the goths and gothic - clas usersusers.clas.ufl.edu/drjdg/oe/pubs/3_goths.pdfthe goths and gothic 3...

6 _______________________________________________________________________ The Goths and Gothic1 6.1 Brief history

Most of what is known about the Goths is from Jordanes (or Jordanis), a historian who flourished in the middle of the sixth century and wrote in Late Latin. His Getica ‘The Getae/Goths’ (confused in late antiquity), composed in Constantinople c.551, is the only extant work of any antiquity about the early history of the Goths. The massive Historia Gothica ‘Gothic History’ in twelve books by Cassiodorus [c.490–c.583] is lost. Jordanes was asked to summarize that work because he was writing a Roman history and claims to have been of Gothic descent himself. He was born [c.480?] on the lower Danube and served in Moesia (north of Thrace, northern Bulgaria today) as a notarius (secretary) to the otherwise unknown Gothic chief military commander Gunthigis, also called Baza. According to Jordanes, the Goths moved from Scandinavia to Scandza near the mouth of the Vistula,2 then southeast in the second century and split around the Black Sea. The Ostrogoths occupied the area north of the Black Sea and in the Crimea. Visigoths occupied the area west of the Black Sea and the Dniepr, and north of the Danube, in the

1 The comprehensive bibliography (over 2000 entries) by Petersen (2005) covers every aspect of the Goths and Gothic. Another invaluable aid is Snædal’s Gothic concordance (2005).

2 The usual interpretation of Jordanes’ Gothiscandza is *Gutisk andja ‘Gothic end / coast’, possibly Gdansk (CGG 29; Green 1998: 166f.; Rauch 2011: 1). This is based in part on the identification of the Wielbark culture (between the Oder and the Vistula) with the Goths. The reality is that there is no secure evidence for a Scandinavian origin of the Goths (Heather 1996: 25–30) and linguistic parallels between Gothic and Old Norse are inconclusive (CGG 30; Nielsen 1985; 1989: 80-103; 2002a; cf. Scardigli 2002a: 555) in light of the Northwest Germanic innovations and the differences in derivation between Gothic and Northwest Germanic (see chs. 18, 19). With the split of the immigrating East Germanic tribes at the Black Sea, some could have gone north to Scandinavia. So, even if the Wielbark culture was in fact Gothic, nothing specifically dictates that as the/a point of origin as opposed to one of the destinations.

2 The Goths and Gothic

Roman province of Dacia. In 376 the Visigoths crossed the Danube from Dacia to Moesia and then Thrace where they defeated and killed Emperor Valens in 378. Around this time of social upheaval the inscription was made on the golden ring of Pietroassa (Pietroasele in modern Romania), north of the Danube, by what were mostly Ostrogoths at that place and time. Unfortunately the reading of the inscription is disputed. Following are three of the main suggested readings:

gutaniowihailag gutani j wihailag gutanis wi hailag

Bammesberger (1994: 5f.) defends the first, Looijenga (2003: 175f.) the last two but the Kiel Rune Project <http://www.runenprojekt.uni-kiel.de/abfragen/standard/default_eng. htm> lists fifteen interpretations as of 9/1/12, excluding Snædal (2011). The reading of the middle of the inscription is unclear. If the first word is Gutani, it is likely a variant of standard Gothic Gutane ‘of the Goths’, if Gutan[e]is, then ‘Gothic’. The last word is probably hailag ‘holy’ (not in Wulfila’s text), and one of the middle words may be wīh ‘sanctuary’, comparable to Wulfila’s weihs ‘holy’, weiha ‘priest’. The Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 during the reign [395–410] of Alaric (Goth. Alareiks) [c.370–410]. Theodoric [c.454/5–526], Goth. Þiudareiks ‘people-king/ruler’, the Ostrogothic king of Italy [493–526], grew up in Roman Constantinople. Before 475, he led his people down the Danube from Pannonia to Lower Moesia. After much turmoil, Theodoric entered Italy in 489, and in 490 most of Italy and Sicily were under his control. In 493 he captured Ravenna and murdered the German usurper Odoacer. He established an Ostrogothic empire and reigned thirty-three years. By 497, his rule of all Italy was recognized by the Eastern Roman government. Theodoric and his Goths were Arian Christians. His church, dedicated to St. Martin, still stands in his capital Ravenna. During the reign of Theodoric, around the beginning of the sixth century, the manuscripts of the Gothic Bible were recopied, and it is this same period to which the documents from Ravenna date (§§9.6, 9.7). In 552/3, the Ostrogoths were driven from Italy, and some remained in the Crimea into the 18th century.

The Goths and Gothic 3

6.2 Crimean Gothic

Crimean Gothic [†c.1790] has eighty-six entries (101 lexical items) elicited in 1560/62 by Flemish diplomat Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq [1522–92], from two Crimeans, one a Greek, the other possibly a Crimean Goth but more competent in Greek. Busbecq’s report was written in Latin and published in France in 1589 from a pirated copy (see Stearns 1978; Grønvik 1983). Crimean forms that are manifestly Germanic include the following (bracketed forms are the emendations proposed by Stearns 1978): broe [= broet ?] ‘bread’, plut ‘blood’ (Goth. bloþ), stul ‘seat’ (Goth. stols), hus ‘house’ (Goth. -hūs), vvingart ‘vine branch’ (cf. Goth. weinagards ‘winegarden’), reghen ‘rain’ (Goth. rign), bruder ‘brother’ (Goth. broþar), schuuester ‘sister’ (Goth. swistar), alt ‘old’ (cf. Goth. alþs ‘old age’), vvintch [= vvintsch?] ‘wind’ (cf. Goth. winds), siluir ‘silver’ (Goth. silubr), goltz ‘gold’ (Goth. gulþ), salt ‘salt’ (Goth. salt), sune ‘sun’ (Goth. sauil, sunno), mine ‘moon’ (Goth. menoþs), tag ‘day’ (Goth. dags), oeghene ‘eyes’ (Goth. augona), bars [= bart?] ‘beard’, handa ‘hand’ (Goth. handus), boga ‘bow’, miera ‘ant’, rinck / ringo ‘ring’, brunna ‘fountain’ (Goth. brunna), vvaghen ‘wagon’, apel ‘apple’ (Goth. apls), schieten ‘to shoot an arrow’, schlipen ‘to sleep’ (Goth. slepan), kommen ‘to come’ (Goth. qiman), singhen ‘to sing’ (Goth. siggwan), lachen ‘to laugh’ (cf. Goth. (uf)-hlohjan ‘make laugh’), eriten [= criten / griten?] ‘to cry’, geen ‘to go’ (vs. Goth. gaggan), breen ‘to roast’, schuualth ‘death’ (cf. Goth. swiltan ‘die’), statz ‘land’ (Goth. staþs*), ada ‘egg’ (§3.11), ano [= (h)ano] ‘rooster’ (Goth. hana). Stearns (1978) suggests that the forms kor ‘grain’, fisct ‘fish’, hoef ‘head’, thurn ‘door’, were typesetters’ errors for korn ‘grain’ (Goth. kaurn), fisc ‘fish’ (Goth. fisks), hoeft ‘head’ (Goth. haubiþ), thur ‘door’ (Goth. daur). For stein ‘star’, it is likely that two words were intended: stein ‘stone’ (Goth. stains) and stern ‘star’ (Goth. stairno). Most of the numerals have a very Germanic appearance: ita, tua, tria, fyder (Goth. fidwor), fyuf [= finf?], seis, sevene, athe, nyne, thiine, thiinita ‘11’, thunetua [= thiinetua?] ‘12’, thunetria [= thiinetria?] ‘13’, etc.; stega ‘20’, treithyen ‘30’, furdeithien ‘40’, sada ‘100’, hazer ‘1000’. A number of elicited Crimean forms appeared to Busbecq not to be Germanic, e.g. iel ‘life, health’, ieltsch ‘living, healthy’ (cf. Goth. hails ‘well’), iel vburt [= vvurt?] ‘may


it be well’, marzus ‘marriage’, schuos [= schnos?] ‘fiancee’, telich ‘foolish’ (cf. Goth. dvals), stap ‘goat’, gadeltha ‘beautiful’, atochta ‘bad’, vvichtgata [= vvitgata?] ‘white’, mycha ‘sword’, baar ‘boy’, ael ‘stone’, menus [= *mem(m)s, menns?] ‘meat’ (Goth. mimz), rintsch ‘mountain’, fers ‘man’, lista ‘too little’, schediit ‘light’, borrotsch ‘wish’ (but more likely the Latin gloss voluntas is a mistake for voluptas ‘pleasure’), cadariou ‘soldier’, kilemschkop ‘drink up your cup (kop)’, tzo vvarthata ‘you made’, ies varthata [= vvarthata?] ‘he made’, ich malthata ‘I say’. While malthata is possibly ‘I said’ and may include the pronoun Goth. ita ‘it’, more likely the form is mal-thata ‘I say that’ with Goth. þata ‘that’. The forms in -(t)z likely represent a misperception of /þ/, e.g. goltz = Goth. gulþ ‘gold’, statz ‘land’ = Goth. staþs* (DAT staþa) ‘shore’, tzo = Goth. þu ‘you’. Nothing definitive can be said about the dialectology of Crimean Gothic, although it is generally agreed that it cannot be a direct descent of Wulfila’s Gothic. It is probably a dialect parallel to that of Wulfila’s, i.e. a slightly different variety of East Germanic (Stearns 1978). Another hypothesis is that it is the language of a group of West Germanic speakers who settled in the Crimea and was influenced by Gothic (Grønvik 1983). The influence, however, would have to be too extensive. Crimean and Wulfila’s Gothic alone preserve the /d/ in *fedwōr ‘four’ and /z/ where the rest of Germanic has rhotacism. The word ada ‘egg’ exhibits Verschärfung of the Gothic kind, and no such forms exist in West Germanic (§3.11). On the other hand, Crimean cannot be just a later version of Wulfila’s Gothic because of innovations in the latter that are absent in the former. One of those is the raising of Germanic /e/ to /i/ in all environments. Contrast Goth. rign with Crim. reghen ‘rain’. Another is preservation of /u/ before /r/, as in Crim. thur{n} vs. Goth. daur /dɔr/ ‘door’, but note korn (= Goth. kaurn). These can represent (i) different environments for lowering, (ii) later raising in some environments, or (iii) mistakes in transcription. As to the alleged characteristics of West Germanic, most are natural processes that could have occurred at any time . One of those is the change of /þ/ to a stop, as in Crim. tria vs. Goth. þriu ‘three’. Taking into account misperceptions and errors, most of the changes can plausibly be attributed to the fact that Crimean Gothic was a parallel dialect initially and that twelve centuries separate Wulfila’s Gothic and attested Crimean.


6.3 Wulfila and the Gothic corpus

What little is known about Wulfila [307 or c.311 – c.383] is from his student and later bishop of Moesia, Auxentius, and other fifth century writers. Wulfila was variously called Ulfila (Auxentius), Oulphílās (Sozomen), Ourphílās (Philostorgius), Vulphilas (Cassiodorus), Vulfila (Jordanes), etc., but the most accurate from the Gothic point of view is Wulfila (cf. Ebbinghaus 1991). He was likely the offspring of Anatolian parents enslaved by Goths in Western Cappadocia. He spoke Greek, Latin, and Gothic, and was probably familiar with several other languages. Shortly after Constantine sanctioned Christianity in 325, Wulfila was charged with christianizing the Goths. At the age of 30 (in 337 or 341), according to Auxentius, he was made bishop of the Visigoths for Dacia. Persecuted by Athanaric, in 348 he led his followers across the Danube. Around 369 (traditional date) he translated the Bible into the language of his own people, the Moesogoths, that is, the Goths of Moesia. Fragments of his translation form the bulk of the extant Gothic corpus. They are preserved mostly in the Codex Argenteus, written [c.500] in northern Italy. Portions are preserved in six other manuscripts. Leaves 1, 2, 5–7 of Skeireins (aiwaggeljons þairh Iohannen) ‘Explication (of the Gospel according to John)’ are in the Codex Ambrosianus E and leaves 3, 4, 8 in the Codex Vaticanus 5750. The Codex Argenteus contains 188 of the original 336 parchment leaves, one fragment having been discovered in 1970. Since the manuscript is in two hands, there is limited evidence for older and younger Gothic. For instance, forms in -ei for -e apparently reflect late Visigothic. Beyond that, the numerous unknowns defy any conclusions about Gothic dialectology. In summary, Gothic (Goth.) is attested in (portions of) the Bible translation [c.369] ascribed to Wulfila; eight remaining leaves of the later Skeireins ‘clarification’, a 78-page commentary on the Gospel of John; a fragment of a calendar of martyrs (Codex Ambrosianus A, leaf 197); twelve marginal notes in a collection of Latin homilies (Codex Veronensis 51); an epigram in a Latin anthology; a land transfer title deed on papyrus [c.551] from Arezzo containing some forty-five Gothic words and a few abbreviations; a debt-settlement deed from Naples; a few runic inscriptions [c3-4] (Ebbinghaus 1990); two abecedaria [c9–10] with letter names; several other fragments, glosses, names, and borrowings.


6.4 Gothic alphabet and pronunciation

The invention of the Gothic alphabet is attributed to Wulfila. Most of the letters are adaptations of the Greek script (but see §5.4 and Ebbinghaus 1996), as shown in the following table where Greek letters are in the third row. The numerical value of each letter is in the second row, and the fourth row is the English letter equivalent. Aa𐌰 Bb𐌱 Gg𐌲 Dd𐌳 Ee𐌴 Qq𐌵 Zz𐌶 Hh𐌷 Þþ𐌸 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Α Β Γ Δ ε (υ) Ζ (η) (ψ/Θ) a b g d e q[u] z h th

Ii𐌹 Kk𐌺 Ll𐌻 Mm𐌼 Nn𐌽 Jj𐌾 Uu𐌿 Pp𐍀 𐍁 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ι κ λ Μ Ν – (υ) Π ϙ i k l m n j u p –

Rr𐍂 Ss𐍃 Tt𐍄 WYwy𐍅 Ff𐍆 Xx𐍇 ƕǶ𐍈 Oo𐍉 𐍊 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 (Ρ) ς Τ Υ ϝ χ (Θ) Ω (ϡ) r s t w f wh o –

The numbers 90 and 900 have no (known) sound value. The latter looks like runic and archaic Greek 𐍊 /t/ (§5.4) but corresponds in numerical value to the Greek letter sampi. Xx𐍇 corresponds to x in shape but the Gothic letter is used only to transcribe Greek words with χ, especially in the abbreviation Xx𐍇Ss𐍃 for Xx𐍇Rr𐍂Ii𐌹Ss𐍃Tt𐍄Uu𐌿Ss𐍃 Xristus ‘Christ’. The letter Þþ𐌸 /þ/ is derived by Marchand (1955) from Greek Θ/θ theta which was originally aspirated /th/ but by the time of Gothic was pronounced a fricative /þ/. The Gothic phonological system is reviewed next. Consider first the inventory of consonantal segments.


LABIAL CORONAL PALATAL VELAR LABVEL GLOTTAL STOP VCL p t k kw VCD [b] [d] [g] (gw) CONT VCL f þ s (χ) hw h VCD ƀ ð z γ SONORANT NASAL m n [ŋ] LIQUID l r GLIDE y w In light of the Greek source of the Gothic alphabet, and the alternation with voiceless continuants, the orthographic voiced stops were continuants /ƀ, ð, γ/ (Rauch 2011: 39, 47f.) at least after vowels, and stops [b, d, g] after consonants (Harbert 2007: 50); with hlaifs, GEN SG hlaibis /hlɛƀ̄-/ ‘bread, loaf’, contrast lamb ‘lamb’ (N/A PL lamba, etc.). Allophonic [ŋ] is written gg as in Greek; cf. Aa𐌰Gg𐌲Gg𐌲Ii𐌹Ll𐌻Uu𐌿Ss𐍃 aggilus [aŋgilus] ‘angel’ from Gk. ἄγγελος ággelos [áŋgelos] ‘messenger; angel’, but <gg> can also represent [gg]. Gothic Qq𐌵 q represents the labiovelar stop /kw/, ƕǶ𐍈 ƕ is the continuant /hw/, and /gw/ is rare, e.g. Ss𐍃Aa𐌰Gg𐌲Gg𐌲WYwy𐍅Ss𐍃 saggws [saŋgws] ‘song’, Tt𐍄Rr𐍂Ii𐌹Gg𐌲Gg𐌲WYwy𐍅Ss𐍃 [triggws] ‘true’ (or [-g/ŋgws]?). The glide /y/ in Gothic (Jj𐌾), as in all of Germanic, is conventionally transcribed j. The Gothic vowels can be interpreted as follows:

SHORT LONG FRONT BACK FRONT BACK

high i ü u ī ū

mid tense ē ō lax ɛ ɔ ɛ ̄ ɔ ̄

low a ā The letters Ee𐌴 e, Oo𐍉 o are always long /ē/, /ō/. The vowel /ī/ is written Ee𐌴Ii𐌹 ei. The other vowels can be long or short but are not distinguished in the orthography. Compare the spelling of Rr𐍂Uu𐌿Mm𐌼 rum /rūm/ ‘room’ with that of Ss𐍃Uu𐌿Nn𐌽Uu𐌿Ss𐍃 sunus /sunus/ ‘son’. Long /ā/ is rare, e.g. Ff𐍆Aa𐌰Hh𐌷Aa𐌰Nn𐌽 fahan /fāhan/ ‘to grasp, seize’, Bb𐌱Rr𐍂Aa𐌰Hh𐌷Tt𐍄Aa𐌰 /brāhta/ ‘brought’.


The short vowels /ɛ/, /ɔ/ are written Aa𐌰Ii𐌹 ai, Aa𐌰Uu𐌿 au, following contemporary Greek spelling. It is substantiated by the use of these digraphs for etymological short vowels, e.g. Ff𐍆Aa𐌰Ii𐌹Hh𐌷Uu𐌿 faihu ‘chattels’ < *peḱu- (Lat. pecū ‘herd’), and short vowels in loanwords like Pp𐍀Aa𐌰Uu𐌿Rr𐍂Pp𐍀Aa𐌰Uu𐌿Rr𐍂Aa𐌰 paurpaura (Lat. purpura ‘purple’), Gg𐌲Aa𐌰Uu𐌿Mm𐌼Aa𐌰Uu𐌿Rr𐍂Rr𐍂Aa𐌰 Gaumaurra ‘Gomorrah’. Two post-Classical Greek changes mirrored in Gothic spelling follow: 1. FRONT VOWEL RAISING. The long front vowels shifted towards /ī/, as reflected in Greek spellings and Gothic transcriptions of ei /ī/ for original Gk. ē /ɛ/̄; cf. Goth. Aa𐌰Ii𐌹Rr𐍂Mm𐌼Oo𐍉Gg𐌲Aa𐌰Ii𐌹Nn𐌽Ee𐌴Ii𐌹Ss𐍃 Airmogaineis /ɛrmōgɛnīs/ (2 Timothy 1: 15) for Classical Gk. Ἑρμογένης Hermogénēs ‘Hermogenes’. 2. MONOPHTHONGIZATION. Monophthongization of the diphthongs began around the third century BCE and was completed c.100–150 CE. By the time of Gothic [c.369], Aa𐌰Ii𐌹 ai is normal for /ɛ/ and Aa𐌰Uu𐌿 au for /ɔ/; cf. the alternate spelling Hh𐌷Aa𐌰Ii𐌹Rr𐍂Mm𐌼Aa𐌰Uu𐌿Gg𐌲Aa𐌰Ii𐌹Nn𐌽Ee𐌴Ii𐌹Ss𐍃 Hairmaugaineis (2 Timothy 1: 15, ms. A) ‘Hermogenes’, the transcription of Gk. Θεόφιλε Theóphile ‘Theophilos’ (VOC) as Þþ𐌸Aa𐌰Ii𐌹Aa𐌰Uu𐌿Ff𐍆Ee𐌴Ii𐌹Ll𐌻Uu𐌿 Þaiaufeilu /þɛɔfīlu/ (Luke 1: 3), and the transcription of Gk. εὐχαριστίᾱν eukharistíān ‘eucharist’ (ACC SG) as Aa𐌰Ii𐌹WYwy𐍅Xx𐍇Aa𐌰Rr𐍂Ii𐌹Ss𐍃Tt𐍄Ii𐌹Aa𐌰Nn𐌽 aiwχaristian (2 Corinthians 9: 11) /ɛβχaristian/ (or /ɛüχaristian/?). The Greek letter Υ was borrowed as Goth. WYwy𐍅, usually transcribed w, and is used to render the υ and οι of Greek words borrowed into Gothic, suggesting that υ and οι were both pronounced /ü/ at that time, e.g. Ll𐌻WYwy𐍅Ss𐍃Tt𐍄Rr𐍂WYwy𐍅Ss𐍃 Lwstrws /lüstrüs/ (2 Timothy 3: 11) = Gk. Λύστροις Lústrois (DAT PL) ‘in Lustra’, a city in Asia Minor. Those who propose /ǖ/ for graphic iu, as in diups ‘deep’, do not explain why it is spelled iu and not w. Another hypothesis is that Aa𐌰Ii𐌹 ai, Aa𐌰Uu𐌿 au sometimes represent /ɛ/, /ɔ/, but can also be long or remain diphthongal. Some scholars even distinguish the diphthong and the short vowel, e.g. faíhu ‘chattels’, faúr ‘before’ with original *e, *o, beside maizo ‘more’, sunaus ‘son’s’ with original *ai, *au, but this is artificial and has etymological value alone. However, there is evidence that Gothic preserved long vowels in root syllables, which suggests that words like ains ‘one’ (< *óynos), saian ‘to sow’ (< *sē(y)an-), taujan ‘to do’ (< *tawyan-), etc. contain long /ɛ/̄, /ɔ/̄ (Rauch 2011: 51–60, w. lit). Yet another hypothesis is that Gothic had no long vowels at all, that the relevant contrast is between tense Ee𐌴 /e/, Oo𐍉 /o/ and lax Aa𐌰Ii𐌹 /ɛ/, Aa𐌰Uu𐌿 /ɔ/. This is at odds with the likelihood that Aa𐌰Ii𐌹, Aa𐌰Uu𐌿 can be short /ɛ/, /ɔ/ or long /ɛ/̄, /ɔ/̄.


6.5 Numerals

As in Greek, letters of the alphabet also functioned as numerals. The numbers from ‘five’ to ‘eight’ and ‘ten’ are indeclinable. Following are the most important ones with their alphabetic letter symbol:

Aa𐌰 1 ains Ii𐌹Aa𐌰 11 ainlif* Ll𐌻 30 þrins tiguns (A) Bb𐌱 2 twai Ii𐌹Bb𐌱 12 twalif Mm𐌼 40 fidwor tigjus* Gg𐌲 3 þrija (N/A.NT)

þrins (A.MASC) Ii𐌹Gg𐌲 13 — Nn𐌽 50 fimf tigjus*

Dd𐌳 4 fidwor Ii𐌹Dd𐌳 14 fidwortaihun Jj𐌾 60 saihs tigjus* Ee𐌴 5 fimf Ii𐌹Ee𐌴 15 fimftaihun Uu𐌿 70 sibuntehund Qq𐌵 6 saihs Pp𐍀 80 ahtautehund Zz𐌶 7 sibun 𐍁 90 niuntehund Hh𐌷 8 ahtau Rr𐍂 100 taihuntehund Þþ𐌸 9 niun Ss𐍃 200 twa hunda Ii𐌹 10 taihun Kk𐌺 20 twai tigjus* Ff𐍆 500 fimf hunda

Combinations in our text selections include the following (all accusative). As in Greek the letter symbols were set off by punctuation, in this case, raised dots.

.Ll𐌻. = þrins tiguns [three tens] ‘30’ .Jj𐌾. = saihs tiguns [six tens] ‘60’ .Rr𐍂. = taihuntehund [ten tens] ‘100’ . Rr𐍂Kk𐌺 . = taihuntehund jah twans tiguns [and two tens] ‘120’ . Rr𐍂Ll𐌻Gg𐌲 . = taihuntehund jah þrins tiguns [and 3 tens] jah þrins [and 3] ‘133’ The origin of -tēhund is as follows: *pénkwe dḱṓmd [five tens] became PIE *penkwēḱōmd ‘fifty’ (cf. Gk. pentḗkonta ‘id.’) and spread to other numerals, e.g. ‘seventy’, whence PGmc. *seƀunt-ēhund-, resegmented as *seƀun-tēhund- after PGmc. *seƀun ‘seven’. The new formative -tēhund- then spread to the some of the other decads, including Goth. taihun-tehund ‘one hundred’ (LHE 206). The variant spelling of -tehund as -taihund is analogical to taihun ‘ten’. The characters 𐍁 90 and 𐍊 900 probably had a numerical name and no sound value.


6.6 The nominal system

Gothic nouns are inflected for gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), number (singular, plural, and dual, ignored here), and case: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, and residual instrumental. Additionally, the forms differed by stem type. Most common were -i- stems (runic -gastiz, Goth. gasts ‘guest’), -u- stems (sunus ‘son’), -n- (guma ‘male human being’, tuggo ‘tongue’), -nd- (nasjands ‘savior’), -r- (broþar ‘brother’), consonant (baurgs ‘castle, citadel’), mixed -C- and -n- (manna ‘man(kind), human being, person’ sometimes overlapping with wair ‘adult male, man’), and the two largest classes: thematic (-a-) stems (Goth. dags ‘day’), feminine -ō- (Goth. giba ‘gift’), and similar formations (-ja-, -jō-, etc.). Following is a synopsis of these nouns. -i-stem -u-stem -n- stem -nd-stem -r-stem -C-stem mixed MASC MASC MASC FEM MASC MASC FEM MASC ‘guest’ ‘son’ ‘male’ ‘tongue’ ‘savior’ ‘brother’ ‘citadel’ ‘man’ SG NOM gasts sunus guma tuggo nasjands broþar baurgs manna VOC gast sun(a)u nasjand broþar ACC gast sunu guman tuggon nasjand broþar baurg mannan GEN gastis sunaus gumins tuggons nasjandis broþrs baurgs mans DAT gasta sunau gumin tuggon nasjand broþr baurg mann

PL N/VOC gasteis sunjus gumans tuggons nasjands broþrius baurgs ma(nna)ns ACC gastins sununs gumans tuggons nasjand broþruns baurgs ma(nna)ns GEN gaste suniwe gumane tuggono nasjande broþre baurge manne DAT gastim sunum gumam tuggom nasjandam broþrum baurgim mannam A neuter -n- stem is hairto ‘heart’, GEN hairtins, DAT hairtin, PLN/A hairtona, GEN

hairtane, DAT hairtam.


-a- stem -ja- stem -wa- -ō- -jō- MASC NT MASC MASC NT NT FEM FEM ‘day’ ‘word’ ‘shepherd’ ‘army’ ‘clan’ ‘tree’ ‘gift’ ‘girl’ SG NOM dags waurd hairdeis harjis kuni triu giba mawi VOC dag hairdi hari ACC dag waurd hairdi hari kuni triu giba mauja GEN dagis waurdis hairdeis harjis kunjis triwis gibos maujos DAT daga waurda hairdja harja kunja triwa gibai mauja PL N/VOC dagos waurda hairdjos harjos kunja triwa gibos maujos ACC dagans waurda hairdjans harjans kunja triwa gibos maujos GEN dage waurde hairdje harje kunje triwe gibo maujo DAT dagam waurdam hairdjam harjam kunjam triwam gibom maujom 6.7 The demonstrative

Demonstratives in Gothic were inflected for all three genders. The main demonstrative was Goth. sa, so, þata ‘this, that; the; he, she, it’ (neutral deixis).

MASC NEUTER FEM SG NOM sa þata so ACC þana þata þo GEN þis þis þizos DAT þamma þamma þizai INST þe PL NOM þai þo þos ACC þans þo þos GEN þize þize þizo DAT þaim þaim þaim


Demonstratives agree with their noun in gender, number, and case: Following are some sample combinations:

MASC NEUTER FEM SG NOM sa broþar þata waurd so mawi ACC þana hairdi þata kuni þo baurg GEN þis harjis þis triwis þizos tuggons DAT þamma sunau þamma waurda þizai mauja PL NOM þai dagos þo kunja þos baurgs ACC þans nasjand þo triwa þos tuggons GEN þize manne þize waurde þizo baurge DAT þaim broþrum þaim kunjam þaim gibom

These do not translate Greek articles. In the following, sunus ‘son’, mans ‘(of) man’, haubiþ ‘head’ have no determiner but all three nouns in the Greek text have an article. ( ) iþ sunus mans ni habaiþ ƕar haubiþ galagjai (Lk 9: 58) but son man.GEN NEG has where head lay.3SG.OPT ‘but the son of man does not have anywhere to lay his head’ Demonstratives were ultimately the source of definite articles in Germanic but van de Velde (2007, 2009) claims that determiners did not develop before Old Dutch. However, the late Gothic sales transactions seem to have the beginnings of a determiner system; cf. þo frabauhtaboka ‘the salesdocument’ in the Arezzo record (§ ). 6.8 Weak and strong adjectives Germanic adjectives were inflected for strong and weak forms in several stem classes in all genders, numbers (dual ignored), and cases. The weak adjective is an -n- stem with forms similar to those of guma, hairto, and tuggo (§6.5). Following are the strong and weak paradigms of -a- stem ‘blind’:


1) Strong MASC NEUTER FEM SG NOM blinds blind blindata blinda ACC blindana blind blindata blinda GEN blindis blindis blindaizos DAT blindamma blindamma blindai PL NOM blindai blinda blindos ACC blindans blinda blindos GEN blindaize blindaize blindaizo DAT blindaim blindaim blindaim

2) Weak

MASC NEUTER FEM SG NOM blinda blindo blindo ACC blindan blindo blindon GEN blindins blindins blindons DAT blindin blindin blindon PL NOM blindans blindona blindons ACC blindans blindona blindons GEN blindane blindane blindono DAT blindam blindam blindom

The extended neuter form blindata is analogical to þata ‘this, that’. The strong forms are used in most constructions, e.g. bagms ubils [tree bad] ‘bad tree’ akran god ‘good fruit’, mahtins mikilos ‘great miracles’. Weak forms occur primarily in appositional contexts, e.g. Lazarus sa dauþa (Jn 12: 1) ‘Lazarus the dead’, hairdeis sa goda ‘shepherd the good (one)’ (§7.1).


6.9 The present participle

The so-called present participle in -nd- most often translates as Eng. -ing and declines like a weak adjective. Strong forms occur only in the NOM SG MASC, e.g. to briggands (strong), there is weak brigganda (e.g. after sa ‘the one’ but see § ). The weak forms are like the weak adjective except that the feminine is an -īn- stem like managei, GEN manageins, etc. ‘multitude’. The following paradigm of gibands ‘giving’ is reconstructed from many attested participles (Braune-Ebbinghaus §133):

MASC NEUT FEM SG NOM gibanda gibando gibandei ACC gibandan gibando gibandein GEN gibandins gibandins gibandeins DAT gibandin gibandin gibandein PL NOM gibandans gibandona gibandeins ACC gibandans gibandona gibandeins GEN gibandane gibandane gibandeino DAT gibandam gibandam gibandeim

The strong forms occur mainly as agentives, e.g. nasjands ‘savior’, daupjands [dipping] ‘baptist’, bisitands [by-sitting] ‘neighbor’, talzjands ‘teacher’, frijonds ‘friend’, fijands ‘enemy’, etc. In all of Germanic, at least the last two are ordinary nouns (Mossé 1956: 99; Braune-Ebbinghaus §115) — Eng. friend, fiend — and decline like nasjands (§6.6), e.g. NOM frijonds, GEN frijondis, etc. 6.10 Personal and interrogative pronouns

Personal pronouns in all of Germanic were inflected for singular, plural, and dual (ignored here). Following are the first and second person pronouns (‘I/we’, ‘thou/ye’). Both were defective in gender and had many suppletive forms.


SG NOM ik þu ACC mik þuk GEN meina þeina DAT mis þus PL NOM weis jus ACC uns(is) izwis GEN unsara izwara DAT uns(is) izwis

The third person pronoun is, si, ita ‘he, she, it’ is inflected for all three genders and numbers (dual ignored).

MASC NEUT FEM SG NOM is ita si ACC ina ita ija GEN is is izos DAT imma imma izai PL NOM eis ija ijos ACC ins ija ijoz GEN ize ize izo DAT im im im

The interrogative pronoun ‘who, what’ is inflected only in the singular:

MASC NEUT FEM SG NOM ƕas ƕa ƕo ACC ƕana ƕa ƕo GEN ƕis ƕis ƕizos DAT ƕamma ƕamma ƕizai INST ƕe


6.11 The verbal system

Verbs in Germanic were inflected for person (first, second, third), number (singular, dual, and plural), tense (nonpast, past/preterit), mood (indicative, subjunctive / optative), and voice, but the inherited mediopassive is best attested in Gothic. Verbs followed two main classes, thematic and athematic. There was also a class of preterit-presents. Germanic verbs were classified as strong or weak. The strong verbs (ablauting type sing, sang, sung) had seven form classes, cited by four principal parts: present infinitive, past 1SG, past 1PL, and the past (passive) participle. INFINITIVE 1SG PRET 1PL PRET PPP GLOSS Class 1 steigan staig stigum stigans ‘ascend’ Class 2 (ana)biudan -bauþ -budum -budans ‘command’ Class 3 bindan band bundum bundans ‘bind’ Class 4 bairan bar berum baurans ‘bear’ Class 5 giban gab gebum gibans ‘give’ Class 6 faran for forum farans ‘travel’ Class 7 letan lailot lailotum letans ‘let’ 6.12 The weak verb

The weak verbs had four main form classes based on stem formation: 1 (-j-), 2 (-ō-), 3 (-ai-), 4 (-na-/-nō-). Following is the present tense system. class 1 2 3 4 nasjan sokjan salbon haban fullnan ‘save’ ‘seek’ ‘anoint’ ‘have’ ‘be filled’

SG 1 nasja sokja salbo haba fullna 2 nasjis sokeis salbos habais fullnis 3 nasjiþ sokeiþ salboþ habaiþ fullniþ

PL 1 nasjam sokjam salbom habam fullnam 2 nasjiþ sokeiþ salboþ habaiþ fullniþ 3 nasjand sokjand salbond haband fullnand


In the fourth class, the -nō- alternation is found in the preterit, e.g. 1/3SG fullnoda. The potential fifth class is based on the preterit with a bare consonant stem: 1/3SG þāhta (þagkjan ‘reflect on’). Many forms are unattested and supplied from other verbs. Imperative: SG 2 nasei sokei salbo habai fulln 3 nasjadau sokjadau salbodau — fullnadau

PL 1 nasjam sokjam salbom habam fullnam 2 nasjiþ sokeiþ salboþ habaiþ fullniþ 3 nasjandau sokjandau salbondau habandau fullnandau Optative: SG 1 nasjau sokjau salbo habau fullnau 2 nasjais sokjais salbos habais fullnais 3 nasjai sokjai salbo habai fullnai

PL 1 nasjaima sokjaima salboma habaima fullnaima 2 nasjaiþ sokjaiþ salboþ habaiþ fullnaiþ 3 nasjaina sokjaina salbona habaina fullnaina Passive indicative: SG 1 nasjada sokjada salboda habada 2 nasjaza sokjaza salboza habaza 3 nasjada sokjada salboda habada

PL 1–3 nasjanda sokjanda salbonda habanda Passive optative: SG 1 nasjaidau sokjaidau salbodau habaidau 2 nasjaizau sokjaizau salbozau habaizau 3 nasjaidau sokjaidau salbodau habaidau

PL 1–3 nasjaindau sokjaindau salbondau habaindau


Preterit: SG 1 nasida sokida salboda habaida fullnoda 2 nasides sokides salbodes habaides fullnodes 3 nasida sokida salboda habaida fullnoda

PL 1 nasidedum sokidedum salbodedum habaidedum fullnodedum 2 nasideduþ sokideduþ salbodeduþ habaideduþ fullnodeduþ 3 nasidedun sokidedun salbodedun habaidedun fullnodedun Preterit optative: SG 1 nasiddedjau sokidedjau salbodedjau habaidedjau fullnodedjau 2 nasidedeis sokidedeis salbodedeis habaidedeis fullnodedeis 3 nasidedi sokidedi salbodedi habaidedi fullnodedi

PL 1 nasidedeima sokidedeima salbodedeima habaidedeima fullnodedeima 2 nasidedeiþ sokidedeiþ salbodedeiþ habaidedeiþ fullnodedeiþ 3 nasidedeina sokidedeina salbodedeina habaidedeina fullnodedeina 6.12 The thematic verb

The thematic verb was a form class with a stem vowel characterized by an alternation between -a- and -e- (-i-). Following is the conjugation of ‘bear, bring, carry’ in the indicative active and passive, optative active and passive, and the imperative. Present:

IND ACT IND PASS OPT ACT OPT PASS IMPV SG 1 baira bairada bairau bairaidau 2 bairis bairaza bairais bairaizau bair 3 bairiþ bairada bairai bairaidau bairadau PL 1 bairam bairanda bairaima bairaindau bairam 2 bairiþ bairanda bairaiþ bairaindau bairiþ 3 bairand bairanda bairaina bairaindau bairandau


Preterit: IND ACT OPT ACT SG 1 bar berjau 2 bart bereis 3 bar beri PL 1 berum bereima 2 beruþ bereiþ 3 berun bereina

No passive is listed for the preterit because it is periphrastic (§ ). 6.13 The preterit-present class A preterit-present has preterit forms but a present tense meaning. A few important preterit-presents are Goth. wait ‘I know’, þarf ‘I need’, ga-dars ‘I dare’, kann ‘I am acquainted, know how’, skal ‘I owe’, mag ‘I can’, aih ‘I possess’ (CGG 187–93; Mossé 1956: 141–3; Braune-Ebbinghaus §§196–203). Following are the paradigms of several of these.

witan þaurban* kunnan magan* skulan [-aihan] SG 1 wait þarf kann mag skal aih 2 waist þarft kan(n)t magt skalt [aiht] 3 wait þarf kann mag skal aih PL 1 witum þaurbum kunnum magum skulum aigum 2 wituþ þaurbuþ kunnuþ maguþ skuluþ aihuþ 3 witun þaurbun kunnun magun skulun aigun PRETERIT

SG PL

wissa þaurfta kunþa mahta skulda aihta wissed- kunþedum mahted- skulded- aihtedun


OPTATIVE PRES PRET

witjau þaurbeiþ kunnjau magjau skuljau aigi wissedjau kunþedjau mahtedi skuldedi aihtedeis

PARTICIPLES

PRES witands þaurbands kunnands magands aigands PRET þaurfts kunþs mahts skulds

In the preterit and optative, an attested form is cited (most often in the third person) instead of the paradigmatic 1 singular and 1 plural. For witan and skulan, the preterit plural stem is attested in the optative. Forms of aih were prone to leveling in both directions (aih/aig, aigum/aihum), one factor being the lack of an apophonic alternation, in contrast to the greater consistency of þarf : þaurbum, etc. (Sturtevant 1931). The preterit participles sometimes have special meanings, e.g. kunþs ‘known’, þaurfts ‘necessary; useful’, skulds ‘obliged, obligated; guilty’. The absence of infinitives to many of these verbs is no accident. The Germanic (pre-) modals had participles but no infinitives (Coupé and van Kemenade 2009). 6.14 The verb ‘be’

The athematic verb was characterized by a slightly different set of endings attached directly to the root. Following is the paradigm of wisan ‘to be’.

PRES OPT PRET PRET OPT SG 1 im si(j)au was wesjau 2 is si(j)ais wast weseis 3 ist si(j)ai was wesi PL 1 si(j)um si(j)aima wesum weseima 2 si(j)uþ si(j)aiþ wesuþ weseiþ 3 sind si(j)aina wesun weseina


The forms without -j- occur in Luke and the Letters and are rare even there. There is no imperative but sai seems to translate Gk. éstō ‘let be’ (2 Corinthians 12: 16), unless (i) it is a mistake for si(j)ai or (ii) it is to be interpreted in its normal function ‘behold!’. In place of the missing imperative, the optative forms sijais, sijai, sijaiþ are used. This verb has only one participle, wisands ‘being’. 6.15 The verb ‘will’

The verb wiljan ‘will, be willing, wish, want’ is by nature an optative identical to Lat. velim ‘I’d wish’, velīs ‘you’d like’, etc., and therefore has only optative forms in the present tense system. The preterit is a standard weak type and has a separate optative.

PRES PRET PRET OPT SG 1 wiljau wilda [wildedjau] 2 wileis wildes [wildedeis] 3 wili wilda wildedi PL 1 wileima wildedum [wildedeima] 2 wileiþ wildeduþ wildedeiþ 3 wileina wildedun [wildedeina]

The only participle is wiljands ‘willing’.

the goths and gothic - clas usersusers.clas.ufl.edu/drjdg/oe/pubs/3_goths.pdfthe goths and gothic 3...

Documents