Heill Llama!
> > Incidentally, the form 'þót' above is most correct here, over
against 'þótt' and uncontracted 'þó at'. The contracted form would
occur here, as in verse generally, and the form þótt is from þót,
which form is overwhelmingly dominant in the homilies, against rare
þótt (a sound-analogical form) - it parallels the correct 'þít/þvít'
(þí/því at uncontracted).
> So you don't think this could just be the same change that
lengthened /t/ after a long vowel, as in 'sátt', the 2nd past sg.
ind. of 'sjá', or 'fátt', nom.sg.neut. of 'fár'?
Well, it would seem to have been drawn that way, but unlike sátt and
fátt, þótt is a compound (þó at) and the separate elements occur as
such in old, as modern, times. The homilies almost universally show
þót or þó at. þóT (=tt) is extremely rare, and could be the result
of later copying. So it seems clear that the change had not occured
yet in this particular word (þótt), likely related to it being using
both as a compound and as two separate words.
> > The +i in 'séi' above is correct, and known to be so (both
historically and confirmed by meter 10th cent.), but is invisible in
runes, as runic writers just show 'i' for 'éi'. The Homilies have
only one isolated example of +i: séim (1st pl. pres.subj.), against
séþ, sé (3rd sg. & pl.), etc., but it wouldn't occur at all if it
had been completely dead. Gutniska still has it throughout, as would
10th century Norse.
> The same contraction can be seen in Old English, cf. Beowulf 2649b
'þenden hyt sy', alliteration on 'hyt', and 'sy' = 'síe'. Either the
word was two syllables when the poem was composed, or the poet was
aware of lines like this that had survived in the tradition from the
days when 'síe' did still have two syllables. Or else I'm mistaken
and it's not a C-type line at all...
Guta Saga, which is at least two centuries younger than the western
homilie collections, still shows +i throughout. On to the Go. line
that won't give itself....
> > So perhaps 'áudags þûhta mis' is correct after all. PN would have
rendered 'mis galeikáiþ' the same: *mez galîkêþ. It wouls also agree
on non-suffixing of the reflexive pronouns, of course, being even
that much more like Gothic in view of the above.
> Well, the point I was trying to make -- probably not very clearly,
as I tend to get distacted and go off on tangents; you might have
noticed... :-)
:-) Thou and I both.
-- is that although the Gothic verb normally requires
> dative for the experiencer (just as in ON), the dative pronoun is
left out where it's reflexive + infinitive "I think myself..." (ik
þugkja ... +inf.), unlike ON, unless the infinitive clause is
replaced by an ei-clause with the subordinated verb in the
subjunctive. The key examples are:
>
> jabai hvas anþar þugkeiþ trauan in leika, ik mais (Php 3:4)
> "if any other man thinks that he (himself is able to) trust in the
> body, I (do) more."
>
> sahvazuh izei usqimiþ izwis, þuggkeiþ hunsla saljan guda (J 16:2)
> "whoever kills you will think that he is offering a sacrifice to
God."
ON þóttumsk reflexive, but nom. subj. 'ek' (takes 'auðigr') - it's
specific to ON at this stage, no doubt. One can say 'mér þótti
Eyfura fogr (vera/vesa), but then there is no reflexive here. One
could likewise say 'auðigr þótti mér ek (vera/vesa)' - a thing,
state of being (in the nom.), seems to me. þóttumsk functions here
like þótti mér. But if, as you say, the dative pronoun is left out
when it's reflexive + infinitive (I think myself...), then perhaps I
should be changing this line accordingly. Perhaps what troubles me
is that, as one could say mér þótti, not reflexive grammatically,
even thought the subject of reflection is I, I am moving this right
into Gothic as *mis þûhta without reference to above rule...
> > If you want to see some very 'incorrect' ON that still mostly
makes perfect sense, then Jón Helgason translated some lines into ON-
archaized Modern Icelandic direct from Wulfila. Actually, I find the
examples absolutely wonderful, and have even thought about actually
continuing them further. While 'wrong', they really give us insight
in ON, Go. and the whole issue of their relationship, history and
the language changes involved. Facinating stuff. In fact, I'll post
some examples next.
> Sounds intriguing! I look forward to seeing that.
First, I'll have to retrieve the book...
> > Ok, so I guess what I am asking is why:
> > *áudags ik þûhta (which does sound very good, by the way)
> > instead of:
> > *áudags ik þûhta mis (wisan)
> > *áudags þûhta mis ik (wisan)
> > *áudags þûhta mis wisan (where 'ik' is implied)
> > What about the *mis (to whom it seems)? Actually, venturing a
guess from the gut:
> > *áudags þûhta mis ik (wisan left implied) - option 3 above (of 4)
>
> > That one feels rights. A parallel 5th option is:
>
> > *áudags þûhta mis wisan (where 'ik' is implied)
> As far as I can see, all the relevant examples (not that there are
many of them) just leave out the dative pronoun when 'þugkjan' is
used reflexively with the infinitive. I don't know enough about
modern syntactical ideas to know whether there is some theoretical
reason why the dative pronoun *couldn't* be used in such a
construction; unless it's something to do with the fact that the
dative and nominative pronouns would somehow be competing for the
role of subject in a way that struck Gothic ears as unseemly?
Well, Go. does have a thing about competing cases that has no ON
parallel, on a similar theme.
> Actually it would be really great if we did have an example like
one of those you reconstructed because this would clear up some
mysteries about the syntactical status of these dative experiencers
in Gothic. Sadly we don't have any Gothic speakers to try it out on
and see what they think, whether they'd say "yes, we talk like that
all the time", or "sure, we use the dative pronoun if there's any
doubt but usually don't bother if the experiencer is clear from the
context" -- in which case I'd prefer *áudags ik þûhta mis (both from
what I expect of Gothic and for the sake of the metre) -- or whether
they'd just laugh in out faces at the absurdity of trying to use the
dative experiencer pronoun reflexively like that. For now, all we
can say is that 'audags ik þuhta' matches the construction that is
actually attested where the Gothic translator needed to express this
idea, and that it probably isn't due to a desire to match the Greek
that the dative pronoun is left out, since the pronoun appears
elsewhere (in other contexts) where there is no Greek model for it.
So that's why I'd tentatively go with that. And I think we're
agreed the alternative with an ei-clause + subjunctive, while it
might for all we know have been possible in prose in Gothic
(unlike ON), is a bit to clumsy to work as poetry here.
Agreed.
> The other possibility, not attested with this verb, but once with
'wenjan' "hope", and arguably once with 'rahnjan' "reckon, consider",
is to add the pronoun after the infinitive:
> * audags þuhta mis wisan ik ??
>
> Hmm, now I feel like I'm going round in circles...
Yes, and that one looks very risky ;)
> Anyway, I'm learning some interesting stuff about Old Norse metre
and language from these discussions, even if we're still unable to
settle on even quite basic issues of Gothic syntax. Right, I'll see
if I can figure out what's up with that link...
Well, lets change it to *áudags ik þûhta (wisan), as I think you
have a point here. If we find anything thing relating to the Go.
construction here, speaking for or against it, then let's post it as
it turns up. So:
juggs was ik faúrþis
fôr ik áins samana
warþ ik þan wilþeis wigê
áudags ik þûhta
þanei ik anþarana fanþ
manna ist mans gaman
About *áins samana: it's either this or some equivalent phrase, if
it turns up, I suppose. Otherwise, this one's done :) The only other
issue is the permisability of enclitic 'ik' after 'þanei', as was
the case after vowels in PN: bidjuka (ek bið). I don't think Go.
would have preserved the final -a (<*eka, but 'ek' non-enclitic),
even if it had the enclitic (in verse), but I guess there is no way
of knowing. I'm happy with 'þanei ik', even if *þaneik was reality
in actual pronuciation, even if only in verse. Perhaps it as not.
Writing it out would be an option, anyway. Any further thoughts on
*áins samana, or discoveries relating to it, please let me know ;)
-Kunjarêþs
> LN
>