Re: Re[6]: [tied] aldric, luis, aldrin = etymology?

Brian M. Scott wrote:

> At 2:58:27 AM on Saturday, October 23, 2004, alex wrote:
>
>>> One would have to see the original context: <Sigismundo>,
>>> for instance, may simply be the dative or ablative of an
>>> implied <Sigismunus>.
>
> Typo: that should be <Sigismundus>.
>
>> If so, then this dative or ablative form was becomming a
>> popular name; I remember about a lot of "Sigismund"-s in
>> the late medieval time.
>
> How does a late medieval <Sigismund> indicate that
> <Sigismundo> was becoming a popular name? If you merely
> mean that the name in some form became popular, that's
> perfectly true, though it in fact appears in a wide variety
> of forms: <Sigismund>, <Segemund>, <Symund>, <Symunt>,
> <Symond>, etc. The standard modern German form is of course
> <Siegmund>. The <-o> has nothing to do with the matter.

It cleard itself up with your mention that there has been a typo. I just
pointed out to the "nd" stil being there comparative with the initial
"Sigismunus". Since you sayd "Sigismunus" was a typo, then it is OK .

>
>>> Again, these are names, not descriptions. One of the
>>> basic principles of Germanic name-giving, already evident
>>> at this early date, is inheritance of name themes.
>
>> this early date?
>
> Yes. This is very early in terms of our knowledge of
> Germanic names and naming practices.

Here is what I pointed out before. An early date means the first Kings; An
later date is the date as the Goths are already in center North-East of
Europe. Compare the name of the first kings:
Hulmul, Augis, Amal, Hisarna, Hunuil, Athal
with the names of laters:

Achiulf, Oduulf, Ediulf, Vultuulf,

>
>>> Thus, the children of an Ermanareiks are likely to have
>>> names in <Ermana-> or (if male) <-reiks>. The literal
>>> meaning of the names was already secondary.
>
>> So Jordanes "latinised" the name of the Goths here or how?
>
> Of course. Good grief; how could you not have realized
> that?

Hei, that is a good one, isnt it?:-)He was writting in Latin, thus he should
have used the Latin inflection there where the name should have been in
dative/ablative ("-us" having in dative /ablative "-o" flexion).

>
> [...]
>
>>> In short, Alex is probably chasing a mirage.
>
>> Or you don't got exactly what I meant. Even if Alaric in
>> this passage is in dative "given to Alaric of the
>> Visigoths and to Sigismund of the Burgunds" that doesnt
>> change anything at the initial thought of me. Th. Mommsen
>> was not exactly one who do not understand Latin, thus why
>> using names in Dativ for that genealogy?
>
> Oh, I knew what you meant. I was pointing out that you were
> probably wrong. I don't know why Mommsen used inflected
> forms, unless he had a policy of using only the actual
> documentary forms.

The documentary forms shows us the names in nominative as well. No idea
either why he did used that.

>
>> BTW, which should be the last Gothic names which have been
>> recorded at all? Are any of them wchich have been kept as
>> they have been in Toledo?
>
> I don't know what you mean by this.

So far I remember, the last capital of the Goths has been Toledo. I asked
myself which have been the Gothic names in the VIII ( exactly 711 AD)
century as they have been recored last. The Last kings have a names which do
not make and connection with the names of the very ancient goths: Rekkared,
Rekkeswind, Roderich (BTW, Spanish Rodrigu should be derivated from
Roderik?)

>
>>>> About names which ends in "-a", one find them even
>>>> between the first kings (Hisarna) but later too
>>>> (Amalaberga).
>
>>> <Amalaberga> is a Latinized feminine name; the Gothic
>>> original would have had <-bergo>.

>
>> Which will speak against a Latin inflexion or
>> Dative/Ablative of what you said until now:-)
>
> No, it won't: <-mund->, unlike <-berg->, is not a feminine
> deuterotheme.

I was not aware of "-berga" being feminine in Gothic.BTW is this again a
deutherotheme which will mislead one to the word mountain which in Gothic
was "bairgan"?

>
>> If we keep this path, having before 3 century AC
>
> I assume that you mean either AD (Anno Domini) or CE (Common
> Era).

It seems is easy to get them:-) Yes you are right, AC= After Christus

>
>> names in /-a/ from /-an/ will mean the lost of the final
>> consonants has been an early and wide phoenomenon for
>> several languages and not only specific of a certain
>> Romance in a late period of the IR.
>
> IR?

I was too generous here:-)OK, IR should be Imperium Romanorum

>
> Loss of final consonants is a common phenomenon.
>
> Brian

I agree with you. The oscan, volscian , umbric and other Italic records will
sustain that too. The still questionable "dacian" records shows no final
consonants either, but just words which supports open syllable, words which
ends in a vocal as in Italian today (except the exceptions:-))

Alex