Re: 1. Cor. 6:9-10
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael Erwin <merwin@...> wrote:
>Right, it's Leviticus 18:22.
> I've read that arsenokoites is a reference to Leviticus 18 and one
> other chapter.
Hebrew: we'et-zakhar lo tishkav mishkvei isha: to'eva hu.
Septuagint: KAI META ARSENOS OU KOIMHQHSHi KOITHN GUNAIKOS: BDELUGMA
KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
The term ARSENOKOITHS seems to have been intentionally formed from
words of this passage.
> Since we don't have Leviticus, we don't have Wulfila'sI'd suggest the following reconstruction:
> translation of those passages either.
jah miþ gumakundamma ni ligais ligr qinons: andaset auk ist.
The etymological figure ligan ligr (or galigri) may have sounded
foreign. Better ideas?
> However, it's possible that the omission comes from the translationThis is very likely. I remember Procopius made report of
> instead of the Greek source. I suppose that Gothic culture may have
> worked with different categories regarding sex,
homosexuality practised among the Heruls. Or was it just a slander?
> [...]If kalkjo is indeed kalkjo F.-on then the male equivalent could be
> Kalkjo (f) suggests *kalkeis (m) (or phrases such
> as wair-*kalkeis and, to the shame of mankind, magus-*kalkeis) but
> inventions pose several problems.
*kalkja M.-an as well or even likelier. The attested dat. pl.
kalkjom (Luc. 15:30) may also suggest *kalki F.-jo, and in this case
masculine *kalkeis M.-ja is quite regular. I wonder could
kalkinassus have referred rather to women's adultery while the Greek
word to translate (MOICOI) is masculine?
- --- In email@example.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:
>For Old English, I can only find 'bléaþ' (a-stem). If it had been an
> ON blauðr is a-stem while its cognates (OE bleaðe, OS blôthi) are i-
> or ja-stems. What could be the Gothic form?
i/ja-stem, the vowel would be mutated in West Saxon: *blíeþe.
That still leaves the disagreement between OE and ON on the one hand,
and OHG blôdi and OS blôði on the other. Sometimes such variations
may be due to the word having once been a u-stem. The OED suggests
this possibility in the case of OE íeþe : ON auðr : Go. auþj-. But
this isn't a surefire way of predicting the declension in Gothic, cf.
Go. hauns (a-stem? i-stem?) : OE héan : OHG hôni. So, for all we
know, *blauþ- could have been an a-stem, ja-stem or u-stem in Gothic:
?*blauþs, ?*blauþeis, ?*blauþus. (On its own the Old Norse a-stem
carries less weight as evidence than the West German forms, since many
adjectives were reassigned to the a-stem declension there.)