Heill Llama!

> > juggs was ik faúrþis
> > fôr ik áins samana
> > warþ ik þan wilþeis wigê
> > áudags ik þûhta
> > þanei ik anþarana fanþ
> > manna ist mans gaman

> 'samana' only occurs in Gothic with plurals, except 'brahta samana

allata' "brought together everything" (L 15:13).

So theres at least one example of it. Hmmm

> 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.

Do you mean, 'would have been used'?

> 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.

It's possible.

> 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.

I agree. áins sundrô works fine.

> '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.

Let me look into this one. I have some notes lying around from when
I drafted this verse.

> > 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 ;)

Thanks for letting 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.

Hmmm.

> 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!

Periodically, I enter sequences of words like 'new runic find' into
a search engine in various Scandinavia languages, hoping something
will turn up. There was a new instance of 'alu' (ale) a while back,
a new burn-grave w/ broken inscription on a sword, etc.. Something
remarkable will turn up in time, the question is when. But I have a
new thought about what to do with the Go. fragments I have: propose
a translation project at Theudiskon, a side-project for interested
parties with some background in Go., ON or both, that consists of
translating Hávamál and creating a file for, complete with ongoing
vocabulary additions, grammar-comments, etc.. What do you think?

I can post the ON w/ any definitions, explanations needed, along
with Go. drafts, and folk can have a go at it, hitting the Gothic
and the etymolgies, etc..

-Kunjarêþs

> LN
>