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

Re: Araaiþei aflaiþ

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006
      --- 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 2 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006
        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 3 of 8 , Jun 16, 2006
          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 4 of 8 , Jun 16, 2006
            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.