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

qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni *gasehvun* (right after all!)

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    After all that discussion, and in spite of what we concluded at the time, Streitberg was quite right to print: qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni gasehvun (Mk 2:12)
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 10, 2006
      After all that discussion, and in spite of what we concluded at the
      time, Streitberg was quite right to print:

      qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni gasehvun (Mk 2:12)

      ...as opposed to 'gasehvum'. On closer inspection, I see that there
      are in fact different suspension marks used for 'm' and 'n' in the
      Codex Argenteus. The 'm' is distinguished from 'n' by a very slight
      downward hook in the middle of the line. For the 'm' sign, see e.g.
      imma Mk 2:18, imma Mk 6:14, þammei Mk 6:16, þaim Mk 6:21 [
      http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/311mc6f.html
      ]--see the end of the 6th line down.

      And for the 'n' sign: unhulþons Mk 3:15, standan Mk 3:24,
      saihvandans Mk 4:12, marein Mk 4:39, afhvapnodedun Mk 5:13, iddjedun
      Mk 5:24, jah qeþun Mk 5:31, ufkunþa Mk 5:29, handugeino Mk 6:2--and
      Mk 2:12 [
      http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/284mc2f.html
      ]--end of line 10.

      There's no doubt that 'n' is intended at Mk 2:12, although the signs
      are similar, and it's easy to imagine that confusion would be
      possible when reading faded letters or a degraded/damaged
      manuscript, or that the two nasal signs might get mixed up
      occasionally by accident. Maybe some such reason is behind the
      apparent divergeance from the Greek text here. Even so, it's
      probably still best to print the text as it appears in the Codex
      Argenteus, since we can't be sure that this is a mistake; and even
      if it is, the mistake might be significant--either for the study of
      Gothic syntax, or in identifying the Greek Vorlage. As ever,
      appologies for misleading everyone! The article I read didn't make
      this m/n difference clear.

      Llama Nom



      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard"
      <budelberger.richard@...> wrote:
      >
      > 20 nivôse an CCXIV (le 9 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 23h08.
      >
      > ---- Message d'origine ----
      > De : llama_nom
      > À : Gothic-L
      > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2006 21:58
      > Objet : [gothic-l] nasal abbreviations + þatei / ei before
      indirect speech
      >
      > >> Existe-t-il une différence suffisante entre les signes
      > >> d'abréviation pour distinguer un *m* d'un *n* ?
      > >
      > > Apparently not:
      > >
      > > "The CODEX ARGENTEUS is written in an alphabet devised by
      Wulfila,
      > > though it seems quite likely that some changes have been made in
      the
      > > intervening century and a half. The Gothic alphabet has two
      styles,
      > > one (I will call it style I) using a sigma-like -sign and a nasal
      > > suspension for n only, and the other (I will call it style II)
      uses
      > > the Latin and suspension marks for both n and m (Fairbanks and
      > > Magoun). The CA is written in Style II, and it seems quite likely
      > > that this is a later development, probably in Ostrogothic Italy."
      > > [ http://www.florin.ms/aleph2.html ].
      > >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.