Re: Germanic Religious Terms

So other's can see what we are discussing:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~hattons/norse/germanic-terms.html
(I will be updating this, so it may not reflect exactly what is written in
the post.)

On Wednesday 08 August 2001 16:27, you wrote:

> Just a few observations that popped up as I read through 
> your page:

> "God of Men" does not equal "God of Masculinity". 
> That is an unwarranted over-interpretaion. 

In English "God of Men" could be understood to mean "God of (all) People". I
was trying to draw the distinction. Perhaps my choice of wording is bad.

> The plural of Áss is Æsir (AEsir). 

Noted.

> 
> Tívar is used as a term for gods in various places, 
> e.g. Grímnismál 5, Hymiskviða 4, Haustlöng 1, 3, 
> Þrymskviða 14, Baldurs draumar 1, Vafþrúðnismál 
> 38, 42, Hávamál 159. 

Thanks. That is very helpfull.

> Shy father is, a hope, simply a typo ;-) 

Yup!

> "Goþ" (sic) is spelled "goð" using normalized
> orthography. 
> Divinity, yes, - also Deity. 
I was trying to avoid that specific of a connotation. See below.
> I don't think the concept "collective plural" is logical.

I think what Green is getting at is that the term 'Goþ' in ancient Germanic
languages could be used to refer to the collection of all Gods. This is
similar to the way the English 'deer' can mean one animal or several animals,
e.g., 'a herd of deer'. Perhaps I should have been more clear that Green is
attempting to analyze ancient Germanic as a whole. His book is a
summarization of a much larger body of literature on the subject. I am
attempting to summarize that summary, which may lead to absurdity.

> The term "collective" is used in ON grammar, when a singular
> word is used to refer to a plurality, e.g. eik (sing) "oak",
> eikr (pl) "oaks", but eiki (sing collective)
> "oaks".
> "Uncountable substance" is ridiculous.

Blame me for that. This is my effort to try and explain a connotation I
perceive in the term 'Helligot'(OHG) meaning "Souls of the Dead". I sense a
connotation similar to the use of 'spirit' in English. I.e., spirit can mean
something unique and essential to a single person, or it can mean something
more abstract such as "the fighting spirit". But I probably need to be more
careful about stating my reasons for my conclusions. As I said, it's hard to
summarize a summary of the treatment of a topic which defies easy explanation.

> The word "goð"
> is quite an ordinary neuter noun, which simply happens to look
> the same in the plural nominative. The word declines
> goð-goð-goði-goðs in the singular, goð-goð-goðum-goða
> in the plural. There is nothing mysterious about it, 
> it does not refer to a realm, it always refers to a 
> "personality".

Unfortunately Green doesn't provide much in the way of lengthy analysis.
Though I suspect he has given the subject fair treatment.

> The theological ideas in this paragraph
> are far removed from any linguistic reality.

I may be overstating Green's conclusions, or even missunderstanding them
altogether.

> Who is this
> Green anyway? Sounds like a theosophist to me - shades
> of Madame Blavatsky.... 

That's probably my fault more than Green's.

He is "Schroeder Professor Emeritus, University of Cambridge Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge"

http://uk.cambridge.org/linguistics/catalogue/0521794234/

But even if I am forcing my own paradigm on his work, the "Blavatsky" charge
is kind of harsh, don't you think? {;-)>

> "The collective Council of the Ásir is itself a Divine 
> Entity" is a nonsensical statement, at least in terms 
> of the Old Germanic/Norse pantheon.

I'm thinking more in terms of the way we Americans speak of "Congress" as a
"legislative body." I'm not attempting to place a concept of personality on
the Council. I only wish to stress the Council's existence as a concept. I
believe this verse from the Völuspá is an example of what I'm getting at.

6,
Þá gengu regin öll
á rökstóla,
ginnheilög goð,
ok um þat gættusk;
nótt ok niðjum
nöfn of gáfu,
morgin hétu
ok miðjan dag,
undorn ok aftan,
árum at telja.

You may want to blame Douglas R. Hofstadter for the corrupting influence
leading me to seek these interpretations.

> Although it is an interesting intellectual exercise to 
> differentiate the various terms, tívar, regin, bönd, etc. 
> like this, it would be a dangerous mistake to imagine 
> that the terms were strictly differentiated. It can even 
> be stated with complete assurance that all these terms were 
> no more than vague synonyms of each other as used in Old 
> Icelandic poetry. In many (or most) cases the poet would 
> simply pick the term that suited the metrical structures 
> he was working with. Examples:
> Bdr 1: Senn vóru æsir ('æsir' alliterates with 'allir')
> allir á þingi
> ...
> ...
> ok um þat réðu ('tívar' fullfils a need for a long
> ríkir tívar vowel + a short vowel, and 'æsir'
> has already been used ...)
>
> Hvm 159: telja tíva fyrir (alliteration: telja-tíva)
>
> Vþm 38: segðu þat it tíunda (alliteration: tíunda-tíva)
> alls þú tíva rök

> Vþm 42: segðu þat it tólfta (alliteration: tólfta-tíva)
> hví þú tíva rök
>
> Grm 4: unz um rjúfask regin (alliteration: rjúfask-regin)
>
> Grm 5: tívar at tannfé (alliteration: tívar at tannfé)
>
> There are dozen, if not hundreds of such examples.

Well, I'm not even close to being fluent in ON, but I am familiar with modern
English poetry. I tend to agonize over my choice of words. You are correct
that the structure demands the use of certain sounds. I have found, to some
extent, concepts and sounds tend to complement eachother. This is a very
difficult concept to put into words, and I would have a hard time proving it.
I do believe languages have such a characteristic. It seems to be more
pronounced in 'pure' languages such as ON or even modern German.

Take the example of Wagner. I know it doesn't prove my point, but you may
find this to be an interesting exercise. Find all the words of Latin origin
in the first scene of Das Rheingold:

http://www.physcip.uni-stuttgart.de/phy11733/wagner/rheingold.html

> Kveðja
> Eysteinn

Steven