From: Torsten
Message: 66669
Date: 2010-10-01
>I don't think Trask meant that to cover mere repetition, but no matter.
> At 5:41:25 AM on Thursday, September 30, 2010, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >> At 6:19:44 AM on Sunday, September 26, 2010, Torsten wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> But "arogis deda / alagu þleuba dedun" with two
> >>> separate(?) meanings of "do" sounds contrived.
>
> >> Not separate meanings; the first instance is (on this
> >> reading) merely pleonastic.
>
> > Can't be, it's the same verb
>
> Of course it can. In a linguistic context 'pleonastic'
> means '[i]nvolving the use of words which are redundant, in
> that they merely repeat information already expressed
> elsewhere' (Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in
> Linguistics).
> I could also have said 'redundant'.If that is what you meant, I think you should have.
> >>> Now if the scrabble rules allow me to subtract aNot true; see below.
> >>> consonant, I think I'll pick a -t- instead of an -l-.
>
> >> They don't allow you to do so arbitrarily. Both <Gis-> and
> >> <-gis> are very well attested Gmc. name themes; <-gist> is
> >> not.
> >> Moreover, there was a fairly common <l>-suffix byYour sentence was a claim. It didn't contain a point.
> >> which themes could be extended, so it would not be very
> >> surprising if an inherent final <-l> were sometimes lost.
>
> >> For that matter, it's not clear that anything has to be
> >> lost: the 'arrow-shaft, beam, staff' word may be an <-l>
> >> diminutive of an ablaut variant of the 'spear' word, in
> >> which case the theme *gæsa- may simply continue the variant
> >> itself.
>
> >>> Put differently, it might be plausible, but so is the
> >>> -gist interpretation, given the facts at hand.
>
> >> A rune carver's error for an unattested <Arogast>
>
> > Your claim. You forget the 'd' is actually there.
>
> You missed the point.
> What is actually there is <Arogisd>;The <i> is there. That it is there by error is your claim.
> if this represents unattested <Arogast>, both the <i> and
> the <d> require explanation. The <d> can be explained as
> the result of confusion following the High German sound
> shift, but the <i> remains an error.
> >> does not seem to me as plausible as a reading that usesMaybe you should check your books again.
> >> only attested elements. Support for a genuine <-gist>
> >> theme is nil.
> > You wish.If you say so.
>
> I don't really care one way or the other.
> However, the wordI don't think so. The supposed PGmc. *gasti- has a cognates in Latin and Slavic, the supposed *gaista- doesn't have any outside Germanic.
> in 'Beowulf' certainly doesn't offer any such support, and
> not just because it doesn't appear there as a name theme.
> Whether that <gist> represents <giest> 'guest' or <gæ:st>
> 'spirit', the form is OE, and so far as I can tell not
> standard for any OE dialect. The PGmc. sources are *gastiz
> and *gaistaz, respectively, neither of which can be expected
> to produce <gist> in a southern German context.