Montag, 6. Oktober 2014

A hidden event ...

On the 17th October there is a small symposium starting at 17.00 taking place in the Biblioteca Classense in Ravenna (Sala Muratori, 5)...

Because it can be nowhere found, here the photos I received (although they have a very bad quality).

Speakers are:
Munkhammer on the Codex argenteus
Finazzi & Tornaghi on the Bologna Fragment
Modesti & Zaffrano (if I read it correctly) on the Latin script of the Bologna Fragment.

Freitag, 26. September 2014

An Emendation to the Gothic Fragment of Bologna

The recently discovered Gothic fragment of Bologna (signature: cart. 716/1, n°1 [olim cart. 353, cam. n° 3]) was first edited by Rosa Bianca Finazzi - Paola Tornaghi, Gothica Bononiensia: analisi linguistica e filologica di un nuovo documento, in: Aevum 87 (2013), 113-153.

Just now a new article together with a new edition of the text was published by Carla Falluomini, Zum gotischen Fragment aus Bologna, in: ZfdA 143 (2014), S. 281-305.

However, there still remain some lacunae due to the special transmission of the text. One of these is found in the beginning of line 2 of f. 1r.
The text given by Falluomini (p. 300) is:

1    [............./.]an∙ nasei unsis f(rauj)a g(u)þ unsar
2    [............/.u]s þiudom∙

This passage clearly reflects Ps 105 (106):47: Salvos nos fac, Domine Deus noster, et congrega nos de nationibus.

So the missing part in line 2 should be the Gothic equivalent of et congrega nos. I would therefore like to propose that the missing Gothic part can be emended to: jah galis unsis.

Sonntag, 21. September 2014

The runic inscription on the lance head of Mos

The runic inscription on the lance head of Mos (dated between 210/20‑250/60 [cf. L. Imer, The oldest Runic Monuments in the North, in: NOWELE 62/63 (2011), p. 197]) has long been a puzzle.

It can either be read as sioag or as gaois (Photo).
Other readings - gaŋis < PGmc. *ǥanǥia‑ 'he, who belongs to the armed encounter' (E. Seebold, Die sprachliche Deutung und Einordnung der archaischen Runeninschriften, in: K. Düwel [ed.], Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung, Berlin/New York 1994, p. 73) and gais < PGmc. *ǥasa‑ 'spear' (M. Giertz, Mos - Sveriges äldsta runinskrift. Förslag till ny tolkning, in: Gotländskt arkiv 63 [1991], p. 105) - can easily be disregarded here.

The reading sioag that is based on the direction of the a-rune (and also of the s-rune, which is not that decisive), is out of two reasons improbable:
1. The sequence sioag cannot be interpreted in any way (cf. W. Krause, Die Sprache der urnordischen Inchriften, Heidelberg 1971, p. 155: "keinen Sinn ergebend"). However, this argument is not that decisive, because there are more inscriptions that show an unclear sequence of runes (cf. eg. the inscription on the chape of Vimose [ca. 210/20-310/20]: ttnþ).
2. More important is the direction of the inscription. The runic inscriptions on lance heads tend to have a reading direction towards the point.

The last point shows that the most probable reading is gaois. In this case the a-rune (as the s-rune) must be seen as a Wenderune.

As a single word this is most likely a word in the nominative singular. The final -s (and not -z) immediately suggests that the language at hand is East Germanic.

Etymologically the word gaois was by W. Krause / H. Jankuhn, Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark, Göttingen 1966, vol. I, p. 81) interpreted as: "Bei der Annahme, das keine weiteren Runen ausgefallen sind, könnte man in dem Worte gaois (= gaujis) ein Nomen agentis vom Typus got. ubil-tojis 'Übeltäter' erkennen", which he connected to the verb PGmc. *ǥae/a‑ 'yell'. This verb is continued in OE gēgan, WFris. geije, OIcl. geya (another derivation of this verb in the runic inscriptions is most probably also found on the strike-a-light of Illerup ådal [210/20-250/60]: gauþz 'yeller').

As was noted by R. Nedoma, Schrift und Sprache in den ostgermanischen Runeninschriften, in: NOWELE 58/59 (2010), p. 23 this interpretation suffers from two difficulties:
1. There seems to be a j lacking.
2. One would expect the spelling -au- and not -ao- of the diphthong *a (cf. e.g. lance head of Øvre Stabu [150/60-250/60]: raunijaz < PGmc. *rania- 'tester').

However, both objections are in fact void.

The spelling -ao- instead of -au- has parallels in the SouthGmc. runic material: fibula of Lauchheim I (ca. 551-600): aono < PGmc. *anan-; ivory ring of Pforzen II (ca. 600): aodliþ < PGmc. *ađa-. That there were other spelling possibilities for this diphthong is also shown by the inscription on the belt fitting of Nydam (ca. 210/20-310/20): rawsijo < PGmc. *rasia/ōn‑.

The assumption that one would expect a spelling with -j- is based on the situation in Gothic; here the type PGmc. *χara- 'army' results in nominative singular harjis. However, it is undoubted that in this form the -j- is the result of an analogical process (cf. R. Schuhmann, Zum analogischen Ausgleich bei den got. ja-Stämmen, in: Th. Krisch e.a. [eds.], Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Wiesbaden 2011, pp. 508-516). According to the sound laws PGmc. *χaraz would have developed through *χariz > Goth. **haris, which was replaced by harjis. This means that the sequence PGmc. *ǥaaz developed through *ǥaiz to *ǥais, which would have resulted by analogy in Goth. **gaujis.
It is therefore clear that the form gaois represents exactly the stage *ǥais and dates from the time before the analogical instrusion of -j- in the nominative singular.

The inscription on the lance head of Mos gives therefore a small glimpse in the EastGmc. language that predates the transmission of the Gothic Bible.

Sonntag, 31. August 2014

Indo-European vs. Finno-Ugrian

According to a  Ph.D thesis by Mikko Heikkilä: "An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age." (Ph.D thesis download).
The abstract of the Ph.D thesis:

My academic dissertation "Bidrag till Fennoskandiens språkliga förhistoria i tid och rum" ("Spatiotemporal Contributions to the Linguistic Prehistory of Fennoscandia") is an interdisciplinary study of the linguistic prehistory of Northern Europe chiefly in the Iron Age (ca. 700 BC―AD 1200), but also to some extent in the Bronze Age (ca. 1700―700 BC) and the Early Finnish Middle Ages (ca. AD 1200―1323). The disciplines represented in this study are Germanistics, Nordistics, Finnougristics, history and archaeology. The language-forms studied are Proto-Germanic, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Sami. This dissertation uses historical-comparative linguistics and especially loanword study to examine the relative and absolute chronology of the sound changes that have taken place in the proto-forms of the Germanic, Finnic and Samic languages. Phonetic history is the basis of historical linguistics studying the diachronic development of languages. To my knowledge, this study is the first in the history of the disciplines mentioned above to examine the systematic dating of the phonetic development of these proto-languages in relation to each other. In addition to the dating and relating of the phonetic development of the proto-languages, I study Fennoscandian toponyms. The oldest datable and etymologizable place-names throw new light on the ethnic history and history of settlement of Fennoscandia. For instance, I deal with the etymology of the following place-names: Ahvenanmaa/Åland, Eura(joki), Inari(järvi), Kemi(joki), Kvenland, Kymi(joki), Sarsa, Satakunta, Vanaja, Vantaa and Ähtäri.

My dissertation shows that Proto-Germanic, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Sami all date to different periods of the Iron Age. I argue that the present study along with my earlier published research also proves that a (West-)Uralic language – the pre-form of the Finnic and Samic languages – was spoken in the region of the present-day Finland in the Bronze Age, but not earlier than that. In the centuries before the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of what is now called Finland, excluding Lapland. At the beginning of the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of Finland, including Southern Finland, from where the Sami idiom first began to recede. An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age. For example, the names Suomi ʻFinlandʼ and Viro ʻEstoniaʼ are likely to have been borrowed from the Indo-European idiom in question. (Proto-)Germanic waves of influence have come from Scandinavia to Finland since the Bronze Age. A considerable part of the Finnic and Samic vocabulary is indeed Germanic loanwords of different ages which form strata in these languages. Besides mere etymological research, these numerous Germanic loanwords make it possible to relate to each other the temporal development of the language-forms that have been in contact with each other. That is what I have done in my extensive dissertation, which attempts to be both a detailed and a holistic treatise."

A discussion is already going on on Dienekes blogspot.
Any comments here?

Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2014

Assistant Professor in Comparative Indo-European Linguistics

This is a bit different than normal: Job advertisement for an Assistant Professor in Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University!
Important: You have to apply for this Job withing 18 days!
"The position is for 0.5 fte as Assistant Professor (Universitair Docent 2), for two years, with the possibility of another three years. Contingent upon performance, this tenure-track position may lead to a permanent position. The appointment will proceed in accordance with the Collective Labour Agreement of Dutch Universities (CAO Nederlandse Universiteiten)."

The link to the application site is: Assistant Professor in Comparative Indo-European Linguistics

Spread the news!

Montag, 12. Mai 2014

Eine vergessene Etymologie: ahd. mâsa f. 'Narbe, Wundmal'

Ahd. mâsa f. n‑St. ‚Narbe, Wundmal; cicatrix, nota, stigma‘, das seit dem Ende des 8. Jh.s in Gl. und M bezeugt ist, gilt heutzutage als etymologielos (vgl. etwa Kluge²¹ 464f. [s.v. Maser]; Pfeifer, Et. Wb.² [s.v. Maser]; Kroonen, Et. dict. of Pgm. 366f.; Et. wb. Ndl. Ke-R 320 [s.v. mazelen). Das ahd. Wort, fortgesetzt in mhd. mâse sw.f. ‚Wundmal, Narbe‘, frühnhd. mas f. ‚Fleck, Narbe, Wundmal, Strieme, Schandfleck, Makel, Schuld, Verfehlung des Menschen‘, nhd. dial. schweiz. mās f., m. ‚Fleck, Makel‘, elsäss. mase f. ‚Mal, blauer Fleck auf der Haut, nach einem gewaltsamen Stoss oder Druck, Flecken auf Obst, besonders durch das Fallen hervorgerufen‘, schwäb. mase f. ‚Schmutzfleck, (Mutter)Mal‘, bair. mâsen f. ‚Mahl, Narbe an der Haut‘, kärnt. måse f. ‚Narbe‘, tirol. mâse f. ‚Mahl, Narbe‘, pfälz. +mase f. ‚Wundmal, Fleck, Narbe‘, hat nur in einigen westgerm. Sprachen Verwandte: mndd. māse f. ‚Hautfleck, Wund‑, Krankheitsnarbe‘ (daraus entlehnt: frühne. mase Hautfleck‘, ndän. mase ‚Hautfleck, maseriger Teil am Baum‘); frühnndl. (Kiliaen) mase (neben mit unetymologischer Schreibung ma[e]sche) ‚Fleck, Makel‘, nndl. maas‑ (in maashout, maashornboom ‚Ahorn‘), dial. maese ‚Fleck‘: < urgerm. *mēsōn‑ f. 

Als Ableitungen eines hierherzustellenden, ablautenden Stamms urgerm. *mas‑ gehören ahd. masala ‚schwärende Wunde, eitrige Schwellung, Krampfader‘ und masar ‚Auswuchs, Knorren, Beule, Geschwulst‘ (samt den Entsprechungen in den anderen germ. Sprachen) hierher (dagegen ist der bei Kroonen, Et. dict. of Pgm. 366 angezeigte Ansatz urgerm. *mēslō‑ eher zu streichen). 

In der Literatur werden als verwandte Formen teils folgende Wörter angeführt: mhd., mndd. mūse f. ‚Wunde, Fleck‘, die auf eine Ablautstufe urgerm. *mōs‑ beruhen würden; jedoch lassen sich diese nicht weiter abstützen, da sie in den mhd. und mndd. Wörterbüchern nicht aufgelistet sind (afries. mōs‑ [in mōsdolch ‚Quetschwunde‘] ist jedenfalls sicher nicht mit dieser Sippe zu verbinden, da es etymologisch zu ahd. muos ‚Essen, Brei‘ gehört; vgl. Griepentrog 1995: 308). Daher braucht das Wort wegen eines Ablauts urgerm. *‑a‑ : *‑ē‑ : *‑ō‑ nicht als Substratwort angesehen zu werden (so D. Boutkan, in: ABäG 52 [1999], 18). 

Urgerm. *mēsōn‑ hat ebenso wie die ablautende Form urgerm. *mas‑ keine Entsprechungen in den anderen idg. Sprachen. Theoretisch lassen sie sich auf eine Wz. uridg. *meh1s‑, ablautend *mh1s‑ (mit analogischer Resyllabifizierung anstelle von *h1s‑) ‚Schwiele, Beule‘ zurückführen.
In der älteren etymologischen Literatur (vgl. u.a.Walde-Hofmann, Lat. et. Wb. 2, 5f.) wurden die germ. Wörter als s-mobile Variante zur Verbalwz. [jetzt, vgl. LIV² 568] uridg. *smeh1‑ ‚streichen, reiben‘ gestellt, die u.a. in gr. σμῶ ‚reibe ab, wische ab‘ und σμῆμα ‚Salbe‘ vorliegt. Bei dieser Anbindung muss natürlich von einer Übertragung einer Grundbedeutung  ‚(Wund)Salbe‘ auf die beschmierte Hautstelle ausgegangen werden. Eine solche (ebenso wie die s-lose Wz.) hat eine Parallele in das ebenfalls mit dieser Wz. zu verbindende lat. Wort macula f. ‚Fleck, Mal‘ (< *smh1‑tleh2‑). 

Für das Germ. wäre dabei von einem zu Grunde liegenden s-St. uridg. *[s]méh1-s- : [s]mh1-és- oder  *[s]méh1-os- : [s]mh1-s- auszugehen (oder von einer sonst nicht bezeugten Wz.-Erweiterung?), von dem sowohl urgerm. *mēsōn‑ als auch *mas- abgeleitet wären.

Jedenfalls sind andere Verknüpfungsvorschläge (an aksl. mozolь ‚Striemen, Schwiele‘, gr. μώλωψ ‚Striemen, blutunterlaufene Stelle‘, gr. μῶμος ‚Tadel, Vorwurf, Schandfleck‘ oder gr. ἄορ ‚Schwert‘) sämtlich semantisch bzw. lautlich unwahrscheinlich oder lautlich unmöglich.

Sonntag, 11. Mai 2014

Saterfriesische Etymologie

Da man über alle saterfriesischen Materialen dankbar ist: Gerade bin ich über eine (hoffentlich weiter wachsende) Seite gestolpert, in der saterfriesische Etymologien von Pyt Kramer bereitgestellt werden!
Link: Wier kumt dät Woud häär?