qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni *gasehvun* (right after all!)
- 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 [
]--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 [
]--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.
--- In email@example.com, "Budelberger, Richard"
> 20 nivÃ´se an CCXIV (le 9 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 23h08.
> ---- Message d'origine ----
> De : llama_nom
> Ã : Gothic-L
> EnvoyÃ© : lundi 9 janvier 2006 21:58
> Objet : [gothic-l] nasal abbreviations + Ã¾atei / ei before
> >> 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
> > though it seems quite likely that some changes have been made inthe
> > intervening century and a half. The Gothic alphabet has twostyles,
> > one (I will call it style I) using a sigma-like -sign and a nasaluses
> > suspension for n only, and the other (I will call it style II)
> > 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 ].