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

Re: Wanna share your ambitions and intenstions?

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    ... I think we re safe with *aihvs, but green could be either a ja- stem (*groneis) or an i-stem (grons). The etymological dictionaries I ve seen tend to
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > like *grí±ºíµ©s (green) and *aihvs (horse)

      I think we're safe with *aihvs, but "green" could be either a ja-
      stem (*groneis) or an i-stem (grons). The etymological dictionaries
      I've seen tend to reconstrcut a ja-stem, perhaps because that's the
      more common declension and without evidence from Gothic or early
      runic inscriptions, there's no indication of whether it was even an
      i-stem.



      > Translate in Gothic:
      > 1. Hello, John. It is good to see you. How have you been?
      > 2. ME words 'casino' and 'telephone' (using Gothic roots)


      Ah, maybe one day all our fancy learning will help us to solve this
      embarrassingly simple, but very difficult problem. This goes beyond
      just the 'easy' problem of vocabulary, and the nightmarishly tricky
      business of syntax, and gets us into the outright fiendish realm of
      idioms and usage and how the language actually behave when it was
      alive an on its feet in a real functioning society about which we
      still have so much to learn. The Gothic Bible isn't much help here;
      we could hunt for situations in the literature of the other early
      germanic languages, especially Old English and Old Norse, where
      people meet who already know each other, and what they say. Of
      course, the style of speech there might be rather formal, or even in
      poetry, so we'd have to take that into account. But if we found
      enough examples we could maybe begin to get a feel for the sort of
      conventional exchange that might be expected to take place. I think
      the sagas might call this a 'fagnaðarfundr' "joyful meeting",
      sometimes with heart-melting understatement. A quick rumage on
      Google turns up a few happy moments, although not much non-context-
      specific small talk... Oh well, a good excuse for more reading. In
      Old English, Ælfric's Colloquy has some interesting informal
      conversation, but limited in topic.

      As for the easy question, I'm sure suggestions have already been
      made for telephone, so I'll propose 'hlaut-hus' "casino", by analogy
      with 'gudhus' and 'faurhah'. On the ommission of the stem vowel in
      these compounds, Bennett suggested that the 'h' may have been
      dropped, causing the vowel to go too, to avoid hiatus (cf. also the
      spelling 'freijhals').

      Anyway, important is what we chose to be important, so I won't say
      the things that most interest me are more important than what
      interests someone else, just what most occupies the Gothic sections
      of my brain tonight. I think there's a lot still to be learnt from
      the surviving evidence for Gothic which can make our imaginative
      reconstructions more accurate. Basic stuff like: what exactly is
      the status of 'aspect' in Gothic verbs? What word orders were most
      likely? What word orders were permitted in natural speech? What
      constraints were placed in freedom of word order? What rhetorical
      and emphatic effects were gained from particular changes in the
      unmarked word order? What are the differences between the rules or
      tendencies affecting the placement of nouns from those affecting
      pronouns? What contexts triggered V2 (verb second word order); was
      it always triggered in such contexts; which contexts was it optional
      in; how did Gothic resemble Old English was it in this respect, and
      how did it differ? How do main clauses differ from subordinate
      clauses, for example in permitting V2, and in the placement of
      adverbs, etc.? What rules govern the use of reflexives? What rules
      govern the placement of pronouns? Does it make sense to talk about
      oblique subjects in Gothic? What is the full story about case
      attraction of relative pronouns? What is the full story with
      passives of verbs that govern oblique cases; why are they sometimes
      oblique with impersonal verbs as in other Germanic languages, but
      othertimes nominative with the verb inflected for number? Can all
      such instances be attributed to a middle, rather than a strictly
      passive meaning? Or is this a piece of Gothic 'nominative
      sickness'? And such, and such, and such.





      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > > This had impications for anyone who wants to write or speak in a
      > reconstructed Gothic. I think it would be good to establish all
      > that can be established about the historical language, otherwise
      any
      > reconstruction would tend to take the form of people expressing
      > their thoughts in modern ways but just using Gothic words, whereas
      a
      > language is more than just vocabulary.
      >
      > In my opinion, thou hast hit the nail on the head here. What is
      most
      > important is understanding and reconstructing the historical
      tongue
      > itself. Inventing new words for things non-existed in the
      historical
      > language may be fun, but reconstructing the historical vocabulary
      is
      > much more important. Essentially, learning an histrical tongue has
      a
      > lot to do with learning historical words ;) In the case of Gothic,
      > so much of the basic vocabulary has been lost (i.e. is unattested)
      > that in order for the language to be usable, vocabulary must be re-
      > constructed. This is where prioritization needs to occur if Gothic
      > is to approach usablity in modern times, whether as a purley
      written
      > or spoken langauge. There is little talk or writing if no one
      knows
      > what words to use. Furthermore, a focus on historical vocabulary
      is
      > consistent with typical reasons why a person might choose to study
      > Gothic, such as understanding an early germanic tongue. Thus,
      words
      > like *grí±ºíµ©s (green) and *aihvs (horse) or much more important than
      > new words for democracy or the stock market, for example.
      Likewise,
      > historical syntax is what we should be after, rather than learning
      > how to use Gothic words with foreign syntax. These two points are
      > especially relevant in the case of Gothic, I think, as attestation
      > of syntax is through a translation of a foreign book (rather than
      > via the speech of a native speaker) and attestation of vocabulary
      > largely limited to words (some even foreign) needed to translated
      a
      > book containing culture, concepts, geograpy, history, etc. which
      > have no roots in native Gothic culture. Thus, the syntax and
      choice
      > of words may or may not closely reflect native speech. What is
      then
      > needed is a focus on native speech, in as much as this is possible
      > with a dead language - making a concerted effort to reconstuct
      what,
      > in all likelihood, was the vocabulary and manner of daily speech.
      > Now, if this sounds easy, try the following exercise and ask which
      > of the two you found easier:
      >
      > Translate in Gothic:
      > 1. Hello, John. It is good to see you. How have you been?
      > 2. ME words 'casino' and 'telephone' (using Gothic roots)
      >
      > Now, number 2 could prove a fun competition for those of us who
      > perhaps think we know what we are doing, but it is not likely
      going
      > to help get gothic back on its feet. Number one, on the other
      hand,
      > poses deeply challenging problems for us, as simply translating
      the
      > English words is out of the question. Simply put, we know that
      they
      > do not represent Gothic syntax or vocabulary.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Konrad
    • Fredrik
      I think you re right when you say it is important to recunstruct those words which probably existed but ain t attested, before creating words for things that
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I think you're right when you say it is important to recunstruct
        those words which probably existed but ain't attested, before
        creating words for things that we know didn't exist at that time.

        But for me it's equally important to cunstruct both kinda words.
        To be able to use a language in daily speech today we must have all
        those words that existed at that time and the most of thw words of
        modern stuff.
        So a neologism (according to me) could be both *lahs and e.g.
        fairrasiuns. Even though lahs might have been an existing word and
        fairrasiuns not.

        Syntax is nothing I am that good at so I try to learn what you guys
        find out.

        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > > This had impications for anyone who wants to write or speak in a
        > reconstructed Gothic. I think it would be good to establish all
        > that can be established about the historical language, otherwise
        any
        > reconstruction would tend to take the form of people expressing
        > their thoughts in modern ways but just using Gothic words, whereas
        a
        > language is more than just vocabulary.
        >
        > In my opinion, thou hast hit the nail on the head here. What is
        most
        > important is understanding and reconstructing the historical tongue
        > itself. Inventing new words for things non-existed in the
        historical
        > language may be fun, but reconstructing the historical vocabulary
        is
        > much more important. Essentially, learning an histrical tongue has
        a
        > lot to do with learning historical words ;) In the case of Gothic,
        > so much of the basic vocabulary has been lost (i.e. is unattested)
        > that in order for the language to be usable, vocabulary must be re-
        > constructed. This is where prioritization needs to occur if Gothic
        > is to approach usablity in modern times, whether as a purley
        written
        > or spoken langauge. There is little talk or writing if no one knows
        > what words to use. Furthermore, a focus on historical vocabulary is
        > consistent with typical reasons why a person might choose to study
        > Gothic, such as understanding an early germanic tongue. Thus, words
        > like *grôneis (green) and *aihvs (horse) or much more important
        than
        > new words for democracy or the stock market, for example. Likewise,
        > historical syntax is what we should be after, rather than learning
        > how to use Gothic words with foreign syntax. These two points are
        > especially relevant in the case of Gothic, I think, as attestation
        > of syntax is through a translation of a foreign book (rather than
        > via the speech of a native speaker) and attestation of vocabulary
        > largely limited to words (some even foreign) needed to translated a
        > book containing culture, concepts, geograpy, history, etc. which
        > have no roots in native Gothic culture. Thus, the syntax and choice
        > of words may or may not closely reflect native speech. What is then
        > needed is a focus on native speech, in as much as this is possible
        > with a dead language - making a concerted effort to reconstuct
        what,
        > in all likelihood, was the vocabulary and manner of daily speech.
        > Now, if this sounds easy, try the following exercise and ask which
        > of the two you found easier:
        >
        > Translate in Gothic:
        > 1. Hello, John. It is good to see you. How have you been?
        > 2. ME words 'casino' and 'telephone' (using Gothic roots)
        >
        > Now, number 2 could prove a fun competition for those of us who
        > perhaps think we know what we are doing, but it is not likely going
        > to help get gothic back on its feet. Number one, on the other hand,
        > poses deeply challenging problems for us, as simply translating the
        > English words is out of the question. Simply put, we know that they
        > do not represent Gothic syntax or vocabulary.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Konrad
        >
      • thiudans
        Hails! Thought I would bring back a piece of history (as I was perusing the archives). I wonder how you are doing on these goals, not as a matter of control,
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 19, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hails!

          Thought I would bring back a piece of history (as I was perusing the
          archives). I wonder how you are doing on these goals, not as a matter
          of control, but purely because I am interested in the results of these
          efforts!

          Cheers,
          Th.

          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > I have an ambition to work out some basic things about Gothic word
          > order, which isn't so easy, because Gothic Bible is in most ways a
          > word for word translation from the Greek, so you have to look out
          > for those specific ways in which it differs. It's also complicated
          > by the fact that the exact text of the Greek original that it was
          > based on is not known. Wilhelm Streitberg printed a reconstructed
          > version of the Greek, which appears at the Wulfila Project site and
          > at TITUS, but very often other Greek versions offer a better match
          > for the Gothic, so these have to be ckecked too. Useful are regular
          > deviations, such as 'iþ' almost always being placed first in the
          > clause, in contrast to Greek DE, which comes second. Likewise
          > Go. 'unte' for Gk. GAR. Also where Gothic needs two or more words
          > to translate a single Greek word, although even here you have to be
          > careful because given half a chance the Gothic will imitate the
          > order of morphemes in the Greek word! Occasional and arbitrary
          > differences are always suspect, especially where they can be
          > paralleled elsewhere in the Greek. Modern researchers are sometimes
          > a bit erratic about this, but really you have to be strict in what
          > evidence is allowed, otherwise there's no way of establishing what
          > is a genuine Gothic usage, and what is really a feature of Greek
          > syntax.
          >
          > It's fiddly and time-consuming work, and short of more texts being
          > discovered, there'll always be mysteries. But the payoff is a
          > glimpse into the syntax of an early Germanic language, in some ways
          > like its later kin, in other ways intriguingly different. I'd also
          > like to learn more about syntactical theory, because this could
          > offer a way of deducing generalised rules from the scant evidence.
          > But it's important to establish what that evidence is first before
          > resorting to theory.
          >
          > This had impications for anyone who wants to write or speak in a
          > reconstructed Gothic. I think it would be good to establish all
          > that can be established about the historical language, otherwise any
          > reconstruction would tend to take the form of people expressing
          > their thoughts in modern ways but just using Gothic words, whereas a
          > language is more than just vocabulary. But then any living laguage
          > is going to develop in its own way in any case, so maybe this
          > wouldn't seem so important to other people.
          >
          > I also have a Secret Plan to write something on pronunciation.
          > Having read (and ranted at!) the rather chaotic and contradictory
          > Wikipedia entry a couple of months back, and then this new Gothic
          > Online Course, I've finally been galled into starting a file on the
          > matter. That could take ages too, but I'm concentrating to begin
          > with on the thorny issue of <ai> and <au>. Again, a lot of problems
          > will never be solved, but I reckon I can narrow down the
          > possibilities a bit with logic. For example, some scolars have
          > suggested that each digraph stood for a single phoneme, but the loss
          > of final inflectional -s only after a short syllable implies that
          > <ai> and <au> probably had both short and long variants. Loanwords
          > and the spelling of personal names in Latin and Greek texts suggests
          > that the old Germanic diphthings were preserved well after Wulfila's
          > time in some dialects, but lost in others, though it may not be
          > possible to make a simple division between "Visigoths"
          > and "Ostrogoths" on this point.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Fredrik" <gadrauhts@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi!
          > >
          > > I guess everyone here have some intentions and reasons why you
          > wanna
          > > learn gothic. One could be a general interest in languages and
          > > specially in gothic, but why is that?
          > >
          > > Different from other languages like english, german and spanish
          > which
          > > people learn (mostly) because it could be useful in their work.
          > > Gothic is not that useful, coz nobody uses it.
          > >
          > > So why do you wanna learn it/did you learn it?
          > > Was it maybe because you wanna know how to speak it, of some
          > reason
          > > or was it coz you wanna understand germanic hostory more??
          > >
          > > Myself I have changed my reasons during the time. First of all I
          > have
          > > a interest in languages and especially in germanic ones. When I
          > > first, long ago, found out that there was a third branch of the
          > > germanic family, the eastern this become my main interest, so I
          > began
          > > to study it as much as possible. First just to learn a little
          > about
          > > it and see what this east germanic branch was like, and what was
          > > different between this and the west and noth germanic branches.
          > >
          > > Later I got a book with some basic grammar, a tiny dictionary and
          > > some text samples from the bible. Since that time I have been
          > trying
          > > to learn gothic. Mostly when it comes to understanding those texts.
          > > It's kinda hard to learn speaking it when it lacks so much
          > (attested)
          > > words.
          > >
          > > Do you also wanna share your ambitions and dreams/thoughts?
          > >
          > > Mine is to learn to speak gothic fluently and with a much better
          > > pronunciation then I have now. (It's still a long way to go...my
          > > grammar kinda sucks for now). This means that my vocabulary has to
          > > expand but also that the total gothic vocabulary has to that too.
          > > That's why I'm tryin to collect neologisms in a dictionary. My
          > > present goal is to reach 30 000 words, which is the average number
          > of
          > > words is a pocket dictionary.
          > > I don't think it's total necessary that all these neologisms is
          > > standard for all gothic speakers, if some one like to use other
          > words
          > > I think thats OK. For example we can say that I prefer a puristic
          > > vocabulary so a word like republic should be thiudawaihts, but if
          > > some one like raí°µbleik (to remind of other germanic languages) or
          > > smth like that...go for it.
          > >
          > > My dreams and (utopic) thought is that I should be able to use it
          > in
          > > daily speech. For that I probably need some one or two in my life
          > > that also know how to speak it, (and that's not like it today).
          > >
          > > I think it would be interesting to know a little about you and
          > what's
          > > on your mind about all this...so plz share your thought.
          > >
          > > /Fredrik
          > >
          >
        • Justïn
          Hails, Well, I d say my interest in Gothic [this is going to sound pathetic] started with my fascination with Tolkien and our shared interest in dead
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 19, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hails,

            Well, I'd say my interest in Gothic [this is going to sound pathetic]
            started with my fascination with Tolkien and our shared interest in
            dead languages. I think I failed to realise that one could actually
            'learn' Gothic and Old English, and I chose to learn Gothic as it
            seems to outdate Old English, Saxon, etc. Other than that, a
            fascination with the ancient peoples and a desire to speak a language
            so old, and the mere æsthetic appeal of the language while written and
            the way it sounds.

            My goal is to learn the language well enough to be able to freely
            journal my thoughts and daily activities in it, and write poetry and
            music in it, being able to contribute to a language that has only
            relatively few speakers and literary pieces in it, aside from
            Wulfila's and Tolien's, and now a few of our members'.

            So far my goal has struggled for attention while earning my degrees,
            but I like to think in terms of pursuing interests this group is an
            inspiration to take my text with me and study whenever and wherever I
            have the chance, though it's an awkward conversation starter when one
            asks me what I'm reading...

            I hope I am able to contribute to our attempts in resurrecting the
            language, it seems I at least sparked a renewed interest in
            neologisms, hopefully we can organise our efforts in a way that bears
            fruition...and hopefully I am able to do more than simply spur on
            those who are so far ahead of me their knowledge of linguistics and
            etymologies.

            Here's to hope!

            -Justïn
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.