Re: [tied] Goths: IE Languages vs Germanic

----- Original Message -----

From: lsroute66@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:47 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Goths: IE Languages vs Germanic

> B. Because the word Goth appears only in Greek and Latin and never in ancient German.

 

We have OE gota, pl. gotan, and Old Norse (Gen.pl.) gotna. They support the form *gut-o:n.

 

> C. Because it has been given so little consideration, even though we have no direct evidence that the Goths even called themselves Goths - a distinct possibility based on the patterns of ancient name-giving - without their writings we might assume Greeks called themselves Greeks.

 

The Goths themselves had various tribal names for everyday self-reference, but they probably used a more general collective term as well; at least other Germanic peoples seem to have known it.

> D. Because of current popular theories like those of Vennemann(sp?), in which Goth is translated as something like "pouring semen" - a piece of modern ethno-mythology that matches nothing in history.

 

> Relatedness would have little to do with this.  These would be borrowed words, so "phonetical similarity" has everything to do with it.  This is the illusion that <*gut-> and <*gaut-> may be creating. They may not have ever existed as the actual name of the Goths.

 

But in your set of Greek words even phonetic similarity is pretty low. Greek <gottHos> or Latin <gotha> are not meaninful words in those languages. The earliest attested forms (<gutones, guthones>, etc.) are more similar to the Germanic prototype.

 

Piotr