he suggests
            > a children's rhyme.
            >
          • llama_nom
            ... Yes, these two sound changes are found in Gothic personal names recorded by writers of Latin and Greek, and seem to have been a feature of spoken Gothic in
            Message 5 of 8 , May 26, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@...> wrote:
              >
              > Doesn't it seem to be as crimean gothic differences from biblical
              > also appears in later visi- and ostrogothic as they were spoken in
              > italy and spain. Such as e: to i:, o: to u: etc?

              Yes, these two sound changes are found in Gothic personal names
              recorded by writers of Latin and Greek, and seem to have been a
              feature of spoken Gothic in Italy at the time when the surviving
              manuscripts were produced. The scribal confusion of `e' with `ei',
              and `o' with `u' affects some parts of the Gothic Bible more than
              others; the surviving texts are apparently based on earlier versions
              in which this confusion didn't exist.

              > The fact that CG has e as in schwester where biblical has i isn't
              > that just a difference that developed as a dialectal form in perhaps
              > visigothic?

              It might be that the loss of distinction between PGmc. /i/ and /e/
              wasn't a feature of all Gothic dialects. Or it might be that Busbeque
              used `e' in some of these words because he assimilated them to West
              Germanic cognates that were familiar to him. Alternatively, `i' could
              have been lowered to `e' later in the history of Crimean Gothic in
              some contexts at least. I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure.

              > if CG have similarities with WG in grammar rather than with Biblical
              > gothic, isn't that perhaps because Bibilical gothic has a major greek
              > influence and the spoken language probably was more germanic than the
              > written and thus more similar to WG than the written biblical gothic?

              One grammatical difference that Grønvik refers to here is
              morphological: the use of the pronominal ending in feminine dative
              singular adjectives (dorbize). There is no evidence, as far as I
              know, that the Greek source influenced the morphology (variable word
              forms, inflections) of the Gothic translation, although it did have a
              big influence on word order. But the identification of this word is
              highly speculative, so it's not at all clear whether Grønvik's
              conclusion is correct. If it was a comparative or something else
              entirely (which it could well be), his argument wouldn't hold.

              > > 4) Raising of e > i before u/w irregular (seuene, fyder), but so too
              > > in other dialects.
              >
              > Would some exlain this to me.
              > Should e have risen to i in seuene? Is the u in seuene a way of
              > writing v or w?

              The potential cause of the raising that Grønvik is talking about here
              is no longer evident in the Crimean Gothic forms, but still present in
              Biblical Gothic: [u] in the case of `sibun', and [w] in the case of
              `fidwor'. And yes, the `u' in `seuene' could represent [v] or [w].

              > about fyder: if e has been raised to i, then y is just another way of
              > spelling i. But couldn't this be a u-umlaut?
              > fidwor > fyder.

              Maybe. One thing that suggests that Busbeque might have used `y'
              interchangeably with `i' is that it also appears in `mycha' (Biblical
              Gothic `meikeis'), where there was no following [u] or [w] in earlier
              stages of the language.

              > OPr maybe it raised from fedwor to fidwor and then u-umlauted to
              > fyder with weakened o to e.

              I guess you meant OCr (Old Crimean)? That seems a reasonable
              possibility to me. Either of these could have happened:

              [e] > [i]
              [e] > [i] > [y]

              And even if the latter had happened, it could have been unrounded later.
            • Fredrik
              ... in ... Are these changes only valid for the gothic spoken in italy and not spain? if so, should it be considered a specific ostrogothic change as it also
              Message 6 of 8 , May 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Doesn't it seem to be as crimean gothic differences from biblical
                > > also appears in later visi- and ostrogothic as they were spoken
                in
                > > italy and spain. Such as e: to i:, o: to u: etc?
                >
                > Yes, these two sound changes are found in Gothic personal names
                > recorded by writers of Latin and Greek, and seem to have been a
                > feature of spoken Gothic in Italy at the time when the surviving
                > manuscripts were produced. The scribal confusion of `e' with `ei',
                > and `o' with `u' affects some parts of the Gothic Bible more than
                > others; the surviving texts are apparently based on earlier versions
                > in which this confusion didn't exist.
                >
                Are these changes only valid for the gothic spoken in italy and not
                spain? if so, should it be considered a specific ostrogothic change
                as it also occures in crimean gothic?

                other changes are diphthongs becoming monophthongs.
                biblical ai corresponds to crimean e (long probably?), which is
                common with italian ostrogothic (?). But what about biblical au. In
                italian gothic it is o (long here too?), like Oderit from Audareths.
                Did crimean have long o here too, like broe from brauth?

                > > The fact that CG has e as in schwester where biblical has i isn't
                > > that just a difference that developed as a dialectal form in
                perhaps
                > > visigothic?
                >
                > It might be that the loss of distinction between PGmc. /i/ and /e/
                > wasn't a feature of all Gothic dialects. Or it might be that
                Busbeque
                > used `e' in some of these words because he assimilated them to West
                > Germanic cognates that were familiar to him. Alternatively, `i'
                could
                > have been lowered to `e' later in the history of Crimean Gothic in
                > some contexts at least. I don't think there's enough evidence to
                be sure.

                Probably not, but it seems to be as crimean has i where pgmc had it
                and e where pgmc had it. Doesn't it?

                >
                > > if CG have similarities with WG in grammar rather than with
                Biblical
                > > gothic, isn't that perhaps because Bibilical gothic has a major
                greek
                > > influence and the spoken language probably was more germanic than
                the
                > > written and thus more similar to WG than the written biblical
                gothic?
                >
                > One grammatical difference that Grønvik refers to here is
                > morphological: the use of the pronominal ending in feminine dative
                > singular adjectives (dorbize). There is no evidence, as far as I
                > know, that the Greek source influenced the morphology (variable word
                > forms, inflections) of the Gothic translation, although it did have
                a
                > big influence on word order. But the identification of this word is
                > highly speculative, so it's not at all clear whether Grønvik's
                > conclusion is correct. If it was a comparative or something else
                > entirely (which it could well be), his argument wouldn't hold.
                >
                > > > 4) Raising of e > i before u/w irregular (seuene, fyder), but
                so too
                > > > in other dialects.
                > >
                > > Would some exlain this to me.
                > > Should e have risen to i in seuene? Is the u in seuene a way of
                > > writing v or w?
                >
                > The potential cause of the raising that Grønvik is talking about
                here
                > is no longer evident in the Crimean Gothic forms, but still present
                in
                > Biblical Gothic: [u] in the case of `sibun', and [w] in the case of
                > `fidwor'. And yes, the `u' in `seuene' could represent [v] or [w].
                >
                > > about fyder: if e has been raised to i, then y is just another
                way of
                > > spelling i. But couldn't this be a u-umlaut?
                > > fidwor > fyder.
                >
                > Maybe. One thing that suggests that Busbeque might have used `y'
                > interchangeably with `i' is that it also appears in `mycha'
                (Biblical
                > Gothic `meikeis'), where there was no following [u] or [w] in
                earlier
                > stages of the language.
                >
                > > OPr maybe it raised from fedwor to fidwor and then u-umlauted to
                > > fyder with weakened o to e.
                >
                > I guess you meant OCr (Old Crimean)? That seems a reasonable
                > possibility to me. Either of these could have happened:

                That was actually just a typo, meant 'Or'

                >
                > [e] > [i]
                > [e] > [i] > [y]
                >
                > And even if the latter had happened, it could have been unrounded
                later.
                >

                Is it only Busbeque's writings that makes the source to crimean
                gothic or is there any other? How much about CG can be stated as fact
                by analyzing these sources? About grammar and phonology.
                If I understand correct most people think there's a lot of typos and
                other errors in his writings and therefor not totaly reliable.

                /Fredrik
              • llama_nom
                ... gothic spoken in italy and not spain? if so, should it be considered a specific ostrogothic change as it also occures in crimean gothic? I don t know.
                Message 7 of 8 , May 30, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@...> wrote:
                  >

                  > Are these changes [ [e:] > [i:] and [o] > [u:] ] only valid for the
                  gothic spoken in italy and not spain? if so, should it be considered a
                  specific ostrogothic change as it also occures in crimean gothic?

                  I don't know. That's an interesting question. There might be some
                  clues in personal names recorded by Greek and Roman writers, and in
                  loanwords in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese and Provencal.

                  > other changes are diphthongs becoming monophthongs.
                  biblical ai corresponds to crimean e (long probably?), which is
                  common with italian ostrogothic (?). But what about biblical au. In
                  italian gothic it is o (long here too?), like Oderit from Audareths.
                  Did crimean have long o here too, like broe from brauth?

                  It certainly looks that way. As well as Broe, we have Hoef (haubiþ)
                  and Oeghene (augono). The initial letter in Iel (háils) may betray
                  Greek influence [
                  http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/gotol-10.html#Got10_GP46
                  ], in which case this could be an example of [e:] for PGmc. [ai].

                  > [...] but it seems to be as crimean has i where pgmc had it
                  and e where pgmc had it. Doesn't it?

                  Yes, as far as I can tell. Especially interesting regarding short [o],
                  is the word Schuos (probably a printing mistake for Schnos), since
                  Busbeque didn't recognise this as a Germanic word, and yet it seems to
                  show lowering of PGmc. [u] to [o] before a central vowel, as tended to
                  happen in North and West Germanic, but not Biblical Gothic: snusô >
                  Crim. Got. *schnos, BGot. *snuza, OE snoru, ON snør.

                  > Is it only Busbeque's writings that makes the source to crimean
                  gothic or is there any other?

                  Yes, sadly that's all we have. Unless anything else comes to light in
                  the future...

                  > How much about CG can be stated as fact
                  by analyzing these sources? About grammar and phonology.
                  If I understand correct most people think there's a lot of typos and
                  other errors in his writings and therefor not totaly reliable.

                  That's right. In fact, it's worse than that, because Busbeque's
                  informants may not have been completely reliable either.

                  Alter erat procerior, toto ore ingenuam quandam simplicitatem
                  praeferens, ut Flander videretur aut Batavus: alter erat brevior,
                  compactiore corpore, colore fusco, ortu et sermone Graecus, sed qui
                  frequenti commercio non contemnendum eius linguae usum haberet, nam
                  superior vicinitate, et frequenti Graecorum consuetudine sic eorum
                  sermonem imbiberat, ut popularis sui esset oblitus, interrogatus de
                  natura et moribus illorum populorum, congruentia respondebat.

                  One of them was taller, displaying in his overall appearance a certain
                  native simplicity, so that he looked like a Fleming or Dutchman: the
                  other was shorted, with a stouter body, a swarthy color, Greek in
                  origin and speech, but who with frequent interaction had a not
                  disrespectable command of that language; for the first one on account
                  of proximity and frequent dealings with Greeks had so taken in their
                  speech as to have forgotten that of his own people; though when asked
                  about the nature and customs of those peoples, he responded sensibly.

                  http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/gotol-10.html#Got10_GP46
                  http://www.gotica.de/taurica.html
                • Fredrik
                  I think it s a little fuzzy about pronunciation of former b, d and g initially in crimean gothic. Some times they seem to remain but other times they seem to
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 13 1:42 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think it's a little fuzzy about pronunciation of former b, d and g
                    initially in crimean gothic.

                    Some times they seem to remain but other times they seem to become
                    unvoiced.

                    Since it seems to be as aspiration vanished from crimean gothic as in
                    ano instead of hano, I guess b,d,g also were unaspirated.
                    And because of that they could have been pronounced very similar to
                    the unvoiced p,t,k in some positions and therefor mistaken for such
                    consonants by Busbecq.

                    If this is so there's no need for any explanation why inital b
                    remains befor consonant in bruder but not in plut. The reason could
                    just be that it sounds more as p than b befor l to some one who is
                    not used to unaspirated b,d,g.

                    And hence would I suppose it would be better to keep b,d,g in writing
                    even when Busbecq has written otherwise.
                    plut should then be blut and kriten (busbecq's eriten or criten)
                    which probably had a long i should be greiten (using biblical ei for
                    long i).
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.