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

Re: [gothic-l] Re: Alice Myrtle Ashley Jones, 1916-2006

Expand Messages
  • Michael Erwin
    I m new here and not particularly sure, but Bennett 9.5 discusses the dative absolute. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:33 AM, ualarauans wrote: ...
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm new here and not particularly sure, but Bennett 9.5 discusses the
      dative absolute.

      On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:33 AM, ualarauans wrote:

      <snip>
      > Weggins falthanans – is it an accusativus absolutus in the
      > sense "with folded wings"? Or you mean it be shortened from *weggins
      > falthanans [habandei], lit. "she having folded the wings"? I don't
      > remember exactly if there's some analogue of that absolute
      > accusative construction in the Bible. Couldn't it be dative as well,
      > e.g. *weggim falthanaim? Or maybe it's *izai weggins [izos]
      > falthanai? The next strophe could be grammatically paralleled in a
      > way like that: *weggim falthanaim, hairtin sweibandin. I don't
      > intend this to be a kind of "correction", the original variant is
      > very good, in particular I like the causative formation, nice way to
      > enlarge the vocabulary from the language's own sources.
      <snip>
    • llama_nom
      Hails Walhahrabn! First, sorry to bring this all up again, but I d just like to say that I hope you ve accepted Vladimir s appology in the spirit it was
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hails Walhahrabn!

        First, sorry to bring this all up again, but I'd just like to say that
        I hope you've accepted Vladimir's appology in the spirit it was
        offered. I can appreciate that you were frustrated by the debate and
        upset by comments which might have seemed to excuse Wernher von
        Braun's work for the Nazis. But nothing I've read on this message
        board suggests to me that Vladimir intended any offence, still less to
        condone the attrocities with which von Braun was involved. I think
        your comments of May 24 were unfair.

        Please excuse my meddling, if this has already been sorted out...

        Anyway, thanks for the compliments! Yes, by all means criticise my
        translation. You make some interesting points. With 'weggins
        falþanans' I was thinking of Wright's "accusative of closer
        definition" (Grammar of the Gothic Language, para. 426), e.g. standaiþ
        nu ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans sunjai "stand therefore, your loins
        girt with truth"; gabundans handuns jah fotuns faskjam "bound hand and
        foot with bandages". I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the
        dative absolute, maybe preceded by 'at', but I get the impression that
        it tends to be limited more to a scene-setting clause at the beginning
        of the sentence. Comparison with Old Norse suggests that the dative
        absolute may have been used more widely in the bible than would
        normally be the case in Gothic; I get the impression that it's also
        more common than usual in Old Norse translations from Latin, where it
        renders the Latin ablative. There are indeed a few examples of a
        Gothic accusative absolute used like the dative: þuk taujandan armaion
        "when you perform acts of charirty"; atgaggandein inn dauhtar
        Herodiadins "Herodias's daughter having come in".

        I invented a causative 'swaibjan' in a probably forlorn attempt at
        matching the ambiguity of Arthur's wordplay. The English expression
        "heart-stopping" has a literal meaning here (which could maybe be:
        hairto sweibando, acc.), but also suggests the feelings of the
        observer, like watching someone about to dive from a terrible height
        might make you catch your breath because you imagine yourself in their
        place. It also seemed in keeping with the way Arthur expressed this
        apparently passive event in such a dynamic way.

        > ni muna taujan – ni man taujan? Or perhaps optative *ni munjau?

        'muna' is here 1st pers. sg. indicative of 'munan', of the 3rd weak
        conjugation, expressing an intention for the future: I will do / I
        mean to do (rather than the preterite-present 'munan' "to think/believe").

        What do you think to *weggs, mi, for "wing"? The Modern English word
        comes from Scandinavian; earlier, the ancestor of "feather" was used
        for "wing" too. As an alternative, I wondered about a cognate of
        German Flügel, Go. *þlugils, ma? Or a weak noun perhaps (-ila, -ilo)?

        Llama Nom



        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hails!
        > Your translation is on no account "clumsy", I like it very much. I'd
        > just have some questions if you don't mind?
        > Weggins falthanans – is it an accusativus absolutus in the
        > sense "with folded wings"? Or you mean it be shortened from *weggins
        > falthanans [habandei], lit. "she having folded the wings"? I don't
        > remember exactly if there's some analogue of that absolute
        > accusative construction in the Bible.Couldn't it be dative as well,
        > e.g. *weggim falthanaim? Or maybe it's *izai weggins [izos]
        > falthanai? The next strophe could be grammatically paralleled in a
        > way like that: *weggim falthanaim, hairtin sweibandin. I don't
        > intend this to be a kind of "correction", the original variant is
        > very good, in particular I like the causative formation, nice way to
        > enlarge the vocabulary from the language's own sources.
        > ni muna taujan – ni man taujan? Or perhaps optative *ni munjau?
        >
        > Ualarauans
        >
        > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Arthur Jones wrote to me yesterday to tell me that his mother
        > passed
        > > away peacefully the previous night, aged nearly 90. He also sent
        > me
        > > this poem which he wrote for her, with a request that I turn it
        > into
        > > Gothic. Whether I've managed to wrangle any of Arthur's inspired
        > > wordplay into my favourite extinct language, I don't know; but
        > here's
        > > my clumsy attempt for what it's worth, followed by the original in
        > all
        > > its eloquence.
        > >
        > > Araaiþei aflaiþ.
        > > Uz-u-staig afþliugandei,
        > > þau ga-u-dauf, weggins falþanans,
        > > hairto swaibjandei,
        > > ni mag witan.
        > > Iþ þata ik sahv:
        > > faurþizei usliþi, si
        > > in hrigga gawandida sik, jah insahv aftra, jah smarkoda;
        > > jah þamma minnizo ni muna taujan.
        > >
        > > The eagle-mother is gone.
        > > Whether she soared away,
        > > Or folded wings in plunge
        > > heart-stopping,
        > > I cannot know.
        > > But this I saw:
        > > Before she left, she
        > > Gyred, and turned, and smiled;
        > > And I shall not do less.
        > >
        > > Notes: the reconstructed words are all based on Old English roots,
        > > except for *swaibjan, a causative for 'sweiban', and *weggs,
        > mi "wing"
        > > (=ON vængr).
        > >
        >
      • ualarauans
        ... Hails Llama Nom! I m sorry I haven t read Wright (yet), and my first (probably wrong) impression of the examples you cite is that the accusative here is
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Hails Walhahrabn!

          Hails Llama Nom!

          I'm sorry I haven't read Wright (yet), and my first (probably wrong)
          impression of the examples you cite is that the accusative here is
          but a usual rection of the verbs involved, i.e. standaith nu
          ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans... is literally "stand therefore
          [having] girt your loins (regular accusative of the direct object of
          the verb ufgairdan - ?); gabundans handuns jah fotuns – "[having
          his] hands and feet bound (???). Could it be something like that?
          This active-passive confusion (ufgaurdanai is literally rather "you
          who have been girt" and would then demand some prepositional object
          (?) - *bi hupins izwaros "around your loins") is perhaps to be
          considered together with the usage of passive in active meaning like
          those examples cited in Braune/Helm 1952: 90 ufkunnanda (Joh.
          13,15), ustiuhada (2 Cor. 7,10), waurkjada (2 Cor. 4,17) (the
          authors explain them as Wulfila's personal misinterpretation of the
          Greek text). Maybe it all is rather due to an underdeveloped state
          of language apparatus to express complex grammatical relations? Or
          we face a somewhat clumsy attempt to keep as close as possible to
          the original? It reads perizo:samenoi te:n osphyn hymo:n en
          ale:theia kai endysamenoi ton tho:raka te:s dykaiosyne:s and perhaps
          there was no better option than to render the Greek passive forms
          with Gothic participles inertially preserving the accusative of the
          object?
          Another thought (to stay within Gothic) is that this accusative
          might be explainable as a way to somehow discriminate oblique case-
          forms as the direct object in the examples is followed by an
          indirect: standaith nu, ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans sunjai jag-
          gapaidodai brunjon garaihteins (in the second clause we certainly
          miss something like *gapaidodai leika izwara (Acc.) brunjon) Eph.
          6,14; but Eph. 6,15 jag-gaskohai fotum in manwithai aiwaggeljons
          gawairthjis – why not *fotuns? Cause gaskohai is not a verbal
          participle passive? Or because there's no another preposition-less
          instrumental object that had to be dative? Greek is hypode:samenoi
          tous podas (Acc.!). Joh. 11,44 is still more interesting: gabundans
          handuns jah fotuns faskjam, (seemingly fits the above-said) jah
          wlits is auralja bibundans (it's nominative!). It makes sense in
          Greek (dedemenos tous podas kai tas cheiras keiriais kai he: ophis
          autou soudario: periededeto), but the Gothic here suffers from
          lacking copulas, right? Maybe the mere problem is that Gothic has no
          synthetic preterite passive?

          > > ni muna taujan – ni man taujan? Or perhaps optative *ni munjau?

          > 'muna' is here 1st pers. sg. indicative of 'munan', of the 3rd weak
          > conjugation, expressing an intention for the future: I will do / I
          > mean to do (rather than the preterite-present 'munan' "to
          think/believe").

          Shame to confess but I simply didn't know there's a weak verb munan,
          so my previous remark is of course invalid.

          > What do you think to *weggs, mi, for "wing"? The Modern English
          word
          > comes from Scandinavian; earlier, the ancestor of "feather" was
          used
          > for "wing" too. As an alternative, I wondered about a cognate of
          > German Flügel, Go. *þlugils, ma? Or a weak noun perhaps (-ila, -
          ilo)?

          What is the etymology of the ON vaengr I wonder? Maybe the "wing"
          semantics are not original? *Thlugils seems to be more transparent
          if we agree about having *thliugan for "to fly" (or *fliugan, but
          psst! not to provoke thl-/fl- fight again :) But if a -ils formation
          from a verb stands for "means to do it", what would be "airplane"?
          Or UFO? Could either of them be smth like *thlaugs M. –a/-i ?
          And "flight" – is it *thlauhts F. –i ? I was recently thinking of a
          word for "key", could it be *lukils M. –a (ON lykill)? (maybe I saw
          it somewhere).

          > First, sorry to bring this all up again, but I'd just like to say
          that
          > I hope you've accepted Vladimir's appology in the spirit it was
          > offered. I can appreciate that you were frustrated by the debate
          and
          > upset by comments which might have seemed to excuse Wernher von
          > Braun's work for the Nazis. But nothing I've read on this message
          > board suggests to me that Vladimir intended any offence, still
          less to
          > condone the attrocities with which von Braun was involved. I think
          > your comments of May 24 were unfair.

          Of course, I am deeply sorry for having afflicted other members with
          all that naz-ty arguing. Such misunderstandings (if this was really
          the case) should be dealt with, if not at all, in a private manner.

          Ualarauans

          > Please excuse my meddling, if this has already been sorted out...
        • llama_nom
          Hails Walhahrabn! gaskokai fotum is especially interesting because it differs from the accusative of the Greek: TOUS PODAS. Sturtevant (1938) compared this
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hails Walhahrabn!

            'gaskokai fotum' is especially interesting because it differs from the
            accusative of the Greek: TOUS PODAS. Sturtevant (1938) compared this
            with other Germanic examples of a "dative of respect", ON blindr augum
            "blind in the eyes"; fríðr sýnum "fair to look at"; OE giddum fród
            "wise concerning songs". But he also argued that 'bundans handuns jah
            fotuns' was a native Germanic construction and not just an imitation
            of Greek; he calls it an "accusative of manner" and cites ON Egill var
            bundinn við staf ein, bæði hendr ok foetr (Sturtevant 1948). This
            isn't decisive evidence, as 'hendr' and 'foetr' each have the same
            form as the nominative here, and were so regarded by Nygaard (1906
            para. 74, fn. 4).

            Your suggestion that an unstated verb 'habands' might lie behind such
            constructions with the accusative could explain: gawasiþs taglam
            ulbandaus jah gairda filleina bi hup seinana (Mk 1:6), also acc. in
            Greek ZWNHN.

            Your suggestion that an unstated preposition might lie behind them is
            interesting in the light of: eisarnam bi fotuns gabuganaim = PEDAIS
            "with fetters" (Mk 5:4) = fotubandjom (L 8:29).

            Streitberg (para. 244) saw 'wlits is auralja bibundans' as a
            nominative absolute. So did Gering, who pointed out the parallel of
            OHG: gibuntan hanton inti fuozin mit strengin inti sin annuzi mit
            sweizduohu gibuntan (Tatian 135:26). According to Lücke there are no
            other examples of 'was' missing from the passive like this, and
            several scholars have suggested that 'was' was simply left out by
            accident by the scribe: Massmann, Schulze, Köhler, H Rückert (and
            maybe Grimm, who also considered the nominative absolute possible).
            This would accord with the usual Gothic practice, as well as the Latin
            translations of PERIEDEDETO: facies...erat ligatus (Vulgate);
            vultus...erat objunctus (Codex Bezae). Metlen too suggested a scribal
            error; he thought that "the Gothic writer, with the appositive
            gabundans still in mind, unwittingly construed also 'bibundans' the
            same way" (Metlen 1938).

            On the other hand, there are examples where Gothic immitates Greek in
            elliding the copular, e.g. þata andwairþo hveilahvairb (2Cor 4:17);
            witoþ weihata jah anabusns weiha... (Rom 7:12). Though uncommon in
            Germanic, it's not completely unknown, cf. Hymiskviða (Old Norse): ok
            sumblsamir "and [they were] desirous of ale" (st. 1); óteir jötunn
            "the giant [was] not happy" (st. 25), [
            http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/hymir/hymis.html ].

            Another Old Norse example which might be relevant here: hann átti tvá
            sonu...vænir menn "he had two sons [accusative]...fine looking men
            [nominative]." Sturtevant (1948) calls this anacoluthon.

            I'm not aware of any cognates to ON 'vængr', but thinking about it
            now, it occurs to me that this might actually be a contraction of some
            root with the ending -ingr. Could it be connected with the Gothic
            verb 'waian' "to blow"? Go. *wai(j)iggs, Proto-Norse *wa:ing-? The
            only complication there is that the ON word is an i-stem, but maybe
            that was a later development inspired by the mutated vowel. Regarding
            alternative, þlugil- / flugil-, a masculine a-stem would match the
            German word, but my speculations about a weak ending were triggered by
            personal names in -ila corresponding to *-ilaz in other Germanic
            languages, e.g. Agila = ON Egill.

            Llama Nom


            Sturtevant (1932) 'Gothic notes', The American Journal of Philology
            53:1, 53-60.
            Sturtevant (1948) 'Old Norse syntactical notes', PMLA 63:2, 712-717.
            Metlen (1938) 'Absolute constuctions in the Gothic bible', PMLA 53:3,
            631-644.
            Nygaard (1906) Norrøn syntax.






            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > Hails Walhahrabn!
            >
            > Hails Llama Nom!
            >
            > I'm sorry I haven't read Wright (yet), and my first (probably wrong)
            > impression of the examples you cite is that the accusative here is
            > but a usual rection of the verbs involved, i.e. standaith nu
            > ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans... is literally "stand therefore
            > [having] girt your loins (regular accusative of the direct object of
            > the verb ufgairdan - ?); gabundans handuns jah fotuns – "[having
            > his] hands and feet bound (???). Could it be something like that?
            > This active-passive confusion (ufgaurdanai is literally rather "you
            > who have been girt" and would then demand some prepositional object
            > (?) - *bi hupins izwaros "around your loins") is perhaps to be
            > considered together with the usage of passive in active meaning like
            > those examples cited in Braune/Helm 1952: 90 ufkunnanda (Joh.
            > 13,15), ustiuhada (2 Cor. 7,10), waurkjada (2 Cor. 4,17) (the
            > authors explain them as Wulfila's personal misinterpretation of the
            > Greek text). Maybe it all is rather due to an underdeveloped state
            > of language apparatus to express complex grammatical relations? Or
            > we face a somewhat clumsy attempt to keep as close as possible to
            > the original? It reads perizo:samenoi te:n osphyn hymo:n en
            > ale:theia kai endysamenoi ton tho:raka te:s dykaiosyne:s and perhaps
            > there was no better option than to render the Greek passive forms
            > with Gothic participles inertially preserving the accusative of the
            > object?
            > Another thought (to stay within Gothic) is that this accusative
            > might be explainable as a way to somehow discriminate oblique case-
            > forms as the direct object in the examples is followed by an
            > indirect: standaith nu, ufgaurdanai hupins izwarans sunjai jag-
            > gapaidodai brunjon garaihteins (in the second clause we certainly
            > miss something like *gapaidodai leika izwara (Acc.) brunjon) Eph.
            > 6,14; but Eph. 6,15 jag-gaskohai fotum in manwithai aiwaggeljons
            > gawairthjis – why not *fotuns? Cause gaskohai is not a verbal
            > participle passive? Or because there's no another preposition-less
            > instrumental object that had to be dative? Greek is hypode:samenoi
            > tous podas (Acc.!). Joh. 11,44 is still more interesting: gabundans
            > handuns jah fotuns faskjam, (seemingly fits the above-said) jah
            > wlits is auralja bibundans (it's nominative!). It makes sense in
            > Greek (dedemenos tous podas kai tas cheiras keiriais kai he: ophis
            > autou soudario: periededeto), but the Gothic here suffers from
            > lacking copulas, right? Maybe the mere problem is that Gothic has no
            > synthetic preterite passive?
            >
            > > > ni muna taujan – ni man taujan? Or perhaps optative *ni munjau?
            >
            > > 'muna' is here 1st pers. sg. indicative of 'munan', of the 3rd weak
            > > conjugation, expressing an intention for the future: I will do / I
            > > mean to do (rather than the preterite-present 'munan' "to
            > think/believe").
            >
            > Shame to confess but I simply didn't know there's a weak verb munan,
            > so my previous remark is of course invalid.
            >
            > > What do you think to *weggs, mi, for "wing"? The Modern English
            > word
            > > comes from Scandinavian; earlier, the ancestor of "feather" was
            > used
            > > for "wing" too. As an alternative, I wondered about a cognate of
            > > German Flügel, Go. *þlugils, ma? Or a weak noun perhaps (-ila, -
            > ilo)?
            >
            > What is the etymology of the ON vaengr I wonder? Maybe the "wing"
            > semantics are not original? *Thlugils seems to be more transparent
            > if we agree about having *thliugan for "to fly" (or *fliugan, but
            > psst! not to provoke thl-/fl- fight again :) But if a -ils formation
            > from a verb stands for "means to do it", what would be "airplane"?
            > Or UFO? Could either of them be smth like *thlaugs M. –a/-i ?
            > And "flight" – is it *thlauhts F. –i ? I was recently thinking of a
            > word for "key", could it be *lukils M. –a (ON lykill)? (maybe I saw
            > it somewhere).
          • ualarauans
            Hails Llama Nom! Thanks for a thorough comment! While thinking on it may I ask if the following constructions could be possible, in your opinion, in Gothic:
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 16, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hails Llama Nom!

              Thanks for a thorough comment! While thinking on it may I ask if the
              following constructions could be possible, in your opinion, in
              Gothic: blinds augam (< ON), but ga-blindiths augona [seina] (Acc.)
              gazda (Dat. Instr.) – "one whose eyes have been stung out with a
              barb" (as some archaic punishment)? The same about daufs ausam /
              gadaubiths ausona; dumbs tuggon (Dat.) / *gadumbiths tuggon seina -
              ? I mean could they be possible in "Gothic" Gothic and not as a
              calque from the Vorlage? Maybe it's a kind of a rule that you have
              dative after a simple adjective and accusative after a participle
              passive? Is the adjacent instrumental object of any effect for the
              choice of cases (e.g. gadumbiths tuggon seinai (Dat.), but
              gadumbiths tuggon seina (Acc.) hairau (Dat. Instr.)) - ?
              That OHG parallel (Tatian 135:26 gibuntan hanton inti fuozin mit
              strengin inti sin annuzi mit sweizduohu gibuntan) you adduce – could
              it be a translation from Gothic (it looks so similar). Did someone
              find evidence that the Wulfilan Bible was also being used outside
              the Gothic realms and influenced somehow other early Germanic
              versions? Hanton inti fuozin – is it not dative?

              > I'm not aware of any cognates to ON 'vængr', but thinking about it
              > now, it occurs to me that this might actually be a contraction of
              some
              > root with the ending -ingr. Could it be connected with the Gothic
              > verb 'waian' "to blow"? Go. *wai(j)iggs, Proto-Norse *wa:ing-?
              The
              > only complication there is that the ON word is an i-stem, but maybe
              > that was a later development inspired by the mutated vowel.

              It looks very probable. Could this derivation have arisen from the
              myth in Vafþrúðnismál 37:
              "Hræsvelgr heitir,
              er sitr á himins enda,
              jötunn í arnar ham;
              af hans vængjum
              kvæða vind koma
              alla menn yfir"
              where vængir are literally "things that produce winds", "blowers",
              so *waijiggos would be quite to the point.

              Ualarauans


              --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hails Walhahrabn!
              >
              > 'gaskokai fotum' is especially interesting because it differs from
              the
              > accusative of the Greek: TOUS PODAS. Sturtevant (1938) compared
              this
              > with other Germanic examples of a "dative of respect", ON blindr
              augum
              > "blind in the eyes"; fríðr sýnum "fair to look at"; OE giddum fród
              > "wise concerning songs". But he also argued that 'bundans handuns
              jah
              > fotuns' was a native Germanic construction and not just an
              imitation
              > of Greek; he calls it an "accusative of manner" and cites ON Egill
              var
              > bundinn við staf ein, bæði hendr ok foetr (Sturtevant 1948). This
              > isn't decisive evidence, as 'hendr' and 'foetr' each have the same
              > form as the nominative here, and were so regarded by Nygaard (1906
              > para. 74, fn. 4).
              >
              > Your suggestion that an unstated verb 'habands' might lie behind
              such
              > constructions with the accusative could explain: gawasiþs taglam
              > ulbandaus jah gairda filleina bi hup seinana (Mk 1:6), also acc. in
              > Greek ZWNHN.
              >
              > Your suggestion that an unstated preposition might lie behind them
              is
              > interesting in the light of: eisarnam bi fotuns gabuganaim = PEDAIS
              > "with fetters" (Mk 5:4) = fotubandjom (L 8:29).
              >
              > Streitberg (para. 244) saw 'wlits is auralja bibundans' as a
              > nominative absolute. So did Gering, who pointed out the parallel
              of
              > OHG: gibuntan hanton inti fuozin mit strengin inti sin annuzi mit
              > sweizduohu gibuntan (Tatian 135:26). According to Lücke there are
              no
              > other examples of 'was' missing from the passive like this, and
              > several scholars have suggested that 'was' was simply left out by
              > accident by the scribe: Massmann, Schulze, Köhler, H Rückert (and
              > maybe Grimm, who also considered the nominative absolute
              possible).
              > This would accord with the usual Gothic practice, as well as the
              Latin
              > translations of PERIEDEDETO: facies...erat ligatus (Vulgate);
              > vultus...erat objunctus (Codex Bezae). Metlen too suggested a
              scribal
              > error; he thought that "the Gothic writer, with the appositive
              > gabundans still in mind, unwittingly construed also 'bibundans' the
              > same way" (Metlen 1938).
              >
              > On the other hand, there are examples where Gothic immitates Greek
              in
              > elliding the copular, e.g. þata andwairþo hveilahvairb (2Cor 4:17);
              > witoþ weihata jah anabusns weiha... (Rom 7:12). Though uncommon in
              > Germanic, it's not completely unknown, cf. Hymiskviða (Old Norse):
              ok
              > sumblsamir "and [they were] desirous of ale" (st. 1); óteir jötunn
              > "the giant [was] not happy" (st. 25), [
              > http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/hymir/hymis.html ].
              >
              > Another Old Norse example which might be relevant here: hann átti
              tvá
              > sonu...vænir menn "he had two sons [accusative]...fine looking men
              > [nominative]." Sturtevant (1948) calls this anacoluthon.
              >
              > I'm not aware of any cognates to ON 'vængr', but thinking about it
              > now, it occurs to me that this might actually be a contraction of
              some
              > root with the ending -ingr. Could it be connected with the Gothic
              > verb 'waian' "to blow"? Go. *wai(j)iggs, Proto-Norse *wa:ing-?
              The
              > only complication there is that the ON word is an i-stem, but maybe
              > that was a later development inspired by the mutated vowel.
              Regarding
              > alternative, þlugil- / flugil-, a masculine a-stem would match the
              > German word, but my speculations about a weak ending were
              triggered by
              > personal names in -ila corresponding to *-ilaz in other Germanic
              > languages, e.g. Agila = ON Egill.
              >
              > Llama Nom
              >
              >
              > Sturtevant (1932) 'Gothic notes', The American Journal of Philology
              > 53:1, 53-60.
              > Sturtevant (1948) 'Old Norse syntactical notes', PMLA 63:2, 712-
              717.
              > Metlen (1938) 'Absolute constuctions in the Gothic bible', PMLA
              53:3,
              > 631-644.
              > Nygaard (1906) Norrøn syntax.
            • llama_nom
              Hails Walhahrabn! Ah yes, I think I had that quote from Vafþrúðnismál in the back of my mind when I suggested that etymology. And if I d just looked on
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 16, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hails Walhahrabn!

                Ah yes, I think I had that quote from Vafþrúðnismál in the back of my
                mind when I suggested that etymology. And if I'd just looked on
                Google, I'd have seen that the Online Etymological Dictionary has the
                same idea [ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wing ]. But
                delving further, Cleasby & Vigfússon have a different and maybe even
                more convincing explanation, that it's related to the ON verb 'vega'
                "strike, fight, slay; weigh, lift" (cf. Go. -wagjan, from *wigan).
                Noreen in his Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik [
                http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/aa_texts.html ] mentions
                'vængr' among the i-stems, as it's usually declined, but also says
                that some very early manuscripts have ja-stem endings in the nom. and
                acc. plural (which is presumably why the Online Etymological
                Dictionary reconstructs it in that way). But he also says (para. 379,
                note 4) that an a-stem style dat.pl. 'vængum' appears twice in the
                Hómilíubók, besides 'vængjum', which (to paraphrase him slighlty) "can
                probably be explained by supposing that 'vængr' derives from *væingr,
                and thus belonged originally to the a-stem declension."

                In which case, if Cleasby & Vigfússon are right, that would give us
                Proto-Norse *wa:hingaz = Go. *wehiggs. Too bad Hellquist's 'Svensk
                etymologisk ordbok' is offline at the moment due to technical
                difficulties [ http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/svetym/ ]. It will
                be interesting to see what that has to say on the matter. If anyone
                had access to that or more up-to-date Scandinavian etymological
                dictionaries, feel free to chip in... Incidentally, in answer to my
                ponderings, the Oxford English Dictionary has early Middle English
                quotes with both 'e' and 'i' as the root vowel (c. 1200), so maybe the
                shortening and raising happened independently in English and East
                Norse. Anyway, we now have the following wing words:

                *wehiggs, ma. (or possibly *wai(j)iggs, ma.)
                *þlugil-, -a, -o, -s?
                *fiþraks, ma.
                *fiþrahama, man. (or possibly -hams, ma.)

                You're right, 'hanton inti fuozin' is dative. I think other list
                members may know more about this than me, but there is evidence for a
                Gothic mission to southern Germany in the form of early loanwords or
                loan translations relating to Christianity; the southern dialects
                agree with Gothic in their choice of Christian terms sometimes where
                the northern dialects follow Old English practice. There's also the
                find of the Giessen Codex in Egypt, a fragment of the Gothic Bible,
                perhaps produced or used in the Vandal kingdom in Africa.

                I'm still thinking about this choice of dative or accusative "of
                closer reference", so I don't want to make any definite pronouncement
                yet! It would be nice to find some more Old Norse examples like
                'Egill var bundinn við staf ein, bæði hendr ok foetr', except with
                words where it's possible to distinguish between accusative and
                nominative. I haven't been able to find this example discussed in
                Faarlund's more recent Old Norse Syntax, so I don't know if he would
                agree with Sturtevant's interpretation or Nygaard's. In Old Norse
                there is a sort of adverbial accusative used to express extent of
                time, distance, directions, quantity, measure, weight, degree or
                extent (which might relate to Egil's predicament, since being bound
                "hand and foot" is the extent to which he is bound), also points in
                time, circumstance, manner: þeir sigla norðr um Sognsæ, byr góðan ok
                bjart veðr "they sail north of Sognsæ with a good wind and in clear
                weather." Faarlund makes an interesting point about such accusatives:
                "The accusative used in adjuncts is always the lexical accusative.
                This means that it never changes to the nominative in the passive"
                (Old Norse Syntax, para. 8.5.1., p. 170).

                fór annan veg
                nú er annan veg til farit

                Which might suggest that 'hendr ok foetr' in the quote above are
                accusative, as Sturtevant thought, in which case 'handuns jah fotuns'
                needn't be an imitation of Greek. But with so little data, it's hard
                to know whether there was a rule that accusative would always be used
                with a participle, and dative with other adjectives. Or where a
                preposition would be preferable. Or if it was a free choice.

                > Is the adjacent instrumental object of any effect for the
                > choice of cases

                Well, it could make a sentence clearer if the accusative is used in
                contrast to the instrumental dative. Not that human languages always
                choose the most logical option...

                Llama Nom







                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hails Llama Nom!
                >
                > Thanks for a thorough comment! While thinking on it may I ask if the
                > following constructions could be possible, in your opinion, in
                > Gothic: blinds augam (< ON), but ga-blindiths augona [seina] (Acc.)
                > gazda (Dat. Instr.) – "one whose eyes have been stung out with a
                > barb" (as some archaic punishment)? The same about daufs ausam /
                > gadaubiths ausona; dumbs tuggon (Dat.) / *gadumbiths tuggon seina -
                > ? I mean could they be possible in "Gothic" Gothic and not as a
                > calque from the Vorlage? Maybe it's a kind of a rule that you have
                > dative after a simple adjective and accusative after a participle
                > passive? Is the adjacent instrumental object of any effect for the
                > choice of cases (e.g. gadumbiths tuggon seinai (Dat.), but
                > gadumbiths tuggon seina (Acc.) hairau (Dat. Instr.)) - ?
                > That OHG parallel (Tatian 135:26 gibuntan hanton inti fuozin mit
                > strengin inti sin annuzi mit sweizduohu gibuntan) you adduce – could
                > it be a translation from Gothic (it looks so similar). Did someone
                > find evidence that the Wulfilan Bible was also being used outside
                > the Gothic realms and influenced somehow other early Germanic
                > versions? Hanton inti fuozin – is it not dative?
                >
                > > I'm not aware of any cognates to ON 'vængr', but thinking about it
                > > now, it occurs to me that this might actually be a contraction of
                > some
                > > root with the ending -ingr. Could it be connected with the Gothic
                > > verb 'waian' "to blow"? Go. *wai(j)iggs, Proto-Norse *wa:ing-?
                > The
                > > only complication there is that the ON word is an i-stem, but maybe
                > > that was a later development inspired by the mutated vowel.
                >
                > It looks very probable. Could this derivation have arisen from the
                > myth in Vafþrúðnismál 37:
                > "Hræsvelgr heitir,
                > er sitr á himins enda,
                > jötunn í arnar ham;
                > af hans vængjum
                > kvæða vind koma
                > alla menn yfir"
                > where vængir are literally "things that produce winds", "blowers",
                > so *waijiggos would be quite to the point.
                >
                > Ualarauans
                >
                >
                > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Hails Walhahrabn!
                > >
                > > 'gaskokai fotum' is especially interesting because it differs from
                > the
                > > accusative of the Greek: TOUS PODAS. Sturtevant (1938) compared
                > this
                > > with other Germanic examples of a "dative of respect", ON blindr
                > augum
                > > "blind in the eyes"; fríðr sýnum "fair to look at"; OE giddum fród
                > > "wise concerning songs". But he also argued that 'bundans handuns
                > jah
                > > fotuns' was a native Germanic construction and not just an
                > imitation
                > > of Greek; he calls it an "accusative of manner" and cites ON Egill
                > var
                > > bundinn við staf ein, bæði hendr ok foetr (Sturtevant 1948). This
                > > isn't decisive evidence, as 'hendr' and 'foetr' each have the same
                > > form as the nominative here, and were so regarded by Nygaard (1906
                > > para. 74, fn. 4).
                > >
                > > Your suggestion that an unstated verb 'habands' might lie behind
                > such
                > > constructions with the accusative could explain: gawasiþs taglam
                > > ulbandaus jah gairda filleina bi hup seinana (Mk 1:6), also acc. in
                > > Greek ZWNHN.
                > >
                > > Your suggestion that an unstated preposition might lie behind them
                > is
                > > interesting in the light of: eisarnam bi fotuns gabuganaim = PEDAIS
                > > "with fetters" (Mk 5:4) = fotubandjom (L 8:29).
                > >
                > > Streitberg (para. 244) saw 'wlits is auralja bibundans' as a
                > > nominative absolute. So did Gering, who pointed out the parallel
                > of
                > > OHG: gibuntan hanton inti fuozin mit strengin inti sin annuzi mit
                > > sweizduohu gibuntan (Tatian 135:26). According to Lücke there are
                > no
                > > other examples of 'was' missing from the passive like this, and
                > > several scholars have suggested that 'was' was simply left out by
                > > accident by the scribe: Massmann, Schulze, Köhler, H Rückert (and
                > > maybe Grimm, who also considered the nominative absolute
                > possible).
                > > This would accord with the usual Gothic practice, as well as the
                > Latin
                > > translations of PERIEDEDETO: facies...erat ligatus (Vulgate);
                > > vultus...erat objunctus (Codex Bezae). Metlen too suggested a
                > scribal
                > > error; he thought that "the Gothic writer, with the appositive
                > > gabundans still in mind, unwittingly construed also 'bibundans' the
                > > same way" (Metlen 1938).
                > >
                > > On the other hand, there are examples where Gothic immitates Greek
                > in
                > > elliding the copular, e.g. þata andwairþo hveilahvairb (2Cor 4:17);
                > > witoþ weihata jah anabusns weiha... (Rom 7:12). Though uncommon in
                > > Germanic, it's not completely unknown, cf. Hymiskviða (Old Norse):
                > ok
                > > sumblsamir "and [they were] desirous of ale" (st. 1); óteir jötunn
                > > "the giant [was] not happy" (st. 25), [
                > > http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/hymir/hymis.html ].
                > >
                > > Another Old Norse example which might be relevant here: hann átti
                > tvá
                > > sonu...vænir menn "he had two sons [accusative]...fine looking men
                > > [nominative]." Sturtevant (1948) calls this anacoluthon.
                > >
                > > I'm not aware of any cognates to ON 'vængr', but thinking about it
                > > now, it occurs to me that this might actually be a contraction of
                > some
                > > root with the ending -ingr. Could it be connected with the Gothic
                > > verb 'waian' "to blow"? Go. *wai(j)iggs, Proto-Norse *wa:ing-?
                > The
                > > only complication there is that the ON word is an i-stem, but maybe
                > > that was a later development inspired by the mutated vowel.
                > Regarding
                > > alternative, þlugil- / flugil-, a masculine a-stem would match the
                > > German word, but my speculations about a weak ending were
                > triggered by
                > > personal names in -ila corresponding to *-ilaz in other Germanic
                > > languages, e.g. Agila = ON Egill.
                > >
                > > Llama Nom
                > >
                > >
                > > Sturtevant (1932) 'Gothic notes', The American Journal of Philology
                > > 53:1, 53-60.
                > > Sturtevant (1948) 'Old Norse syntactical notes', PMLA 63:2, 712-
                > 717.
                > > Metlen (1938) 'Absolute constuctions in the Gothic bible', PMLA
                > 53:3,
                > > 631-644.
                > > Nygaard (1906) Norrøn syntax.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.