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

Re: [gothic-l] =?UNKNOWN?Q?qi=FEandans_=FEatei?= aiw swa ni *gasehvun* =?UNKNOWN?Q?=28right?= after =?UNKNOWN?Q?all!=29?=

Expand Messages
  • Budelberger, Richard
    22 germinal an CCXIV (le 11 avril 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 14h08. ... De : llama_nom À : Envoyé : mardi 11
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 11, 2006
      22 germinal an CCXIV (le 11 avril 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 14h08.

      ----- Message d'origine -----
      De : llama_nom <600cell@...>
      À : <gothic-l@yahoogroups.com>
      Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2006 02:26
      Objet : [gothic-l] 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
      > [http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/311mc6f.html%5d
      > --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%5d
      > --end of line 10.

      Faut-il être bête comme les Anciens savaient l'être pour créer un système
      d'abréviations plus compliqué que ce qu'il abrège ! Au moins, en latin, le -m,
      en grec, le-n, en fin de ligne, généralement pour un accusatif, s'expliquent et
      s'explicitent simplement. Mais en gothique, où les désinences de la 1e et de
      la 3e personnes du pluriel ne diffèrent que par la consonne nasale -m ou -n finale !
      Il faut mesurer le trait abréviatif au microscope !..

      > 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.

      Non, non. Car le texte grec varie selon les manuscrits :

      ---- /Codex Washingtonianus/, W :

      OTI OUTWS OUDE POTE EIDON : *gasehvun* ;

      ---- /Codex Bezæ Cantabrigiensis/, D & d :


      > 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.

      B'en voilà, la « Greek Vorlage » est incertaine !

      Wright propose p. 218 « qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni *gasehvun* »

      > As ever, apologies

      Good !

      > for misleading everyone! The article I read didn't make this m/n difference clear.
      > Llama Nom

      Après tout, n'ayant pas de réponses de T. D. H. ni de P. T., je n'ai pas de raisons
      de m'exprimer dans « Gothic-L ».

      Budelberger, Richard.

      --- 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
      > Ã? : 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.