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

u-stem, wa-stem, adjectives

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct hypothetical Gothic cognates for English sallow and fallow ? Pure u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 27, 2007
      Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
      hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'? Pure
      u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems: *salws? Or
      u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the stem:
      *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the surviving
      wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV (lasiws) --
      or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus, *qius,
      *unskaus)?

      LN
    • llama_nom
      I m very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 27, 2007
        I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...


        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
        > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'? Pure
        > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems: *salws? Or
        > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the stem:
        > *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the surviving
        > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV (lasiws) --
        > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus, *qius,
        > *unskaus)?
        >
        > LN
        >
      • thiudans
        Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-... Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has *skaduz, *skadwaz. He has for
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 27, 2007
          Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...

          Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has *skaduz,
          *skadwaz. He has for skaus *skawaz, for few *fauhaz or *fahwaz; but
          *manwuz is a (w)u-stem. There is gothic farwa- (ns. farus?)
          appearance, appearing in Orel as *farhwo'. Of course, Gothic *badus
          has only common Gmc. precursor *badwo'. Also there is

          *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
          *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz

          Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine nominative?



          I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
          cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".



          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
          >
          >
          > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
          > > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'? Pure
          > > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems: *salws? Or
          > > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the stem:
          > > *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the surviving
          > > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV (lasiws) --
          > > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus, *qius,
          > > *unskaus)?
          > >
          > > LN
          > >
          >
        • llama_nom
          ... Ah, yes. Thanks for that one. Any relation to *arwjo (Koebler: ohne sichere Etymologie)? I m not sure what the semantics of that would be though: more
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 28, 2007
            > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz

            Ah, yes. Thanks for that one. Any relation to *arwjo (Koebler: ohne
            sichere Etymologie)? I'm not sure what the semantics of that would be
            though: more haste less speed...? Koebler cites the personal names
            Arosinda, Aragunti, Armirus. Medial vowels in Migration Era Germanic
            personal names recorded by Classical authors are notoriously variable.
            Alternatively, could these be from 'ara' "eagle"? How well are these
            attested as naming elements attested in the other Germanic languages,
            I wonder. Incidentally, does anyone know what the loanword (or
            loanwords) is that Gamillscheg's *arþ- "Wohnsitz, Aufenthalt;
            residence, domicile" is based on. All the other Germanic dialects, as
            far as I know, would be in keeping with PG *arduz, with -d-, but then
            we have Go. bloþ, gen. bloþis, so I suppose it's not impossible that
            Gothic was the odd one out here too.

            > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz

            It follows a mixed (w)a/i declension in Gothic, doesn't it? dat. pl.
            'aiwam', acc. pl. 'aiwins'.

            > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...

            Maybe... That's another possibility I hadn't thought of. Although
            such a variation isn't actually attested in the sparse remains of
            Gothic as written, and we have got masc. nom. sg. 'manwus', and no
            examples of such a variation after a consonant. But there seem to be
            some conflicting views out there about, for example, 'manwus'. Is it
            from *manwaz [
            http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/boer043sync01/boer043sync01_001.htm ], or
            *manuz [ http://us.share.geocities.com/iliria1/etymology1.html ]? The
            alternation 'glaggwaba' : 'glaggwuba' suggests a sound change:
            unstressed 'a' > 'u' after 'w'.

            > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine nominative?

            At least we can tell that it hasn't been assimilated to the u-
            (u-/ja-) declension, since there's no -j- intervening before the
            ending. But maybe it's use as exclusively a weak adjective would have
            forestalled the assimilation to the u-stems that others of its
            declension may have undergone. Is a Gothic origin posited for Italian
            'salavo'?

            > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
            > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".

            I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you mean: when in
            doubt, reconstruct etymologically 'correct' or regular forms, rather
            than analogically altered forms, I'd tend to agree except where a
            regular pattern of analogical alteration is attested in the language
            (e.g. the treatment of neuter ez-stems as neuter a-stems: agis, sigis,
            hatis).

            LN


            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
            >
            > Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has *skaduz,
            > *skadwaz. He has for skaus *skawaz, for few *fauhaz or *fahwaz; but
            > *manwuz is a (w)u-stem. There is gothic farwa- (ns. farus?)
            > appearance, appearing in Orel as *farhwo'. Of course, Gothic *badus
            > has only common Gmc. precursor *badwo'. Also there is
            >
            > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
            > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
            >
            > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine nominative?
            >
            >
            >
            > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
            > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
            > > > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'?
            Pure
            > > > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems: *salws? Or
            > > > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the
            stem:
            > > > *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the surviving
            > > > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV
            (lasiws) --
            > > > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus, *qius,
            > > > *unskaus)?
            > > >
            > > > LN
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • llama_nom
            Also, I d be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of thick and murk . I m not at all knowledgeable about PIE, but both have cognates
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 30, 2007
              Also, I'd be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of
              'thick' and 'murk'. I'm not at all knowledgeable about PIE, but both
              have cognates outside of Germanic; are theer any clues there that
              could help to decide the declension? Old English has ja/jo-stems:
              'þicce' and 'mierce', but their Modern English reflexes show no sign
              of palatisation. In the case of the latter, at least, this might be
              due to its being influenced by, or reintroduced by, the Norse cognate:
              'myrkr', masc. ac. sg. 'myrkvan'. Otherwise, the OED speculates that
              the palatisation in English might have been blocked by an intervening
              -w-. I suppose an alternative could be that palatisation failed, if
              it was an old u-stem, and non-palatised forms were generalised from
              those parts of the declension with no following 'i', 'j'. Koebler
              reconstructs Go. *þiqus, on the basis of It. 'attecchire', OFrench
              'tehir', the Germanic word, *þek(k)uz?, being from < PIE *tegu-. So
              I'm wondering which seems better: Go. *mairqeis (as OE mierce, OS
              mirki), or Go. mairqus, given that little remains of the u-stems
              outside of Gothic, and that many of the Gothic u-stems exist as
              ja/jo-stems in OE?

              LN


              --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
              >
              > Ah, yes. Thanks for that one. Any relation to *arwjo (Koebler: ohne
              > sichere Etymologie)? I'm not sure what the semantics of that would be
              > though: more haste less speed...? Koebler cites the personal names
              > Arosinda, Aragunti, Armirus. Medial vowels in Migration Era Germanic
              > personal names recorded by Classical authors are notoriously variable.
              > Alternatively, could these be from 'ara' "eagle"? How well are these
              > attested as naming elements attested in the other Germanic languages,
              > I wonder. Incidentally, does anyone know what the loanword (or
              > loanwords) is that Gamillscheg's *arþ- "Wohnsitz, Aufenthalt;
              > residence, domicile" is based on. All the other Germanic dialects, as
              > far as I know, would be in keeping with PG *arduz, with -d-, but then
              > we have Go. bloþ, gen. bloþis, so I suppose it's not impossible that
              > Gothic was the odd one out here too.
              >
              > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
              >
              > It follows a mixed (w)a/i declension in Gothic, doesn't it? dat. pl.
              > 'aiwam', acc. pl. 'aiwins'.
              >
              > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
              >
              > Maybe... That's another possibility I hadn't thought of. Although
              > such a variation isn't actually attested in the sparse remains of
              > Gothic as written, and we have got masc. nom. sg. 'manwus', and no
              > examples of such a variation after a consonant. But there seem to be
              > some conflicting views out there about, for example, 'manwus'. Is it
              > from *manwaz [
              > http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/boer043sync01/boer043sync01_001.htm ], or
              > *manuz [ http://us.share.geocities.com/iliria1/etymology1.html ]? The
              > alternation 'glaggwaba' : 'glaggwuba' suggests a sound change:
              > unstressed 'a' > 'u' after 'w'.
              >
              > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine nominative?
              >
              > At least we can tell that it hasn't been assimilated to the u-
              > (u-/ja-) declension, since there's no -j- intervening before the
              > ending. But maybe it's use as exclusively a weak adjective would have
              > forestalled the assimilation to the u-stems that others of its
              > declension may have undergone. Is a Gothic origin posited for Italian
              > 'salavo'?
              >
              > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
              > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
              >
              > I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you mean: when in
              > doubt, reconstruct etymologically 'correct' or regular forms, rather
              > than analogically altered forms, I'd tend to agree except where a
              > regular pattern of analogical alteration is attested in the language
              > (e.g. the treatment of neuter ez-stems as neuter a-stems: agis, sigis,
              > hatis).
              >
              > LN
              >
              >
              > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
              > >
              > > Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has *skaduz,
              > > *skadwaz. He has for skaus *skawaz, for few *fauhaz or *fahwaz; but
              > > *manwuz is a (w)u-stem. There is gothic farwa- (ns. farus?)
              > > appearance, appearing in Orel as *farhwo'. Of course, Gothic *badus
              > > has only common Gmc. precursor *badwo'. Also there is
              > >
              > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
              > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
              > >
              > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine nominative?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
              > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
              > > > > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'?
              > Pure
              > > > > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems: *salws? Or
              > > > > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the
              > stem:
              > > > > *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the surviving
              > > > > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV
              > (lasiws) --
              > > > > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus, *qius,
              > > > > *unskaus)?
              > > > >
              > > > > LN
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Ingemar Nordgren
              ... In the case of the latter, at least, this might be ... Hi Llama non! As you well know I am not at all a linguist, but still I dare prefer mairqus since
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 30, 2007
                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > Also, I'd be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of
                > 'thick' and 'murk'. --

                In the case of the latter, at least, this might be
                > due to its being influenced by, or reintroduced by, the Norse cognate:
                > 'myrkr', masc. ac. sg. 'myrkvan'. Otherwise, the OED speculates that
                > the palatisation in English might have been blocked by an intervening
                ---

                > I'm wondering which seems better: Go. *mairqeis (as OE mierce, OS
                > mirki), or Go. mairqus, given that little remains of the u-stems
                > outside of Gothic, and that many of the Gothic u-stems exist as
                > ja/jo-stems in OE?
                >
                > LN
                >

                Hi Llama non!

                As you well know I am not at all a linguist, but still I dare prefer
                'mairqus' since there is often a similarity with
                Nortgermanic/Scandinavian in Gothic like e.g. the lack of definite
                article and also many other likenesses. I know this is controversial
                but still... Also Anglo-Saxon might be influenced by e.g. the Jutes
                and OE is still more influenced later by Scandinavian tounge.
                Westgermanic anyhow should be the language group being most far away
                from Gothic.

                Best
                Ingemar
              • thiudans
                Orel has *þekwuz for thick with related words *þekojanan, *þekwiþo, and perhaps *þunguz, *þumon, *þusjaz and *þus-. That also should point to Go.
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 31, 2007
                  Orel has *þekwuz for thick with related words *þekojanan, *þekwiþo,
                  and perhaps *þunguz, *þumon, *þusjaz and *þus-. That also should point
                  to Go. *þiqus which might be added to synonomize digrs and maybe in
                  related senses *grauts, *stiur(ei)s, *stors, *stuts, *tauhs, *trums,
                  *trius, *þuggs, *frams.

                  He also gives *merk(w)az for murky. The Goths might also have used for
                  this meaning *blaus (?*bleus), *dagqs, *dimms, *dairks, *dusks,
                  *airps, *glums, *kêms, *salus, *swarts, *þimstrs, *þims (*þims-),
                  riqizeins....



                  --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Also, I'd be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of
                  > 'thick' and 'murk'. I'm not at all knowledgeable about PIE, but both
                  > have cognates outside of Germanic; are theer any clues there that
                  > could help to decide the declension? Old English has ja/jo-stems:
                  > 'þicce' and 'mierce', but their Modern English reflexes show no sign
                  > of palatisation. In the case of the latter, at least, this might be
                  > due to its being influenced by, or reintroduced by, the Norse cognate:
                  > 'myrkr', masc. ac. sg. 'myrkvan'. Otherwise, the OED speculates that
                  > the palatisation in English might have been blocked by an intervening
                  > -w-. I suppose an alternative could be that palatisation failed, if
                  > it was an old u-stem, and non-palatised forms were generalised from
                  > those parts of the declension with no following 'i', 'j'. Koebler
                  > reconstructs Go. *þiqus, on the basis of It. 'attecchire', OFrench
                  > 'tehir', the Germanic word, *þek(k)uz?, being from < PIE *tegu-. So
                  > I'm wondering which seems better: Go. *mairqeis (as OE mierce, OS
                  > mirki), or Go. mairqus, given that little remains of the u-stems
                  > outside of Gothic, and that many of the Gothic u-stems exist as
                  > ja/jo-stems in OE?
                  >
                  > LN
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
                  > >
                  > > Ah, yes. Thanks for that one. Any relation to *arwjo (Koebler: ohne
                  > > sichere Etymologie)? I'm not sure what the semantics of that would be
                  > > though: more haste less speed...? Koebler cites the personal names
                  > > Arosinda, Aragunti, Armirus. Medial vowels in Migration Era Germanic
                  > > personal names recorded by Classical authors are notoriously variable.
                  > > Alternatively, could these be from 'ara' "eagle"? How well are these
                  > > attested as naming elements attested in the other Germanic languages,
                  > > I wonder. Incidentally, does anyone know what the loanword (or
                  > > loanwords) is that Gamillscheg's *arþ- "Wohnsitz, Aufenthalt;
                  > > residence, domicile" is based on. All the other Germanic dialects, as
                  > > far as I know, would be in keeping with PG *arduz, with -d-, but then
                  > > we have Go. bloþ, gen. bloþis, so I suppose it's not impossible that
                  > > Gothic was the odd one out here too.
                  > >
                  > > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
                  > >
                  > > It follows a mixed (w)a/i declension in Gothic, doesn't it? dat. pl.
                  > > 'aiwam', acc. pl. 'aiwins'.
                  > >
                  > > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
                  > >
                  > > Maybe... That's another possibility I hadn't thought of. Although
                  > > such a variation isn't actually attested in the sparse remains of
                  > > Gothic as written, and we have got masc. nom. sg. 'manwus', and no
                  > > examples of such a variation after a consonant. But there seem to be
                  > > some conflicting views out there about, for example, 'manwus'. Is it
                  > > from *manwaz [
                  > > http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/boer043sync01/boer043sync01_001.htm ], or
                  > > *manuz [ http://us.share.geocities.com/iliria1/etymology1.html ]? The
                  > > alternation 'glaggwaba' : 'glaggwuba' suggests a sound change:
                  > > unstressed 'a' > 'u' after 'w'.
                  > >
                  > > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine
                  nominative?
                  > >
                  > > At least we can tell that it hasn't been assimilated to the u-
                  > > (u-/ja-) declension, since there's no -j- intervening before the
                  > > ending. But maybe it's use as exclusively a weak adjective would have
                  > > forestalled the assimilation to the u-stems that others of its
                  > > declension may have undergone. Is a Gothic origin posited for Italian
                  > > 'salavo'?
                  > >
                  > > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
                  > > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
                  > >
                  > > I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you mean: when in
                  > > doubt, reconstruct etymologically 'correct' or regular forms, rather
                  > > than analogically altered forms, I'd tend to agree except where a
                  > > regular pattern of analogical alteration is attested in the language
                  > > (e.g. the treatment of neuter ez-stems as neuter a-stems: agis, sigis,
                  > > hatis).
                  > >
                  > > LN
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
                  > > >
                  > > > Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has *skaduz,
                  > > > *skadwaz. He has for skaus *skawaz, for few *fauhaz or *fahwaz; but
                  > > > *manwuz is a (w)u-stem. There is gothic farwa- (ns. farus?)
                  > > > appearance, appearing in Orel as *farhwo'. Of course, Gothic *badus
                  > > > has only common Gmc. precursor *badwo'. Also there is
                  > > >
                  > > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
                  > > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
                  > > >
                  > > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine
                  nominative?
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the information I
                  > > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
                  > > > > > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and 'fallow'?
                  > > Pure
                  > > > > > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems: *salws? Or
                  > > > > > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part of the
                  > > stem:
                  > > > > > *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the surviving
                  > > > > > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV
                  > > (lasiws) --
                  > > > > > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus,
                  *qius,
                  > > > > > *unskaus)?
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > LN
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • llama_nom
                  Aftra þus awiliudo, Þiudan! Some evocative words to play with there. OE bláw , blæ:w(en) and ON blár would be consistent with PGmc. *ble:waz Go.
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 31, 2007
                    Aftra þus awiliudo, Þiudan! Some evocative words to play with there.
                    OE 'bláw', 'blæ:w(en)' and ON 'blár' would be consistent with PGmc.
                    *ble:waz > Go. blews, although the [a] in the Romance loans suggests a
                    WG origin. Would OE 'þíestru' be from another grade of this root
                    *þus-, éo + i-umlaut in West Saxon? *þungs, *þungus, *þungwus? A
                    synonym for 'kaurus'?


                    --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Orel has *þekwuz for thick with related words *þekojanan, *þekwiþo,
                    > and perhaps *þunguz, *þumon, *þusjaz and *þus-. That also should point
                    > to Go. *þiqus which might be added to synonomize digrs and maybe in
                    > related senses *grauts, *stiur(ei)s, *stors, *stuts, *tauhs, *trums,
                    > *trius, *þuggs, *frams.
                    >
                    > He also gives *merk(w)az for murky. The Goths might also have used for
                    > this meaning *blaus (?*bleus), *dagqs, *dimms, *dairks, *dusks,
                    > *airps, *glums, *kêms, *salus, *swarts, *þimstrs, *þims (*þims-),
                    > riqizeins....
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Also, I'd be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of
                    > > 'thick' and 'murk'. I'm not at all knowledgeable about PIE, but both
                    > > have cognates outside of Germanic; are theer any clues there that
                    > > could help to decide the declension? Old English has ja/jo-stems:
                    > > 'þicce' and 'mierce', but their Modern English reflexes show no sign
                    > > of palatisation. In the case of the latter, at least, this might be
                    > > due to its being influenced by, or reintroduced by, the Norse cognate:
                    > > 'myrkr', masc. ac. sg. 'myrkvan'. Otherwise, the OED speculates that
                    > > the palatisation in English might have been blocked by an intervening
                    > > -w-. I suppose an alternative could be that palatisation failed, if
                    > > it was an old u-stem, and non-palatised forms were generalised from
                    > > those parts of the declension with no following 'i', 'j'. Koebler
                    > > reconstructs Go. *þiqus, on the basis of It. 'attecchire', OFrench
                    > > 'tehir', the Germanic word, *þek(k)uz?, being from < PIE *tegu-. So
                    > > I'm wondering which seems better: Go. *mairqeis (as OE mierce, OS
                    > > mirki), or Go. mairqus, given that little remains of the u-stems
                    > > outside of Gothic, and that many of the Gothic u-stems exist as
                    > > ja/jo-stems in OE?
                    > >
                    > > LN
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
                    > > >
                    > > > Ah, yes. Thanks for that one. Any relation to *arwjo (Koebler:
                    ohne
                    > > > sichere Etymologie)? I'm not sure what the semantics of that
                    would be
                    > > > though: more haste less speed...? Koebler cites the personal names
                    > > > Arosinda, Aragunti, Armirus. Medial vowels in Migration Era
                    Germanic
                    > > > personal names recorded by Classical authors are notoriously
                    variable.
                    > > > Alternatively, could these be from 'ara' "eagle"? How well are
                    these
                    > > > attested as naming elements attested in the other Germanic
                    languages,
                    > > > I wonder. Incidentally, does anyone know what the loanword (or
                    > > > loanwords) is that Gamillscheg's *arþ- "Wohnsitz, Aufenthalt;
                    > > > residence, domicile" is based on. All the other Germanic
                    dialects, as
                    > > > far as I know, would be in keeping with PG *arduz, with -d-, but
                    then
                    > > > we have Go. bloþ, gen. bloþis, so I suppose it's not impossible that
                    > > > Gothic was the odd one out here too.
                    > > >
                    > > > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
                    > > >
                    > > > It follows a mixed (w)a/i declension in Gothic, doesn't it?
                    dat. pl.
                    > > > 'aiwam', acc. pl. 'aiwins'.
                    > > >
                    > > > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
                    > > >
                    > > > Maybe... That's another possibility I hadn't thought of. Although
                    > > > such a variation isn't actually attested in the sparse remains of
                    > > > Gothic as written, and we have got masc. nom. sg. 'manwus', and no
                    > > > examples of such a variation after a consonant. But there seem
                    to be
                    > > > some conflicting views out there about, for example, 'manwus'.
                    Is it
                    > > > from *manwaz [
                    > > > http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/boer043sync01/boer043sync01_001.htm ], or
                    > > > *manuz [ http://us.share.geocities.com/iliria1/etymology1.html
                    ]? The
                    > > > alternation 'glaggwaba' : 'glaggwuba' suggests a sound change:
                    > > > unstressed 'a' > 'u' after 'w'.
                    > > >
                    > > > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine
                    > nominative?
                    > > >
                    > > > At least we can tell that it hasn't been assimilated to the u-
                    > > > (u-/ja-) declension, since there's no -j- intervening before the
                    > > > ending. But maybe it's use as exclusively a weak adjective
                    would have
                    > > > forestalled the assimilation to the u-stems that others of its
                    > > > declension may have undergone. Is a Gothic origin posited for
                    Italian
                    > > > 'salavo'?
                    > > >
                    > > > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the
                    information I
                    > > > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
                    > > >
                    > > > I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you mean: when in
                    > > > doubt, reconstruct etymologically 'correct' or regular forms, rather
                    > > > than analogically altered forms, I'd tend to agree except where a
                    > > > regular pattern of analogical alteration is attested in the language
                    > > > (e.g. the treatment of neuter ez-stems as neuter a-stems: agis,
                    sigis,
                    > > > hatis).
                    > > >
                    > > > LN
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Hm. Not sure. Maybe I would do this: salus salwa-, falus falwa-...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Orel has *salwaz and *falwaz in PGmc, but for shadow he has
                    *skaduz,
                    > > > > *skadwaz. He has for skaus *skawaz, for few *fauhaz or
                    *fahwaz; but
                    > > > > *manwuz is a (w)u-stem. There is gothic farwa- (ns. farus?)
                    > > > > appearance, appearing in Orel as *farhwo'. Of course, Gothic
                    *badus
                    > > > > has only common Gmc. precursor *badwo'. Also there is
                    > > > >
                    > > > > *aiws (Mu/i) "age" < Gmc. *aiwaz
                    > > > > *arus (adj. wa) "quick" < Gmc. *arwaz
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Unfortunately we never see *taihswa in a strong masculine
                    > nominative?
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I would lean not toward unetymology because I have the
                    information I
                    > > > > cannot avoid, nor pretend error or "casuality".
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I'm very tentatively leaning towards *salwus, *falwus...
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to reconstruct
                    > > > > > > hypothetical Gothic cognates for English 'sallow' and
                    'fallow'?
                    > > > Pure
                    > > > > > > u-stems: *salus (cp. skadus < *skadwaz)? Wa-stems:
                    *salws? Or
                    > > > > > > u-stems from original wa-stems with -w- retained as part
                    of the
                    > > > stem:
                    > > > > > > *salwus (cp. manwus)? And is it significant that the
                    surviving
                    > > > > > > wa-stem adjectives have long roots -- CVCC (triggws), CVCV
                    > > > (lasiws) --
                    > > > > > > or a monosyllabic root ending in a short vowel: CV (*faus,
                    > *qius,
                    > > > > > > *unskaus)?
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > LN
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • llama_nom
                    ... Hails Iggwimer! Interesting subject this, and one that I certainly don t have all the answers to. The use of the demonstrative as a definite article
                    Message 9 of 9 , Mar 31, 2007
                      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Ingemar Nordgren" <ingemar@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Also, I'd be interested to hear any opinions on potential cognates of
                      > > 'thick' and 'murk'. --
                      >
                      > In the case of the latter, at least, this might be
                      > > due to its being influenced by, or reintroduced by, the Norse cognate:
                      > > 'myrkr', masc. ac. sg. 'myrkvan'. Otherwise, the OED speculates that
                      > > the palatisation in English might have been blocked by an intervening
                      > ---
                      >
                      > > I'm wondering which seems better: Go. *mairqeis (as OE mierce, OS
                      > > mirki), or Go. mairqus, given that little remains of the u-stems
                      > > outside of Gothic, and that many of the Gothic u-stems exist as
                      > > ja/jo-stems in OE?
                      > >
                      > > LN
                      > >
                      >
                      > Hi Llama non!
                      >
                      > As you well know I am not at all a linguist, but still I dare prefer
                      > 'mairqus' since there is often a similarity with
                      > Nortgermanic/Scandinavian in Gothic like e.g. the lack of definite
                      > article and also many other likenesses. I know this is controversial
                      > but still... Also Anglo-Saxon might be influenced by e.g. the Jutes
                      > and OE is still more influenced later by Scandinavian tounge.
                      > Westgermanic anyhow should be the language group being most far away
                      > from Gothic.
                      >
                      > Best
                      > Ingemar
                      >

                      Hails Iggwimer!

                      Interesting subject this, and one that I certainly don't have all the
                      answers to. The use of the demonstrative as a definite article
                      increased as time went by in the various Germanic dialects. From the
                      earliest examples of English and Norse poetry, both traditions look
                      much more like Gothic in this respect than later Old English and Old
                      Norse prose. A while ago I made some diagrams to show one other
                      rather arcane way in which the various Germanic languages are similar
                      / dissimilar, namely the choice of voiced or unvoiced endings in
                      certain verbal inflections [
                      http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/verner.htm ]. In this one respect,
                      Gothic most resembles North Germanic and (Proto) Old High German --
                      and is furthest from English / Frisian. But then there are details
                      such as the 'sharpening' of geminite semivowels: ww > ggw; jj > NG
                      ggj, Go. ddj; and the assignment of gender among the an- / on-stems --
                      where Gothic agrees with North Germanic against West Germanic. And
                      then there are other trends that cut across the boundaries of the
                      traditional three-way division, e.g. within North Germanic, there is
                      the failure of a-umlaut the further east you go, till you get to
                      Gotland where there's none at all but instead a rule about lowering of
                      [u] to [o] before /r/, as in Gothic. And of course, there are lots of
                      details on which North and West Germanic agree, although some of these
                      might be innovations. In particular, there is the close relationship
                      between English and Norse, not all of it due to contact in the Viking
                      Age. And, of course, the drawing up of a family tree of languages has
                      to take into account later contacts between the different groups,
                      which certainly took place between the North Germanic people and their
                      relatives to the south-east...

                      As for the declension of adjectives, WG, and in particular Old English
                      preserves some interesting distinctions that were lost quite early in
                      North Germanic, such as u-stem adjectives as a distinct category.
                      This was presumably once a feature all the Germanic dialects shared.
                      But even in OE, the category is very much reduced, and former u-stems
                      have mostly gone over to the a/o-stems and ja/jo-stems (which is were
                      we find 'mierce'). Often former u-stems fluctuate between these two
                      declensions in OE, but according to Campbell (Old Emglish Grammar)
                      that's not a sure fire way of detecting them. So, suffice to say: you
                      may well be right.

                      LN
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.