Thanks for pointing that out, Gerry. I'd forgotten Wright's note. So
if 'þuk taujandan' is the object of 'witi', are we to read interpret
'hva taujiþ taihswo þeina' as being in apposition to 'þuk taujandan
iþ þuk taujandan armaion ni witi hleidumei þeina hva taujiþ taihswo þeina
"But let not your left hand know about your acts of charity, what your
right hand does."
On the question of Latin influence generally, I'd be interested to
hear any opinions about Marchand's view: "If one restricts oneself to
the Greek and Latin manuscripts of the bible as Streitberg has done in
effect, it is natural that one will suspect a great deal of Latin
influence on the Gothic bible, since the majority of Latin manuscripts
are Western, the majority of the Greek uncial manuscripts non-Western.
The appearance of the same readings in the Gothic, Syriac, Armenian
and Old Church Slavic makes Streitberg's assumption of Latin influence
unnecessary and unlikely." (Marchand 1957, Review of "Mossé: Manuel de
la langue gotique: Grammaire, textes, notes, glossaire", Language
33:2, p. 234).
Could 'þuk taujandan' have had a Greek model after all, * se de
poiounta (rather than Streitberg's 'sou de poiountos')? Or is that
out of the question?
--- In email@example.com, Grsartor@... wrote:
> Hailai allai,
> I have followed the contributions under the headings "araaiþei
> "gafilhsaggws" and, as often, been full of admiration for the
> evince. There is one small contribution I may be able to make to all
this. It is
> about the absolute construction in Gothic. In his writing on 14.6.06
> mentions the accusative absolute as found in
> þuk taujandan armaion [ni witi hleidumei þeina hwa taujiþ taihswo
> (Matt. 6:3)
> Wright has an interesting remark about this on page 292 of his
Grammar of the
> Gothic Language. He states that it is not, in fact, an absolute
> but that "þuk" is the object of "witi", and two Latin manuscripts of
> Gospels have the same construction, using "te facientem" for "þuk
> implication is that the Gothic has followed the Latin rather than
> absolute of the Greek. William Bennett, on page 94 of his
Introduction to the
> Gothic Language, admits as possible both Wright's view and that the
> construction in question may be an accusative absolute.
> I myself am happier thinking the construction is an accusative
> since I am not sure I can make proper sense of the Gothic on
Wright's view; but my
> inability to understand is not an argument.
> Gerry T.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]