Heill Konráð!

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
wrote:

>
> 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 :)

'samana' only occurs in Gothic with plurals, except 'brahta samana
allata' "brought together everything" (L 15:13). But if it was at all
possible to translate Gk. MONOS with Go. 'ains', then 'ains' it would
have been, regardless of whether the expression 'ains samana' was also
known to the Goths. All I can say is that it's nowhere in the small
corpus left to us. I wonder if it's attested anywhere in West
Germanic. Two other possibilities that come to mind: 'ains sundro'
and 'ainakls'. For the first, see Mk 9:2 'ustauh ins ana fairguni
hauh sundro ainans' "he took them away/apart alone onto a high
mountain" (that is, apart from other people, rather than separately
from each other). 'ainakls' only occurs once, 1Tim 5:5, translating
Gk. MEMONWMENOS "alone, isolated"; Streitberg 'vereinzelt',
'alleinstehend'. * 'for ik ains sundro' would match the rhythm of the
Norse.

'wilþeis' is only attested with the meaning "wild", rather than
"lost", and no equivalent to 'wilþeis wige' that I'm aware of, but I
don't think it contradicts any grammatical rules.

> 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 ;)

On enclitic pronouns, see Streitberg Gotische Syntax 275, "In contrast
to the other Germanic languages they never appear in the Go. Bible in
enclitic position, probably only because the Gk. source text had no
enclitic personal pronouns." That said, reflexive pronouns typically
appear directly after the verb where there is no Greek model,
especially to express the middle voice -- presumably a feature shared
with Proto-Norse. And, as I mentioned, oblique experiencer pronouns
also come immediately after the verb in main clauses: þugkeiþ im "they
think"; waila wairþiþ im "they will get well" -- this unlike Old
Norse, where, as far as I know, oblique experiencer pronouns don't
follow any special rules as to word order that don't also apply to
nominative subjects. There is evidence though (examples with no Greek
model or which contrast with likely Greek models) that pronouns would
follow immediately after the verb if the verb occured in initial
position in a question, as an imperative, or a negative (as in the
other early Germanic languages). No assimilations or loss of the
initial sound of the pronoun though, and no spaces between words in
the manuscripts, so no way of knowing whether they would have been
perceived as separate words.

Two declarative examples of a nominative subject directly after a
finite verb, both in embedded clauses: ei þatei þeihais þu "that that
in which you thrive...", translating a Greek noun phrase, SOU hH
PROKOPH `your progress' (1Tim 4:16); þanuh biþe ut usiddjedun eis =
AUTWN DE EXERCOMENWN `and then when they came out' (Mt 9:32). But
there are no examples in Gothic of a subject pronoun appearing both in
the canonical subject position and as an enclitic on the verb, so
nothing like the Ancient Nordic inscriptions: ek erilaz sawilagaz
ha<i>teka `I erilaz am called Sawilagaz' (Lindholm amulet); ekA
sigimArAz Afs<A>kA rAsidokA stAinA (Ellestad stone), and the similar
examples in Old Norse poetry.

Finally, there is a single intriguing example in Gothic of an
indefinite object pronoun cliticised to a verbal prefix: frah ina,
ga-u-hva-sehvi = EPHRWTA AUTON, EI TI BLEPEIS `asked him whether he
saw anything' (Mk 8:23). Which of course is impossible in Old Norse
since the prefix had either disappeared by been contracted. But
something to look out for when new runic inscriptions are discovered!

LN